Mr. Speaker, I move—

To this date the Republic has had its share of terrorists and terroristic activities and has stood up against it with determination. Thanks to the unselfish devotion to duty of our troops and members of the S.A. Police on the borders, as well as to the active and moral support from all sectors at home, we have thus far been able to curtail this problem. The conflict raging in Angola has done more than merely to increase the threat. It has introduced a completely new factor by the intervention of foreign powers. Due to the new situation which has arisen virtually overnight, doubt exists whether the Defence Act makes sufficient provision to enable us to deploy our forces to safeguard our interests and to protect our borders under all circumstances. On a basis of voluntary military service outside the borders of the Republic, we have thus far been able to satisfactorily fulfil our commitments. In the event of an escalation requiring more action, however, a number of uncertainties have to be clarified and to this intent the Bill now before the House has been introduced.

Clause 1(a) of the Bill provides for an armed conflict, which no doubt cannot be excluded as a possibility in future, to be identified as a possible and probable threat to the security of the Republic. Should the need arise for such a threat to be prevented or suppressed through our Defence Force, it will be regarded as “service in defence of the Republic”. The State President decides whether any armed conflict outside the Republic poses a threat to its security.

In clause 1(b) a definite geographic meaning is assigned to the concept “South Africa” as being Africa south of the equator. The concept “terrorism” is defined in such a manner as to stress its activities rather than its aims. The term “South Africa” is rather vague, and it is more appropriate to clearly define its geographic extent. Perhaps “Southern Africa” would have been a better term to use. If hon. members will refer to clause 6, they will find that this clause amends section 95 of the Act which restricts the territory within which members of the S.A. Defence Force may be employed in time of war on a compulsory basis. Although under the existing provisions this territory already extends outside the borders of the Republic and South West Africa, there is no absolute certainty as to the exact geographic extent. This doubt is removed by the amendment and the geographic boundary wherein members of the S.A. Defence Force may be employed in time of war is fixed as anywhere in Africa, south of the equator. I must point out, however, that the term “south of the equator” might pose practical problems and create confusion. I readily admit that this could be the case. An alternative to consider would be the deletion of the term “South Africa”, but the provision as it reads in the Defence Act at present is rather vague and very difficult to interpret.

In clause 2 the expression “prevention or suppression of terrorism” which, in terms of the existing section of the Act, forms part of the definition of “service in defence of the Republic”, is deleted from section 1 of the Act and inserted in section 3(2) as a specific duty to which the S.A. Defence Force or any portion or member thereof, may at all times be employed.

In 1974 the definition of the expression “service in defence of the Republic” was amended to include also the combating of terrorism within the meaning thereof under the Terrorism Act, 1967. The sole reason for this amendment was to extend the protection of the War Pensions Act given under section 145 to members of the Citizen Force and Commandos also to members of the Permanent Force for disablement suffered during military service in the combating of terrorism. Because of a subsequent amendment to the Government Service Pensions Act, 1965, however, the necessity for this provision has lapsed, whereas terrorism and terroristic activities have escalated and gone beyond the meaning assigned thereto by the Terrorism Act and has become the prime concern of our troops on the border. No court in the Republic has jurisdiction over acts of terrorism committed against the Republic outside its borders. Circumstances may, however, demand action to prevent or suppress such activities.

In clauses 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 the amendment in clause 2 is carried forward to the sections referred to therein as consequential amendments.

I have already dealt with some of the amendments proposed in clause 6. However, clause 6 also extends the meaning of the expression “time of war” in section 95 of the principal Act to include “service for the prevention or the suppression of terrorism” as well as “service for the prevention or suppression of any armed conflict” intended in clause 1(a). This is considered necessary as a formal declaration of war is something of the past. One cannot any longer define war on the one hand and a situation of peace or armed conflict on the other hand.

Clause 8 inserts two new sections, 103ter and 103quat, which are aimed at indemnity against civil or criminal action arising out of acts in connection with the combating of terrorism in any operational area and the compensating of innocent parties for damage suffered in the process. The necessity for these provisions arose out of an incident in the past which caused great uncertainty and anxiety in the minds of our soldiers doing duty on the border. Operational commitments do not allow for soldiers to be withdrawn from their duties to attend judicial inquiries into the deaths through unnatural causes of persons killed in the process of combating terrorism. Neither is it advisable to subject soldiers to the worry of a possible criminal prosecution or civil process for acts done in good faith and in the execution of their duties under order. To this end the proposed section 103ter(2) prohibits the institution or continuation of any civil or criminal proceedings against the State, the State President, the Minister of Defence, a member of the South African Defence Force or any other person in the service of the State by reason of any act advised, commanded, ordered, directed or done by them in good faith for the purposes of or in connection with the prevention or suppression of terrorism in any operational area.

Subsection (3) compels a court of law to accept as conclusive proof of the facts, a certificate signed by the Minister of Defence to the effect that any act specified therein was advised for the purposes of or in connection with the prevention or suppression of terrorism in an operational area.

Proceedings already instituted must be discontinued in terms of subsection (4) upon the direction of the Minister of Justice acting upon the authority of the State President when of the opinion that the proceedings were instituted by reason of an act advised, etc., in good faith for the purposes of or in connection with the prevention or suppression of terrorism in an operational area, and that it is in the national interest for it to be discontinued. The State President bases his opinion on the consideration of a report by the Minister of Defence indicating the circumstances under which the act in question took place, as well as the factors indicating that it was in good faith and for the purposes of combating terrorism in an operation area.

In terms of subsection (6) the court shall upon the same grounds mero motu order proceedings to be discontinued. In all cases the procedures shall lapse and be deemed void. No order shall be made, also as to costs, except for the costs in connection with the question of whether the act was for the purpose of or in connection with the prevention or suppression of terrorism in such an operational area. Both the Minister of Defence and of Justice act by way of certificates, and in terms of subsection (7) the validity of any such certificate is beyond the jurisdiction of any court.

Because, as has already happened, innocent parties can suffer damage in the process of combating terrorism, and because, in terms of section 103ter, they will have no recourse to courts, the proposed section 103quat(1) allows them to apply to the Minister of Defence for compensation. In terms of subsection 2(a) the Minister, acting in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may grant any application and pay the amount claimed, or a lesser amount. If the application is not granted, or if granted, the amount offered is not accepted, the Minister must in terms of subsection 2(b) refer the application to a compensation board established by him in terms of subsection (3), for consideration thereof and to make recommendations. The constitution of the board, the members to be appointed on the board, their conditions of service, and the powers, duties and functions of the board, are contained in subsections (4) to (6).

In terms of subsection (7) the Minister shall notify a claimant in writing of a recommendation of a compensation board and must give effect thereto.

In terms of subsection (8) compensation is paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Further administrative provisions s well as offences and punishments are provided for in subsections (9) and (10).

In clause 10 of the Bill the benefits of the Moratorium Act, 1963, are extended also to members of the Citizen Force and Commandos rendering continuous service of 19 days’ duration and which has been extended by the Minister to 12 weeks in terms of section 92ter(2) of the Act. Reasons for this extension have already been communicated to both Houses.

The clauses referred to in clause 11 of the Bill operate with retrospective effect in order to obviate any doubt which may exist in regard to the legality of action taken to date under existing provisions for the purpose of the combating of terrorism or forces threatening those interests for which we are responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation of the various clauses of the Bill. I think that it is obvious that our Defence Act has not kept pace with the changes brought about by the new world situation in which wars are not declared. We have made many amendments over the years—amendments which were aimed at building up our forces and applying them mainly under the concept of terrorism or in conventional war. In these ways we face a different type of threat and the escalation from terrorism to large-scale or conventional opposition, can be a sudden and an unexpected one. Equally so, it is essential that any legal doubts which may prevail, must be put beyond doubt so that there can be no confusion in the minds of those who are defending South Africa.

There are three main principles involved in this Bill: the introduction of the concept of “armed conflict”, the question of territorial restrictions south of the equator, and the legal process and compensation arising from the combating of terrorism in operational areas. I want to say at once that we on this side of the House believe that the time has come to go further than this Bill does. We believe the time has come to remove all territorial restrictions in respect of the service of our defence forces. This section in the Act, section 95, is part of the history of South Africa. Its historic background is one of a union of peoples who had fought each other in war and the seeds of that division had carried forward to two world wars. In our generation we have found our people divided into those who fought and those who did not fight. Some of that bitterness still exists today—the volunteers against the neutrals or the volunteers against those who were positively antagonistic by undermining the war effort—in other words those who, in the parlance of that war, acted as a fifth column. Let us face it, that whether we like it or not, there are those today who are saying: Let the Nats go and fight their own war, why should we volunteer? One hears it. Herein lies one of the tragedies that has flowed from history.

I believe that today there is a new generation of soldiers facing a common enemy. I can conceive of no other enemy against whom our forces will be used than international communism, and it is common cause amongst, I would say, the overwhelming majority of people in South Africa, that this real threat to South Africa must be fought with all the power at our command. I believe that with that common objective before us we should not divide a new generation of South Africans into those who are prepared to serve and those who are not prepared to serve their country. We do not have a volunteer army today. People are called up in terms of their national service commitments. Everyone is called up for army service. But having trained them as soldiers, do we now say to them: Right, chaps, which of you are prepared to go and fight for South Africa? If we do that we shall again get them divided on a volunteer basis; those willing to serve and those not willing to serve. And if anybody else’s son should volunteer and my son should not, or vice versa … In my case I know my serving son would go because he has told me that no matter what I said to him he would volunteer. I blackmailed my father in just the same way nearly 40 years ago. Now why should he go while another lad says: “No, I do not want to go; I have a good business” or “I am studying” and consequently he sits at home in a base camp, does his year’s service in safety, whilst the boys who volunteer go up to serve South Africa. I believe that they should all face the same responsibilities and the same duties, and that there should be no question of choice when it comes to fighting for South Africa. If you are fighting for South Africa, you cannot say that here is a line to which I will fight. If you are standing on our side of the border and somebody attacks you from the other side, must the commanding officer then go round to everybody and say: ‘‘Come on, chaps, who is going with me to go and hit them back?” Or say we extend it to the equator and you get into a war, as we have done on two occasions—where we have fought north of the equator—and you get to that line and then you have to go to all your troops and ask them which of them want to go home now. I do not think it is realistic in the circumstances of today, with the speed of travel, with the danger of long-distance missiles and weapons. You cannot today look on a river or a line on a map and say that that is the boundary beyond which you will not move. Therefore we wish to propose to the hon. the Minister that rather than change the definition of “South Africa”, we abolish section 95 entirely in so far as any territorial restriction is concerned, or if it is still required for any other reason, which I have not been able to find, we amend it to eliminate the territorial restrictions.

There is a second objection to the method which is being used in this Bill. We create a new task—a task which involves armed conflict beyond the borders of South Africa—and then we define “South Africa” as the equator. We believe that the enemies of South Africa will make use of this to claim that we have aggressive intentions towards neighbouring states. By passing this amending legislation in this form, we could be placing a propaganda weapon in the hands of our enemies, because then they could say: Look what South Africa is now doing; they are passing an Act entitling them to fight beyond their borders and then they specify that they can go and fight anywhere south of the equator. And to the countries south of the equator they can say: Here is clear planning for future aggression. No other country that I know of in the world limits the operational area of its forces. So, for a second reason, if we eliminate the territorial limitation upon service, we place ourselves on the same footing as any other country, and we remove the possibility of misrepresentation of our objective. We know that South Africa has no territorial aims. We are giving away parts of it, rather than seeking more land. So therefore let us make it clear to everyone that this is not our objective.

Then I turn to the proposal that “armed conflict”, be part of “service in the defence of South Africa,” and particularly to clause 6, which deems it to be “service in time of war against an enemy” for the purposes of section 95. We agree that there is no question about the use of our forces. They must be used wherever it is necessary to use them. But in the spirit of the Act, whenever there is a state of war, there has been—and has to be for practical purposes—a mobilization of our forces. When mobilization is applied, either full or partial mobilization, there is, in terms of section 91, a requirement that Parliament shall give its approval within 30 days of such mobilization. With recent amendments to the Act now we can now partially mobilize without invoking section 91. In terms of section 92 there may be a call-up for a period of up to six months without invoking section 91. Let me point out that the spirit and intent of section 91 is that parliamentary approval is required—and let me emphasize, post facto approval; nobody could possibly suggest that you first have to go to Parliament to get permission, because your army must act and act quickly when there is danger. But having acted to mobilize, you then come to Parliament for approval. We believe that the same safeguard which applies to mobilization should apply in such circumstances. It already partially applies in so far as the Minister must report to Parliament within 14 days in respect of call-up under section 92. The principle is already there and this should also apply to a state of armed conflict which is deemed to be action against an enemy in time of war in terms of this Bill.

As a South African, I cannot visualize Parliament refusing such permission. If the facts are as they would seem to me to be—although South Africa does not officially know what they are—obviously we should have gone out to meet the enemy on ground of our own choosing. Obviously one does not wait until the enemy hits one. One goes out and hits him where it suits you best. Therefore, if the circumstances are as I think they were, then I think it was right to have acted as we did and acted quickly, and I would be the last to suggest that we should tie the hands of either the State President in declaring war, or the military forces in acting. I do believe, however, that if the Minister had come back to Parliament and told Parliament what the Government had done, he would have had Parliament and with it all the people of South Africa solidly and fully behind the action. Doubts and questioning would have been eliminated, and some of the unfortunate attitudes which have been adopted in some quarters would have been avoided. We are therefore happy to accept the concept of armed conflict but we ask that it be brought within the ambit of the same proviso as applies when mobilization takes place, and that Parliament be informed and given the opportunity to give its approval.

In fact, we go further. One could combine the concept of combating terrorism with armed conflict, because once again, where does one draw the line? If you go out to chase a small group of terrorists and suddenly come upon a large camp of 500 or 600 armed enemies the action changes from one aimed at fighting a handful of terrorist raiders into a full-scale armed conflict. The two are so closely associated that I believe that one could combine them into one definition, which would be clearer and which would then apply all the provisions which this Bill applies, in respect of combating and suppressing terrorism to participation in an armed conflict. This also requires a clearer definition of terrorism. What we are saying in this Bill is, in fact, that terrorism means “terroristic” activities in the Republic. I cannot find the word “terroristic” in a dictionary. There is “terrorist” and there is “terrorism”. I do not believe “terroristic” is a word. I do not think that in Afrikaans “terroristiese” relates to terrorism either. However this may be, as the definition reads it is not a strong or clear definition, and in the Committee Stage we will move a clearer definition, which we believe covers all possibilities and places the definition beyond doubt. Parliament should not pass meaningless definitions which could later lead to dispute and conflict.

I now come to clause 8, the proposed new section 103ter, removing the jurisdiction of the courts in certain circumstances. Some of my learned colleagues will deal with the legal aspects of this. There are only two points of general principle which I shall raise now. The one is that we do not believe it to be correct for the Minister to appoint a compensation board to hear appeals against his own decisions. A compensation board is set up to deal with cases where the decision of the Minister has not been accepted. In passing I think the hon. the Minister is wrong in saying that this applies where the compensation was not acceptable to the applicant. The only two conditions under which the board can be established, are when the Minister has granted an application but no amount is paid or where he has rejected an application. There is no provision—and this we shall seek to put right at the Committee Stage—for an appeal to the board where the Minister has granted an application but offered a lesser amount not acceptable to the applicant. I think that is clearly the intention, but it is not stated in clause 8(2) of the Bill. The principle proposed is that a person appeals against the Minister’s finding and that appeal is heard by a board appointed by the same Minister. We shall move, in the Committee Stage, that the compensation board be appointed by the Minister of Justice and controlled by the Minister of Justice. We recognize the strong arguments for not adopting the normal legal process in an operational area under these circumstances, but we believe that there is a judicial aspect concerned here and that the matter should be dealt with through the Minister of Justice and a proper tribunal appointed to deal with compensation which is not controlled by the Minister of Defence. There are certain other aspects of detail which will be dealt with by other members. These relate to the procedures and the operation of this proposed clause.

I now come to clause 10, that of the moratorium. I welcome this, as I was the first person to raise this matter some time ago. I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced this and that the section 92 call-up will now be covered. There is a problem here, however, to which I must admit quite frankly I have not found a solution. I believe, however, that we have to look at this. The application of the moratorium, in this regard, specifically excludes rentals or payments on residential flats or homes, by a serviceman if that rental becomes due after he is called up for service. Quite obviously, in times of war or during a 12-month call-up, the person concerned has to make arrangements to give up the flat or home concerned if the rent cannot be paid. When a man is called up for three months however, if he cannot pay his rent at the end of the first month, his wife can be put out on the street. We obviously cannot expect every soldier who cannot pay his rent out of his R3-30 allowance if he is not in an operational area to close down and give up his home because he has been called up for three months. I believe we have got to find some protection for that shorter period, which is excluded under the present moratorium provisions. One cannot expect a landlord to go for months without rent, because he in turn is using that rental to pay off bonds or in many cases to live. Equally, however, one cannot expect a soldier to have to give up his home because he is called up for three months. He cannot put his furniture into storage. He may be able to send his wife and family to relatives, but the physical home is there and he has to pay for it. If he is not in an operational area, on under R100 per month, he cannot possibly clothe and feed his family and pay his rent for three months. As I say, I am baffled. I do not have a positive proposal to make. One cannot expect the landlord to carry the burden, and on the other hand one has to protect these servicemen as well. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether perhaps, later in the session, when we have had an opportunity to look at this more carefully, and perhaps have found some solution, an amendment could not be introduced in the General Laws Amendment Bill at the end of the session. This is a real weakness which has already appeared in two or three cases which have come to my attention. We cannot expect charity to do it and we shall have to find some way of protecting the homes of people called up to fight to defend us.

To sum up: We ask for a new look at the concept of serving South Africa beyond our borders and at the removal of territorial restrictions so that all will serve equally wherever they are required for the safety and the security of South Africa. We suggest that by doing so, we shall prevent putting a weapon in the hands of our enemies, that we shall give a greater meaning to our Defence Act and that those who are called up for service will know that they are there to serve wherever, whenever and however the needs of South Africa require this of them. We visualize some improvements in the definitions and in the combination of combating terrorism and armed conflict and certain amendments, as I have stated, in regard to legal procedures in operational areas in combating communism.

This makes it clear that in principle we support the objective, the principles of this measure. In fact we should like it to go further and we hope that the hon. the Minister will agree to an instruction to the Committee of the whole House which will enable us to amend or to delete section 95 in order that we can introduce a new era into our South African defence concept. We shall support the Second Reading but hope the hon. the Minister will meet us in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what we have again had here, as was the case during the No-confidence Debate, was a very responsible approach on the part of the United Party’s chief spokesman on defence. I think you will find that we will be able to discuss with each other most of the aspects in regard to which he wants to move amendments and that we shall probably be able to debate some of these aspects at the Committee Stage. I think that his difficulty in regard to the limitations on the service of our troops in so far as they concern the area and the terrain, links up with the problem raised by the hon. the Minister himself. I believe that we shall undoubtedly be able to conduct very fruitful discussions in that regard.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the attitude which could prevail as a result of the standpoint which certain political groups, to be specific the National Party, adopted in the days prior to the Second World War. I do not think that this is relevant at this stage because the aspect which is now under discussion, the threat, is different. We could just as well advance the counter argument that the war effort and war machinery of the Allied powers during the Second World War strengthened those very forces which now threaten us. We could just as well advance that as an argument. But we shall refrain from doing that. We are not going to trade reproaches, but will let it suffice that we have a common approach, namely the defence of the country, for which we thank the Opposition.

If, then, we have to test the Defence Act against that, we find that that is precisely what it is geared to, not the committing aggression, but the defence of what is ours. The Defence Act was designed, not only to make provision for the defence of the life of Koos van der Merwe and his sheep, but also that of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and his mines, Barry Clifford’s private school and April Mondesi’s wives and children. Everyone will enjoy the benefit of this.

And Helen’s hotel, too.

The Defence Act is aimed at protecting State authority, too, against those who seek to undermine it. When, therefore, we consider these aims and find that the Defence Act does not cover them adequately, then we change it because it is necessary that this be done. To go into technical details concerning the Defence Act at this stage, to investigate whether it could perhaps be true that a certain hon. Senator argued about the legal validity of certain action, is something which we reject and condemn. However, I shall come back to this again. I thank the Opposition, therefore, for the standpoint which they have adopted. Our aims are the same and I ask that we start on that note and make it our point of departure.

I agree that a number of principles are involved. I can identify some of these principles by asking a few questions. The first is: For what purposes may our troops be employed, and the second is, in what areas may they be employed. We find that the Defence Act has up to now made provision for the employment of troops to serve in defence of the Republic, to serve in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder and to serve in the preservation of lives or health. However, it has now become necessary—in this regard I refer to clause 2—to add terrorism as a substantive service. It has become necessary since the old definition of “terrorism” which appears in the definition under the concept “service in defence of the Republic” is too local in scope. It is geared to the local situation to too great an extent, to terrorism within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. However, in practice it has been proved that it can operate against us from beyond our borders as well. It has been proved in practice, too, that we must have an elastic concept. We must have a flexible concept since terrorism as such is flexible. Their ingenuity knows no bounds. We know how this is being utilized today by small groups of Palestinian terrorists. The essence of the matter, therefore, is that we want an elastic concept. The Opposition’s chief spokesman calls for a new definition of “terrorism” because, according to him, the definition as it stands is too narrow in scope. However, he will know that it is precisely when one defines a concept and does not leave it to popular usage to determine its content or give it to the courts to interpret, that one comes unstruck. I, too, made a search to see if I could possibly find anywhere in law, definitions of “terrorist activities” as such. I then found that Cassell’s International Law deals specifically with “terrorist acts” and defines them as “typical cases of the violation of the independence of states”, in other words what we have in mind now and not the aeroplane which is hijacked by terrorists, but that which must be preserved for us, viz. the integrity and sovereignty of our state. That too can be threatened by terrorist activities. I have quoted a well-known writer on international law. What is more, as far back as 1934 the old League of Nations identified “terrorist activities” as such as a crime against the authority of the State, and condemned them. This arose out of a certain escapade in Europe in those years. The UNO as we know it today also passed a very strong verdict in 1951 in a certain resolution which was compiled by the International Law Commission and in which the expression “terrorist activities” is used. I therefore call on the Opposition to leave this expression to the suppleness of our judicature, of interpretation and to the existing meaning which international law has already given “terrorist activities”.

I began my argument by saying that it has become necessary for us to make this a substantive service for which our troops can be employed, namely the threat to the authority of the State, from whichever quarter it may come. Our troops can also be employed in time of war in connection with the discharge of the obligations of the Republic’s agreements in regard to joint defence—that is the definition. However, on the basis of experiences in recent times, the latest developments in Africa, we began to realize that there was a grey area from which the security of the Republic can be threatened, namely conflicts which may arise beyond our borders and which are dangerous to the integrity of the State. It is therefore necessary for us to consider the possibility of a duty on South Africa’s part to guarantee stability in such areas for the sake, not only of its own stability, but also for the sake of a wider concept which is developing, namely that the Republic of South Africa as such is involved in Africa in a situation in which collective responsibility against that which threatens Africa as a whole is developing and growing. This argument received its strongest support in the House from none other than the hon. member for Yeoville. On three separate occasions he has advocated a Monroe doctrine. The time has come for us to consider very specifically what this involves and then to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that we see in these ideas of his, true patriotism, true vision, a true sense of responsibility towards South Africa and a moving away from pettiness in certain Opposition circles, to be specific, the Progrefs. This being so, we find it interesting that the hon. member for Yeoville voted against the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment last week. He who advocates this collective responsibility voted against that amendment. I believe that we who have begun to develop respect for the viewpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville are entitled to ask for an explanation from him in this regard. I do not want to call his credibility into question.

Helen is the bully.

Thus far I have indicated for what purposes our troops may be employed, but as yet I have made no reference to the issue of territorial limitations. We shall come to that. This is the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Durban Point with regard to section 95 in regard to which he proposed another definition of South Africa; in fact, he wants to leave out the definition in order to keep it as wide as possible. On a future occasion I shall deal in great detail with this matter, namely with the question of how widely that provision must be read. As I have indicated, the employment of our troops is therefore geared to the new situation as it has developed over the years and is known to us today. We want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point to consider carefully what we have said before we debate this matter among ourselves. I am referring to the elasticity of the provision.

This brings me to the question: What territorial restrictions are there on the employment of our troops? Here section 95 in particular is applicable. Let me add at once that when we refer to the Republic of South Africa in the context of the Defence Act, this also includes South West Africa. There must be no doubt about that. Section 95 provides—

It is clear that the South African soldier may therefore be employed in an area greater than the Republic, the Republic including—I emphasize this again—South West Africa. In other words, if we interpret the Act as it reads at present, it is very clear that it is impossible to employ the South African Defence Force only within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, because that would make it ridiculous, it would make it ineffectual, it would make it meaningless and would make South Africa ridiculous in the eyes of the military. If we were to see our responsibility as being limited solely to these borders, the question would arise as to the purpose of the cardinal principle of international law, that if the integrity, the security or the property of one’s territory is threatened, one has the right to cross one’s borders and punish the offence committed against one. There is, therefore, authority for one to do this in regard to terrorists and in regard to any action against one.

To take this further into the practical sphere, one cannot cause the bullets to stop halfway across the river and say that one may not shoot across the border. We have now also become acquainted with the 122 mm Stalin organ which can be towed 20 km behind a border and can still destroy one totally on the border. Let us go further and see what happens in practice if one sticks to one’s borders. If one does this one loses, just as the French lost. They thought that the Maginot Line could not be taken and consequently they stayed there. They did not budge from that line, but the Germans extracted them from it. In other words, ordinary common sense tells one that if one’s troops can be employed for the defence of one’s borders, it must be possible to employ them beyond the borders. As the hon. member for Durban Point said, one cannot ask a man’s permission when one is, so to speak, halfway across the cutline in South West Africa.

Do you believe in a preventive war?

I do not believe in a preventive war. But I most definitely do believe in preventive action.

Then you must not quote France as an example.

We can get technical about it later, but I most definitely believe this. The hon. member for Yeoville is now trying to get away from the discussion we are having with him concerning the Monroe doctrine, because the Monroe doctrine presumes that one must be able to employ one’s troops further away than is determined by one’s own responsibility.

Now the hon. member is talking nonsense. He apparently knows nothing about the Monroe doctrine.

I find it very interesting that the Progrefs should now begin to react in this tone because the preamble of the provision in section 95 has a long history. It goes back to the days when Gen. Louis Botha and Gen. Smuts piloted the Defence Act through the House of Assembly for the first time. At the time Gen. Botha spoke in favour of the Bill and said that it would have to be possible to employ the troops beyond the borders of the Union, namely South Africa, because (Hansard, 28 February 1912, col. 751)—

So said Gen. Louis Botha.

In fact, when the late Gen. Smuts, as Minister of Defence, piloted this Act through Parliament he used the same argument, but he said that it was necessary because we had Portuguese colonial possessions as neighbours. In other words, as far back as 1912 Gen. Smuts foresaw the possibility that the Portuguese colonies could serve as a springboard for enemies of South Africa. At that time South West Africa was not yet included in the then Union of South Africa. We therefore cannot but acknowledge today the far-sightedness of those two men and agree with them. However, it goes much further than that. When South Africa entered the war in 1939, this Defence Act still applied.

No less a person than Col. Neil Orpen, a self-acknowledged Progressive, came to the fore with two letters in The Cape Times—on 7 and 15 January respectively—and stated that he wanted nothing to do with that newspaper’s negative arguments. In fact, he supports his argument with a letter from a widow, also a Progressive, who states that her son is prepared to fight and to die for South Africa. Col. Orpen then refers us to a very interesting book written by J. S. N. Simpson, entitled South Africa Fights. For the purposes of our debate, it is as well for us to take note of what this author has to say. He states—

And now this is very interesting—

This is how we, too, interpreted the Defence Act when we became involved in a minor military operation in Angola, and also when we came to Parliament and, through the hon. the Minister of Defence, asked for a clearly circumscribed definition of what exactly the duty of our soldiers was. This is not a new concept, a new idea, which the hon. the Minister of Defence is presenting to the House here. What the hon. Minister is asking us here is to define clearly and precisely something which has been contained in our Defence Act from as far back as 1912, and which was interpreted in exactly the same way as 1939—even though I, as a little boy, did not support that war effort; nor was there much point in it. Even though I did not support it then, I say this in respect for the viewpoint arising out of those times, which now comes to the fore.

Furthermore I find it very interesting that the hon. Senator Bamford should have had so much to say in The Cape Times some time ago. The worst thing he said—and this is absolutely unforgivable—is that he tried to intimate that South African troops were limited solely to action in the Republic of South Africa. He did this as a lawyer and I take it that he did it as a responsible person. To come forward with such an argument in these times really makes one shudder, if one considers the degree of patriotism behind such an approach.

That is a disgraceful thing to say.

If he is wrong, why is this legislation retrospective?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks why the legislation is retrospective. We have told you that it is to spell this out very clearly and precisely for those who are unable to read and understand, and who are unaware of the history and the traditions of the Defence Force and South Africa’s state of mind.

To conclude, I shall come back to other facets of the Bill which were also raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to agree with him at once in regard to one aspect, namely the issue of subsection 2(b) of section 103quat. It is clear from this that if the Minister were in fact to decide to grant compensation, and the aggrieved party was not satisfied with it, then the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban Point would be valid. The hon. the Minister must please give serious consideration to enabling a person who feels aggrieved about the amount of compensation as such, to have recourse to the compensation board. I do not think we shall argue a great deal about who will appoint the compensation board, whether it be the Minister of Justice or the State President. However, what we must emphasize very strongly is that these measures are peacetime measures, although designed for those specific circumstances in which we want to avoid measures in an emergency situation and in which we specifically want to make it possible for a Defence Force man to carry out orders legally given to him. It will also make it so much easier for him to carry out his task if he knows that he would be protected if he were to have to flatten a farmer’s fences or damage the property of a person in the pursuit of terrorists. Consequently, before we discuss this matter, we must bear in mind that we need this precisely because we do not want to implement emergency measures and because we do not want to cause difficulties.

In the last few moments at my disposal, Sir, I want to deal with a pamphlet from an extreme rightist quarter, one is tempted to say, an extremely foolish quarter. This pamphlet gives out that under the Defence Act Parliament should have been convened. The sections quoted deal with mobilization. It is correct that under certain circumstances when mobilization takes place, Parliament has to be convened. The hon. the Minister employs the units of the Defence Force for the defence of the Republic of South Africa under section 92ter, which was specially designed for this purpose. It was the hon. member for Durban Point who proposed in a Select Committee that if we should do this, the Minister should then submit a report to Parliament within 14 days after the start of a session, if Parliament was not in session at that time. Less than a week ago we received such a report from the Minister. Consequently I am of the opinion that we should censure these people, whoever they may be, who make these blatant misrepresentations and quote sections of no relevance whatever, in the strongest possible terms. If their actions should have the effect of demoralizing our troops, then this would be an act bordering on the worst type of undermining of the State. The question has occurred to me whether suitable provision should not be made in our Defence Act for such action.

I also just want to refer in passing to the Moratorium Act and in this regard put a question to the hon. the Minister. In cases where there are certain sections which do not apply to a specific member of the Defence Force if he should omit to provide certain information, would it not be possible for such a man to be informed of his specific rights under the Moratorium Act, to enable him to provide information timeously where required, for example in implementing the Hire Purchase Act?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West touched on quite a few matters and I cannot react to all of them. It is interesting to note that he attacked my party even before we stated our point of view on this measure. The hon. member also referred to the hon. member for Yeoville, and to the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. I hope to return to that a little later. He made one point on which I should like to elaborate a little. He said that various principles are at stake in this particular Bill.

†The provisions of this Bill affect aspects in our society that touch upon the lives of every South African, irrespective of his race or background. It affects, for example, the nature of military service in defence of the Republic, the combating of terrorism, the compensation for men responsible for military service and their protection when they might be prosecuted in the combating of terrorism. In any society such provisions will enjoy the attention of anybody who is concerned about the safety and security of all the inhabitants in that society. But particularly in South Africa there is an additional sense of urgency because we are a deeply troubled society and because we live in very difficult times. We are beset with problems which under peaceful and normal circumstances would tax the most competent brains of the best people in the world to the utmost. We, however, because of circumstances, have to cope with those problems under abnormal conditions where there is a threat to peace. These abnormal conditions are directly related to our military situation. We have troops on the border of South West Africa and, in fact, in Angola itself. There is a civil war raging in Angola at this very moment, a civil war in which we were partly involved and from which we have withdrawn and, at this particular stage, we are still not quite sure as to the nature of the benefits of having done so.

To complete the picture, we have tense and volatile societies very close to our borders, in Zambia, Zaire, Rhodesia and Mozambique. As a matter of fact, in most of these societies there is a very real possibility of armed conflict taking place. If one looks at all the countries south of the equator—and we hope this will not happen—one cannot but fear that they, or many of them, are ripe for civil war. We will promote and support any effort at establishing co-operation, peace and stability with and within those societies. That is why, given these circumstances, we have to be very serious when we discuss the provisions of this Bill. We believe that we are deliberating on matters that affect the lives of our young people, not in some future sense, but immediately, particularly if we keep in mind that these young people have to form part of the majority of our Defence Force and that they have to contribute to the defence of the country. It is in terms of these considerations that I would like to consider some of the substantive amendments in this Bill in as responsible and unemotional a manner as possible.

The first aspect concerns the whole issue of compensation in the broad sense. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, primarily clauses 9 and 10 are involved with this. Let me say immediately that we are in full agreement with the principle of such provisions and we support and welcome these amendments. In fact, we believe that we can go even further in this respect and my hon. colleague will no doubt make some mention of this later on. We believe that whenever someone performs military service in any capacity and suffers as a result of it, he should be adequately compensated and that the people in the country should be willing to contribute to such compensation through the State.

The second aspect I briefly want to talk about is the combating of terrorism. Virtually every clause in this Bill is directly or indirectly related to the problem of combating terrorism. I am not going to dwell on them individually, but I would like to point out some of the highlights. Clause 1(b) changes the meaning of the concept of terrorism by giving it a new definition and, therefore, by implication dropping its old connotation with the Terrorism Act of 1967. Therefore, we have two concepts of terrorism operative in South Africa. One could say that the one has primarily a political content, while the other has a more military content. We welcome this change and the fact that this definition has now been introduced into this Bill, because we think it conforms more to the conventional usage of the word “terrorism” and that it makes more sense in military spheres to use this conception of terrorism. In any case, given the intended scope of the Bill, it would have made military nonsense to have retained the Terrorism Act sense of the word for military purposes. The main import of clauses 2, 4 and 6 is to make the combating of terrorism an integral part of training in service in the Citizen Force to enable the State President and the Minister to call up the Citizen Force for such purposes whenever and wherever it is necessary, and in addition the territorial restrictions are also changed.

One of the saddest comments in the latter half of this century is that in this period acts of terrorism became a common instrument for applying political, economic and social pressure or for bringing about change. Bombing, hijacking, pillage, rape and murder have become almost daily occurrences or features in the mass communications media of the world. I say it is sad, because wherever it happens one finds a group of people so frustrated and filled with anger and irrationality, that they are prepared to kill indiscriminately members of their own society. By their very acts these people are saying that they have given up all hope for peaceful and orderly change in that society and they are intent on preventing others from bringing about that change as well. Because terrorism inspires terror, fear and resistance, we believe that it has to be opposed in whatever manner possible, and we support the measures envisaged in this Bill. We would, however, be failing in our duty if we did not point out a fact which is very obvious, and that is that although terrorism is a pernicious disease, it is also a symptom indicating that there is something wrong in the body of society. When its symptoms become manifest, therefore, it is important to mobilize the loyalty and commitment of all the people in that society to combat this disease. This is the crystal-clear message that I received—and I am grateful to the hon. the Minister of Defence for this opportunity—when I became acquainted with the civic action programme of the Defence Force which is going on at this very moment on our borders.

Not only of the Defence Force; of the whole State.

No, I grant that. I am just saying that this was made crystal clear to me when I became acquainted with the programme. Now we come to the question of the protection and indemnification of members of the Defence Force. Clause 8 is a completely new addition to the Defence Act and is concerned with the indemnification of members of the Defence Force when combating terrorism, and with setting up a compensatory mechanism for the public who may become aggrieved because of such action. The problem that this clause tries to cope with is an old one. During the combating of terrorism mistakes are made and accidents do happen. Sometimes, as was evident in the case of Vietnam, people in the service of the USA deliberately committed criminal acts, very often without the knowledge of their superiors. When something like that happens the question is simply: How can the aggrieved party be compensated and the integrity and honour of the Defence Force be protected at the same time? Let me say immediately, Sir, that our high-ranking commanding officers in the Defence Force are men of superior quality in every respect. I have spoken to them and I believe without qualification that they are jealous of the integrity of the Defence Force, that in combating terrorism they would never wilfully command anybody to commit an act which would not be in conformity with his duty, and also that if under their command mistakes are made they will be quite prepared not to hide anything and to see that justice is done. In fact, I am sure that they would welcome any procedure whereby indemnification can be effected with honour and compensation meted out with justice. But what kind of provisions are made in clause 8? A politician—and I do not say this in any derogatory sense because I am one myself—who happens to be the Minister of Defence decides that no criminal or civil action can be brought against any member of the Defence Force when he is combating terrorism. This is provided for in the new section 103ter(2). The Minister simply signs a certificate which is conclusive proof that a member of the Defence Force was busy combating terrorism. That is provided for in section 103ter(3). When this certificate has been signed, and on the basis of it, the Minister of Justice tells the court to stop any proceedings against a member of the Defence Force, and no court has any power to review or to declare void or to question the validity of the certificate signed by the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Justice. The onus is then on the aggrieved party to prove that this certificate was not signed by the Minister. So much for the indemnification of the Defence Force, but what about provisions for the compensation of the aggrieved party in this case? He can apply to the Minister in writing giving a full explanation of his problem and the Minister may after consideration compensate him, but if the Minister does not, the Minister will then appoint a compensation board, the chairman of which will have to be a judge or an ex-judge or a magistrate or an ex-magistrate, with not more than three other members, who may be from the Public Service or may be members of the public. The chairman will decide what procedure will be followed by this board. The verdict of the board depends on a majority decision and in some cases the chairman has the casting vote. The court can call any evidence it wants to and if someone fails or refuses to attend or gives false evidence he is liable on conviction to a fine of R200 or three months’ imprisonment. But the aggrieved party on the other hand has no legal representation; he has no right to call witnesses for his case and no member of the public may attend the proceedings of the board. In any case, the Minister or the board is under no obligation to give reasons for the decision or the recommendation. Sir, I have stated nothing else but what is stated in the clauses mentioned and I repeat this simple question. Is this the way to indemnify with honour and to compensate with justice? I can understand the necessity for a degree of secrecy in these proceedings and one even appreciates the delicacy of the problem but I fail to understand why the ordinary judicial process has to be ignored completely and why the aggrieved has no right to representation or to call witnesses on his own behalf. Above all, I fail to understand, in this whole procedure and its mechanism, how it can operate and redound to the credit and the honour of our Defence Force. Why? I should like to explain this

Apart from anything else I have said about terrorism it is clear that it is above all a political act and its occurrence and the combating of it are clouded with propaganda of the most distorted kind. Thus if this procedure for compensation and indemnification is used there is the possibility, the clear possibility, that whilst the Press of the world is talking about an incident, giving details about it and making defamatory allegations about the Defence Force, we will be meeting completely behind closed doors—in some cases this may be completely necessary—and there is no way in which the person who is aggrieved can have any representation in that case. Obviously we are going to be landed with a great deal of hostile propaganda in a case like that. The impeccable record of our Defence Force, to which the Minister of Defence referred when he discussed the Angolan situation in the no-confidence debate, will now become the target of hostile propaganda in the eyes of the world and particularly in Africa. So although we appreciate the problem, we cannot support the measures proposed in this Bill to cope with this problem I have just mentioned.

I come to the last aspect which I should like to mention. This concerns the nature of the defence of the Republic of South Africa. This aspect is covered by clauses 1, 3, 6 and 11. What they say is that any member of the Defence Force can be used for the suppression of armed conflict taking place south of the equator if the State President deems such conflict to be a threat to the security of South Africa, and a member has to do this without volunteering; and when he does this he is deemed to be acting in a state of war. These clauses affect the situation by defending South Africa for the purpose of the Defence Act as Africa south of the equator, by determining that the suppression of armed conflict mentioned above is part of military service in defence of the Republic, and by specifying more clearly the territorial restrictions that coincide with volunteering. I should briefly like to say a word about each of these.

There is a new definition of “South Africa” contained in this Bill. The definition of South Africa in the Defence Act has always been an ambiguous one and it has always led to problems of interpretation. We are aware of that. As far back as 1919 we had the court case, in the Appellate Division, of General Life Insurance Co. v. Moyle, where this ambiguity was fully discussed. This particular case also involved a military incident. In 1914 Moyle, who had made a proposal to insure his life with the defendant company, received from the company a letter stating that he would be insured while taking part in military operations in South Africa. Thereafter a policy was issued to him containing a special condition excluding the risk of military service. In 1916 Moyle died of wounds received while on military service in Africa. A claim was made in terms of his policy, and this was refused because of the peculiar conception of Africa in that case that was conformed to on the part of the company. The case then went to the Appellate Division and the judge said that the conception of South Africa used in 1919 for this particular case was Africa south of the equator. Then the learned judge said the following—

Then he reversed the decision on that ground. We were not as fortunate as that in recent times because when we received telephone calls from parents and from interested persons we could not give a clear judgment in this case simply because of the ambiguity in the Defence Act as to what “South Africa” really means. By implication I think the hon. the Minister conceded that they were fighting outside South Africa’s borders, by saying that everyone had volunteered.

Outside the Republic’s borders.

But we were not able to give that kind of clear advice. Sir, quite frankly I prefer the old ambiguity of the present Act to the blinding and almost stupendous clarity that this Bill tries to provide. “South Africa” now means Africa south of the equator. In this region we have a number of beleaguered societies, trouble-ridden societies, and for purposes of the Defence Act, by implication we are actually saying they are part of us. With every fairly intelligent human being, I simply ask: In heaven’s name, why? When I look at the Bill I can find primarily in terms of the logic of the amendments, three answers to this question, and I want to look quickly at these answers. The first has to do with the whole question of volunteering for service, and this has always been a hot issue in debates in this Parliament since its inception. In fact, in 1957, when the parent Act was accepted, the then Minister of Defence, under strong attack from the official Opposition because of this principle of voluntarism made the following comment. He tried to retain it in the Act, which he successfully did.

*He said (Hansard, Vol. 93, col. 1282)—

Then he continues—

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West also used this argument—

It is interesting that the official Opposition of that time moved an amendment to that legislation which actually tried to prevent the Second Reading. The reason for this was the question of “voluntariness”, this question whether or not one may cross the borders.

† At that time they were not prepared to pass the Second Reading because of this very principle. The whole question of volunteering is that the Minister of Defence in 1957 did not change the principle of volunteering; in fact the present Minister does not change it either. The present Minister simply changes the borders of South Africa and now says, in theory, that one need only volunteer if one is already halfway across Lake Tanganyika. Up to that point, however, one is simply doing military service. I do not think he has calmed the anxiety in the hearts of thousands of parents when he tells them that their sons need no longer worry about volunteering for service south of the equator. I can understand the problem confronting the hon. the Minister because I know there is a need, in a military sense, to move outside the borders of the Republic. A colleague of mine will make recommendations in this respect to show that we are aware of these problems.

The second answer to why this definition is inadequate is linked to what I regard as the controversial aspect of the Bill, given the times and circumstances in which we find ourselves in South Africa at the moment. I am referring to defining as part of the defence of South Africa any armed conflict outside South Africa which is deemed to be a threat to the security and safety of South Africa. Note “outside the Republic”. This literally means anywhere in the world. It is important to note this—anywhere in the world. By this provision we are enabled to intervene in any society where there is armed conflict which we deem—irrespective of what they deem—to be against the interests or security of South Africa. This is a situation without precedent in international law. My mind grinds to a halt in trying to think of all the diplomatic ramifications of such a position.

Far more disturbing and serious, however, is the international position of our soldiers. I am now asking the hon. the Minister whether there is any clarity about this. When one of our soldiers is taken prisoner in a situation where he is combating or suppressing an armed conflict outside the borders of the Republic, a conflict which is deemed to be a threat to the security of the Republic, does the Geneva Convention apply? How will he be treated? Would he be treated in the same way as the present soldier of South Africa when he is caught? Who will negotiate on his behalf, and in terms of which convention? How will they apply? I think this is a legitimate question, and I would like some reply from the hon. the Minister in this connection.

Equally serious are the implications of this Bill in the present tense and urgent circumstances of our position in Africa and in the world in general. We cannot afford to allow the enemies of South Africa or countries hostile to South Africa, to have any ammunition like this to use as propaganda against us. This is one of the problems. This particular clause of the Bill can be interpreted, despite our intentions to the contrary, as meaning that South Africa does have aggressive and hostile intentions. All these points I have mentioned are directly related to the substantive merits of the argument itself.

There is a final point which I cannot fail to note. This relates to clause 11. This Bill makes absolutely unique and unprecedented provisions, just as Angola was an absolutely unique and unprecedented event, after colonial withdrawal without a Government to take charge and civil war raging. I suspect that we were involved very deeply in that transitional phase although we as members of the public did not exactly know and in which way. We have tried to elicit, as responsibly as possible, information from this Government and we have only been met by abuse. What they have not been willing to discuss openly in debate, they are partially trying to cover up and justify with this legislation, and we refuse to be party to that. Therefore, because there are contradictory principles—there are principles which we support in this Bill and there are principles which are ambiguous and questionable—I move as an amendment—

I do so because we believe that in such a committee we can thoroughly discuss all the aspects of the Bill and come to grips with some of the problems I have mentioned.

I wish now to make a personal statement with reference to what the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has said. I have a stepbrother of whom I am the guardian. I have, in fact, been his guardian for the past two years, until he turned 21 on Christmas Day last year. He is in the armoured division of the Defence Force. I do not know where he has been or what he has done. All I know is that I have received notification to send my letters to Grootfontein. I have a fair idea where he has been and what he has been doing. I have been concerned about him. I am sure he is doing the best he can wherever he is. Both of us share a deep affection for our country. I have never pleaded with the Minister of Defence for any special privileges in this respect. I am not interested in obtaining any special privileges. I have tried, however, through my party to get as much information as possible—not only for him and for me, but also for the public—on what happened there. We were met by abuse. A Day of Prayer was called for and we supported that. We asked the Prime Minister to make a statement the day Parliament opened believing this to be outside the party political sphere. That was refused. If the Prime Minister, at that stage, had introduced the amendment he introduced on Friday I would obviously have voted for it, but the Prime Minister introduced an amendment based on patriotism and the death of people—which involves all of us—in the presence of this House during the most vicious no-confidence debate this House has seen for a long time. If I ever plan to put my hand up in the future in support of such a motion, in such circumstances I hope it will shrivel up and dry up in front of me.

The hon. member referred to a discussion which had taken place in this House and which had been allowed by the Chair, as the “most vicious”. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I do so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall deal specifically with the amendment of the previous hon. speaker and say what I think about it. At this stage, however, I first want to say a few words about the Bill itself. It is the position that the Defence Act of 1957 was based on the old South African Defence Act of 1913, and that that Act, when it was still contained in the Statute Book, dealt with specific circumstances of warfare as they were known to the legislature in those days. But times have changed since then. South Africa is no longer a member of the Commonwealth. The Great War of 1914, and the Second World War, brought eras in the history of mankind to a close. Africa shook off the yoke of colonialism, but in doing so she also forfeited the involvement and the attendant protection of the military forces of the colonial powers. Russian imperialism, which has been eminent since the days of Czar Peter and Catherine the Great, but which was restricted mainly to Europe, the Near, Middle and Far East up to and including the Second World War, has now openly manifested itself in Southern Africa as well. The smaller countries of the Western community, and the countries of the pro-Western community, have learned a lesson from Vietnam, i.e. that one may perhaps hope for the support of a major power, but one can no longer rely on it. We can put this in another way as well: South Africa, and other countries of Africa as well, should expect and be prepared to defend themselves with their own resources in the event of a military threat. To think that others will rush in to rescue and assist them, would be fatal.

Times have changed, but the greatest change for South Africa in the era after its withdrawal from the Commonwealth and in the post-colonial era is that it is the only power in Southern Africa today which in any way possesses an appreciable defence force. Compared to the USA, Russia, England, France and Germany we are small, but here in Southern Africa South Africa is a military giant. I am not saying that South Africa is a super power; we know that South Africa is not a super power, but in its part of the world it will make itself felt and will in fact be able to hold the fort when its borders are threatened and an onslaught is made on its political integrity.

Times have also changed as far as the methods of waging war are concerned, the methods by which aggression is committed, and the methods by which vested power is obtained by specific ideologies and States where it did not previously exist. We in South Africa have experienced the cold war for many years. As people who have experienced the cold war, we also observe how Russian imperialism is moving closer as slowly as a glazier: Today it may not be there yet, but tomorrow it is. We in South Africa have come to know terrorism from the earliest days. We also know that wars are no longer declared today and peace is no longer concluded; they simply occur.

Since the hon. the Prime Minister made his speech before the Senate in October 1974, events in Africa have changed with the speed of lightning—I believe to the benefit of South Africa. During the past few months we have seen the UNO refusing to adopt resolution against South Africa unless Russia was simultaneously condemned. Very recently we heard the outcome of the Addis Ababa conference of the OAU, at which South Africa, for the first time in many years, was not condemned. We also heard the statement by the Foreign Minister of the Ivory Coast in which he said that the involvement of South Africa in Angola was not aggression. To my mind this spells out one thing only: Not only are they taking a different view of South Africa, but there are also States in Africa, particularly in Southern Africa, that will at any time turn openly, or in secret if need be, to South Africa for defence aid. In view of the lessons of the past year it is very clear that it may be in South Africa’s interest to render such assistance. It will in fact be in the defence of South Africa itself if such assistance is rendered, for anyone with the most elementary knowledge of defence knows that if you are able to choose your own front, you are better off then when your enemy chooses the front.

The Amendment Bill before us brings our Defence Act up to date as far as the exigencies of the moment are concerned. I think that we can analyse those exigencies on the basis of our experiences in Angola. It was probably the general expectation that with the withdrawal of the Portuguese from Angola there would for a time be dissension, unrest and shooting among the factions—which were already known at the time—before one of them gained the upper hand, as we had come to know the process elsewhere in Africa. However, we did not have such tribal fights, such disputes between factions in Angola. When the Portuguese left the minority group, as far as numbers are concerned, had already been supported for a long time by the Russians and the Cubans as far as the preparation of propaganda, political preparation as well as armaments were concerned, and they were in fact almost ready to take over the country. It is very clear that it was not only after the withdrawal of the Portuguese from Angola that Russia and Cuba began to support the MPLA. If there is one piece of evidence to prove this, it was the arms build-up in Angola which we experienced. According to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 27 January this year, which came from the newspaper’s own correspondent in Luanda, there were sources of information which alleged that there were 56 T34 tanks in the south of Angola and 50 T34 tanks in the north. There were also “independent informed sources” which spoke of 250 T34 and even T54 tanks—the latter being the newer models—in brigade strength 60 miles from Nova Lisboa. We also had the privilege of seeing photographs of the 122 mm rocket launcher, a totally effective weapon, especially when it comes to the demoralization of combatants in Africa in particular. According to informed sources there are 100 of these rocket launchers in Angola. For the rest there were 68 light, amphibious tanks, 166 armoured personnel carriers, 301 anti-aircraft guns mounted on armoured vehicles, and 12 000 light, single-barrelled 122 mm rocket launchers. So one can continue. If one considers these figures, one asks oneself whether this is the quantity of weaponry which Russia and Cuba supply to warring factions, or whether they perhaps had other plans in Southern Africa than merely the installation of the MPLA in Angola. At present the southward offensive of the MPLA is undoubtedly directed at Kunene. In actual fact it is an offensive by the Cubans, supported by the Russians, by East Germans and other communist nations from behind the Iron Curtain. Now the question is: When they reach the South West African border with those tanks and weaponry which I mentioned, are they going to stop, are they going to fall back and simply withdraw from Angola, or will they proceed to attack South West Africa, Zambia and Zaire and enfold the entire southern portion of the continent of Africa in their communist tentacles? That is what is at issue. Perhaps they will not cross the border immediately at the Kunene, but leave it to an advanced guard of Swapo to begin the assault. But they may begin in Zaïre or Zambia. They may also state directly from the banks of the Kunene: “We shall proceed to install Swapo as the Government in South West Africa as we tried to install the MPLA in Angola.” Would it have been far-sighted of this Government and its army advisers first to have waited for such a moment before beginning to take steps to defend the borders of South West Africa?

This brings me to the hon. member for Rondebosch. I must say that when he began to discuss this Bill it almost sounded to me as though we would see an aboutface by the Progrefs here, and that they would support this Bill. However, I knew that this would not be the case. I merely wondered what they were going to base their opposition on. Now it is becoming very apparent what basis they have chosen. Only those aspects which ostensibly constitute short-term political gain for them, are the aspects which they, according to him, will support. He went further and said that they wished to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee because of certain other aspects, aspects which in fact contain the essence and spirit of this entire amendment, viz. the prevention or suppression of any conflict outside the Republic which, in the opinion of the State President, is or may be a threat to the security of the Republic, as well as the question of the definition “Africa south of the equator”. I think there is another reason for this as well, i.e. to try to camouflage a little the attitude of the Progrefs to the defence of South Africa and South West Africa and to South Africa’s involvement and its presence in the operational area. I am referring now to their attitude as reflected last week and the previous week in the hon. member for Rondebosch’s interview with The Cape Times and in the statements made by them here in the House of Assembly. However, there is nothing which is going to cause more of a backlash against that party than the very standpoint they adopted last week in this House in respect of South Africa’s actions in Angola. Last week, and again today, the hon. member for Rondebosch kept well away from what he had said in The Cape Times of 21 January 1976 after he had apparently leaked the information to them that he and a few other M.P.S had paid a short visit to the operational area.

That is absolutely untrue.

What is untrue?

That I leaked anything.

Where did they hear it then? Who else told them?

Probably the Department of Defence.

The Cape Times report read as follows—

He went on to say—

In other words, it is unqualified—“completely”—

The report goes on to say—

[Interjections.] In this interview of the hon. member is contained the key to his party’s standpoint in respect of the Government’s actions in Angola. I want to say that this interview of his, which appeared in the newspaper, was disgraceful. He, his leader and his deputy leader, wasted the time of the military authorities for two days in the operational area, for he went away …

Order! The hon. member must relate his argument to the objects of the Bill.

I shall return to it in a moment, Sir. I am simply indicating what their attitude is. It is as a result of the hon. member’s attitude in respect of clause 1(a), and the fact that they wish to circumvent the problem of conflict outside South Africa that I am referring to their attitude in this regard.

Before the hon. member left for the operational area, he and his party were already firmlyresolved to adhere to their standpoint that they would see or hear nothing which would cause them to abandon their standpoint that South Africa should withdraw unconditionally from Angola, whatever the position was at Calueque, and whatever the position was in regard to Calais and its fugitives. Now respect of the defence, in respect of our deeds in South Africa. In the speech he has just made he again referred briefly to terrorism being the result of the frustrations of people who can do nothing in a community to bring about the changes which they advocate. This is his attitude in this regard, but he raised the same point last week here in this House when he asked what the politicians were doing to safeguard and change the internal situation in order to win and retain the loyalty of everyone in the country, while the military are prepared to offer their lives. He said they asked us here in South Africa, the politicians and the administrators of the country, what hope there was for the urban Black man, the Coloureds and the Black labourers. According to him this is what the military asked him. I want to put it to him that the questions which he quoted here were all sucked out of his thumb; that it was absolute rubbish that some of the military put such questions to him.

I did not say that.

You implied it.

He implied it, because he discussed the matter. Mr. Speaker, they did not ask him those questions there, and I still want him to bring me the person who asked him those questions. He sucked all of these things out of his thumb—in fact, he put words in the mouth of the military.

With that I wish to conclude with my argument in respect of the attitude they are manifesting with regard to South Africa’s actions in the operational area No. 1.

As far as this Bill is concerned, I want to conclude by saying that the exposition of the hon. the Minister was crystal clear, and that there is no reason whatsoever for it to be referred to a Select Committee. In reality this Bill, in view of the circumstances in which we find ourselves at present, should be promulgated as rapidly as possible. The motion of the hon. member for Rondebosch will result in a delay of weeks, even months, ensuing before this legislation will come into operation. This is in fact what he wants. He does not want this Bill to become law, and to be implemented as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill is crystal clear in respect of the purpose for which the S.A. Defence Force may be employed under certain circumstances, as well as the term for which the Defence Force may be employed. I therefore support this Bill in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend speaking at very great length on this Bill today, because I believe that there is a great deal of unanimity in regard to the principles contained in it—certainly as far as the official Opposition and the Government are concerned. One notes with regret that the Opposition to the official Opposition cannot yet see the reason for this legislation. The Minister is quite correct when he says that the situation that arose in Angola after the withdrawal of the Portuguese and our limited involvement in the conflict which occurred there, has brought a new dimension to the whole political and military set-up in southern Africa. As a result of this it is absolutely necessary that our attention should be drawn towards our defence legislation as it stands at the present time.

Legislation, in spite of amendments brought in from time to time to improve it, legislation in which we have dealt with conscientious objection and national service, is still bound to the provisions that pertained in 1918 and in 1945 in regard to the volunteering system. It still contains the limitation of the Republic of South Africa. I speak under correction, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that we are one of the few, if not the only country in the world, with a territorial limitation with regard to service in the Defence Force. We believe that there should be no limitation where the security of the Republic is directly threatened, and therefore I support the suggestions made to the hon. Minister of Defence by the hon. member for Durban Point. That is that we should not, in fact, define the Republic of South Africa, as it is defined in subsection (1)(b), as a specific area limited to southern Africa, which, as has been correctly said, can perhaps be used by enemies of our country. The hon. the Minister of Defence, in his Second Reading speech introducing this Bill, mentioned the amendments to section 95, which are contained in subsection (6) of this Bill. We believe this could be adequately dealt with, merely by removing the word “South Africa”, and inserting “wherever the security of the Republic is directly threatened”.

The rest of the amendments to that clause, and quite a good deal of what is contained in that clause, could then fall away, because the limitation would then be removed. There would be no specific indication of where service would be necessary and it would obviate all our problems. I believe that this is correct. Looking into the background, however, for reasons why this has arisen, I would like to quote here from the latest United States News Digest, from their information service. What Dr. Kissinger says there is, I believe, very pertinent to what applies to southern Africa and to South Africa today. Dr. Kissinger said at a Press conference on 23 December 1975 in regard to the situation in Angola:

I believe that applies to South Africa as well. Then he goes on and he points out that—

I believe that that is where our objections arose and that is where it becomes necessary to take away the limitations that presently exist in our Defence Act. It is quite amazing how this goes on. Dr. Kissinger went on to say that this, as far as the United States were concerned—

I would say that it is a litmus test also for the Republic of South Africa in so far as the balance of power in Africa and in the overall process of détente in Southern Africa are concerned. I wish to quote finally from this document—

It is therefore our duty in this House to see to it that our Defence Force is prepared and able to move at the shortest possible notice to contend with armed conflict in other territories which may threaten our security. It is for that reason that we support this Bill. The Minister also mentioned in his introductory speech the new concept which has been introduced, viz. that of armed conflict. The Minister said that there were no more formal declarations of war; these were something of the past. This is so; this is the way modern wars are fought. Now we have the principle of armed conflict in which our forces can take part without full mobilization of the armed forces. It is only in the event of full mobilization that this Parliament may be summoned in terms of section 91 of the Act. We do not wish that Parliament be summoned willy-nilly, for every little action of hot pursuit, but would like some provision included in the Act requiring that where action in excess of hot pursuit takes place, Parliament be summoned and informed. It is extremely difficult, as a public representative, to give the correct answers to people when armed conflict takes place. Everybody seems to imagine that because you have the letters MP after your name, you are the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence. That is the reason why we would like to have some provision for cases where we are forced into armed conflict to have Parliament called and not only in cases where full mobilization takes place. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West seemed a little concerned that we wish to define terrorism more clearly. I do not think that he need be concerned. We will propose an amendment in the Committee Stage and we can therefore debate the matter there. I believe that our amendment will be a good one and that he will find it acceptable. The questions of the moratorium and the determination of compensation will be dealt with later in this debate by our more erudite legal and financial representatives.

I want now to come to the hon. member for Rondebosch, and also the hon. Senator who has been writing letters to the Press, the hon. Senator Bamford. It would appear that in spite of the low-key manner in which the hon. member for Rondebosch approached this Bill, his party is opposed to doing away with the volunteer system. Certainly the hon. Senator was opposed, in the letters he wrote, to people under 21 years of age serving outside South Africa without their parents’ consent. That is exactly the same attitude as that of the HNP. People under 21 years of age may not serve outside South Africa’s borders without their parents’ consent. In this connection they quote section 22(6)(A)(a) and section 44(5)(A)(a) while forgetting the other provisions of those sections and the provisions of section 95, which provides clearly that a member of the Defence Force, without specifying his age, may volunteer. The volunteer system, particularly in the case of our border situation, is a totally impossible thing. You can have an army sitting on the border and being attacked from the other side, and before the generals can counter-attack they would have to run around and get everybody to sign that they are willing to volunteer to go over to the other side. I believe that is an impossible situation to ask anybody to be in. The hon. member for Rondebosch mentioned something which I find difficult to accept. He said that the situation in Angola was unique and unprecedented, but in the very next breath he refused to be a party to this Bill and asked for it to be referred to a Select Committee. He has admitted that the situation was unique and unprecedented. But this situation has certainly not ceased to exist. We are no longer involved in it, because we have withdrawn to our borders but the civil war in Angola still goes on. The Cuban and Russian incursion into Angola still goes on. The threat of those forces to use Angola as a spring-board from which to attack South West Africa and the Republic is still there. Is this not unique and unprecedented and as such does it not need unique and unprecedented legislation to deal with that situation. I believe that in his heart of hearts the hon. member for Yeoville agreed with us, and I shall be interested to hear what that hon. member has to say …

I hope you will be here when I speak.

… because I believe that his feelings are very similar to ours. The hon. member for Rondebosch said he preferred the ambiguity of the present Act where “South Africa” was not clearly defined. At the same time he wants the volunteer system. If South Africa is not clearly defined, and he quoted a case which occurred in one of the wars …

1919.

… 1919 … of somebody who was killed in East Africa, when this was interpreted by the courts that East Africa meant the Union of South Africa. My question is this: Unless you remove the limitation or clearly define “South Africa”, where do you volunteer to go and where do you start to volunteer? How can you want a vague definition and at the same time retain a voluntary system? I think this argument utterly destroys itself.

I believe that South Africa and southern Africa stand before times of great crisis. We will endeavour, while accepting the principles of this Bill, to assist in improving the quality of this legislation because we understand the need and the urgency for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Albany and we do seem to have very much in common. I have also listened to the hon. member for Rondebosch and I must say that we have very little in common.

He is unlikely to be with you.

This is a Bill which I feel, in broad principle, enjoys the unqualified support of all South Africans and people staying in South West Africa, because we all abhor and will fight terrorism in all its manifest variety and forms. It is my conviction that the approval of this amending Bill will achieve three objects: Firstly, it will indicate the will and the firm and unshakeable determination of our people to counter terrorism; the will to contest any attempt to dictate to our people their political future; the will to contest any attempt to disrupt the peaceful coexistence existing in South Africa and our evolution towards a community of nations based on the model of the free world wherein human dignity will reign supreme.

Secondly, it will indicate to the growing number of our friends in Africa that we of the Republic of South Africa and of South West Africa, we who have toiled with the sun of Africa beating down on our backs as we tilled the land, we who have been nourished by the soil of Africa from infancy and know no other fatherland, that we are against the enslavement of Africa by the new neo-colonialists of Russia and Cuba. Thirdly, it will underline the faith this country has in our Prime Minister and in our Minister of Defence, and it will demonstrate convincingly our agreement with their leadership in the immediate past, specifically as regards the action taken regarding détente and Angola.—Terrorism cannot be effectively combated unless all positive and possible steps are taken to do so; no half-measures will suffice.

*When we study this legislation, we must bear in mind the fact that we must take effective measures to combat terrorism. In order to do this we must look at the objectives of terrorism and analyse them.

It is clear—and this is my submission—that terrorism has three facets. In the first place there must be a source from which the violence which is inherent in terrorism can arise. In the second place this violence is directed against a specific victim or group of victims. In the third place this violence is aimed at provoking an emotional reaction from certain persons so that their resistance to the aggressor can be destroyed or at least watered down. Keeping these three aspects in mind, I would like to consider the amending Bill more closely.

Firstly, it is clear that there will be and already is a source of violence beyond our borders. It is a fact that 99% of the population of South Africa are satisfied and do not present themselves as a source of violence. For that reason we must take action against the terrorists, even beyond our borders, if this should be necessary. It must, however, be made clear—and it is clear, as the record of this Government clearly shows—that this involves no aggression whatsoever. We do not threaten any nations in the way that Zambia and Zaïre have already been threatened by other powers. However, I want to say that if a farmer has cattle and his neighbour’s cattle are destroyed by a leopard and her cubs, he should look to his own safety.

When we consider the victims of terrorism, we should understand one thing very clearly. That is that the victims of terrorism are not chosen according to race or colour. The whole question has nothing to do with racism; on the contrary, we know that there are Black people who have been made victims of terrorism by other Black people. For this reason we must identify our enemies very carefully. The Marxist ideology will always be forced upon an individual who opposes the ideology, whether he is Black, White, Yellow or Brown.

The third aspect is that an attempt is made to create an emotional condition, terror, on the part of the population, in order to bring about mistrust of the State and of the competency of the State to protect the population properly. There is another aspect to this. An attempt is made to establish the thought amongst certain people that one should not judge the aggressor harshly, so that one can have it both ways. If the aggressor should win, then one will not have antagonized him too much. There are people in this House who are trying to have it both ways and who were not even prepared to second the suggestion of the hon. the Prime Minister. They are not prepared to express their “grave concern at the communist aggression in Angola”. Are they taking out insurance in advance so that they will not be sought out by the barrel of a Marxist gun? They are not only not prepared to second the words of the hon. the Prime Minister; on the contrary, they vote against his motion. For instance, they do not agree that—

This Bill deals with precisely this part of the hon. the Prime Minister’s suggestion. What notice should we take of these people’s objections to the Defence Amendment Bill, if that is their attitude? I think that in the interests of South Africa we should ignore them.

Because there must be no hesitation in taking bona fide action in the interests of South Africa, it is necessary that clause 8 of the amending Bill be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. Anyone who has any idea of how a soldier operates will have no objections against clause 8. After all, terrorists often move about at night and a bullet may be deflected. It is possible for something of this kind to happen. The official Opposition has seen the matter in the right perspective and they agree with us on this aspect, and therefore I shall not enlarge on this any further.

Another aspect has also been mentioned. Objections are made and it is said that the competency and jurisdiction of the courts are being removed in terms of provisions in clause 8 and that everything is now being placed in the hands of the State President, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice. It is very clear that this side of the House has no lack of confidence in our courts. We have the fullest confidence in our courts of law. However, I want to add immediately that as a legal practitioner I do not have the same confidence in the extremely pink legal advisers who are often to be found in Johannesburg. It amazes one at times to see how these people abuse the process of cross-examination to elicit information which in actual fact is quite irrelevant. They are merely intent on supplying information to our enemies. The rules of cross-examination have not necessarily been made for wartime conditions. The object of the Supreme Court rules is that the hearing should take place in the calm atmosphere of peacetime, and the judge is bound by these rules. This is in fact so and therefore I am perfectly satisfied with this particular clause. Furthermore, although the jurisdiction of the courts will be excluded in certain respects, we do not want anyone to suffer financial losses unnecessarily. Therefore the idea of this compensation court is most important, and it has my support as well. The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke about the compensation board and said that one could not even be represented on it and that one went into it blindly. However, this is not so, for if one looks at subsection 9(b) of the new section 103quat, it is quite clear that no person shall be entitled to attend the proceedings of a compensation board or to appear or be represented before a compensation board, except—and the hon. member did not read this part—with the leave or at the request of such compensation board, or in compliance with a notice. It is quite clear that during the investigation of this compensation board, certain information may be revealed, which is exactly what we wish to prevent by the issuing of the certificate of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member now wants us to admit through the back door those people whom we stopped at the front door by means of issuing this certificate, so that these “pink” people may be given an opportunity in the compensation court to ask unnecessary questions in order to elicit information. I want to make it quite clear that I am not at all opposed to cross-examination. I am entirely in favour of people being legally represented, but when I am given a choice, my answer is that the safety of the State is the highest authority. I hope that I am making myself very clear. I see that an hon. member on the other side is writing enthusiastically. He will probably try to create the impression that I am against the courts of South Africa, but this is not so.

This Government, the National Party, does indeed realize that sophisticated weapons are necessary in waging a present-day war, that the training of our men must be intensive, that the morale must be high and that we must strike at the enemy as far and as tactically as possible, but we realize above all that a terrorist attack is the first phase of a process of violence which, via guerilla warfare, will eventually develop into conventional warfare. Therefore the House would be neglecting its duty if it did not immediately attack and destroy, with all the power at our disposal, this corner-stone—terrorism—which could lead to a conventional attack. A conventional war in the framework of Africa and in the framework of the policy of Russia and Cuba can be avoided, provided that one takes decisive and merciless action, hitting as hard as possible in this stage when it is still only a terrorist attack. There is a small group in this country—I exclude hon. members who are sitting here—and the name of the Herstigte Nasionale Party has been mentioned, who do not agree with this idea. It is the policy of the Herstigte Nasionale Party to send letters and telegrams to the M.P.S telling them to vote against this Bill, since they believe that we should not intervene in Angola, because they are too afraid. I want to mention that from my constituency, in which there are approximately 15 000 people, I received one letter and one telegram. I want to say that the HNP should look to see whether they are still with the people of South Africa. The HNP has never been with the people of South Africa, but honestly, it must be an indication to them of how the people feel. It is high time that the HNP changed their direction and also became patriotic in this respect.

What about a coalition between you and the HNP, Harry?

Yes, that is so; once again they are on the same side, together. We have no reason …

You tell them how close you were to joining the HNP.

Are you talking about me?

Yes, you!

I wonder how close that hon. member ever came to joining the United Party where he never was.

*With all the responsibility available to me I want to say that there is no reason for us to believe—I mention this to the Progressive Reform Party as well—that South Africa with its fantastic potential for raw materials, its sea route, its agricultural potential and its industrial power, should escape the attentions of Russia, and therefore I support this amending Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the tenor of the speeches that have been made in the House this afternoon, that we are all well aware of the seriousness and the urgency of the situation which is besetting South Africa. It is with great confidence that we on this side of the House support this Bill, except that we feel it does not go far enough. This country is wedded to the volunteer syndrome and the boundary syndrome as far as the Defence Act is concerned, and the sooner we break away from that the better. The time has come where we know that the whole of the country is involved in war and therefore we cannot waste our time arguing about this and that and other nice legalities. We on this side of the House are behind the Government in bringing forward this Bill and we are not in favour of a Select Committee whereby it would be further delayed. The men in the Army require it for their own good and for their own protection, just as we in South Africa require it for our protection and to help in keeping South Africa going. Both men and women—we must remember that we now have women in the Defence Force—could quite easily be called up. After all, nurses and other women’s auxiliary forces went up North in the last issue and they did a jolly good job in the front line. It was not as if they were in protected services. We shall have to protect those men and women, our sons and daughters, when they are called up to do their stint of duty. I repeat that I support this Bill. In modern warfare, with modern communications by land, sea and air, no boundaries are known and we cannot bind the South African Government or Defence Force to start calling for volunteers. I have my reservations about the volunteer system, because when we are totally involved in armed conflict or anything similar to that, we come to the question of manpower control, etc., and then there should be no question of volunteers. Because the moment you call for volunteers, you immediately have to start fiddling about with your manpower control in order to keep a balance of power in order to keep the economy going and at the same time to strengthen the sinews of war. [Interjections.] Sir, I maintain that if a man joins the armed services of South Africa, he must know that he is liable to serve in the interests of South Africa anywhere where there may be a threat to the security of South Africa. After all, we in the Republic of South Africa are not a world power; we are not a super power. It is therefore not likely that we will be involved across the oceans. We are an African power and we are very much concerned with what goes on here in Africa, and therefore we cannot bind ourselves to boundaries.

I support this Bill and in order to save time and to give the Senate a chance to get some work done, I will now sit down.

Mr. Speaker, when discussing this Amendment Bill, especially as far as two aspects are concerned, namely the prevention or suppression of any armed conflict outside the Republic which, in the opinion of the State President, is or may be a threat to the security of the Republic and, secondly, the definition of South Africa as “Africa south of the equator”, there should be no misunderstanding on what the attitude or actions of South Africa would be if its security were threatened and if this were to necessitate actions even far beyond its frontiers. I say there should be no misunderstanding on this issue, and here I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point, when he said that the employment of South Africa’s troops outside this area will only take place against international communism. But now I read in The Cape Times of 29 January that the hon. member for Rondebosch, the chief spokesman of the Progrefs on defence matters—I am sorry he is not present at the moment—adopts the standpoint that this Amendment Bill will create the impression of aggression among the hostile States of Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member says this is correct. Let us then make it clear to Africa that we have no aggressive aims with this Bill, and let me also inform the hon. member, even that hon. member who now has such a lot to say over there and apparently does not want a turn to speak, that those Africa States who judge the actions of others by their own, will certainly regard this Bill as an act of aggression; because what is there concerning South Africa that these people do not regard as aggression?

But one should also consider the background and the circumstances which led to this Amendment Bill which is now before this House. I want to allege that there is no circumstance, that there is nothing in the policy of South Africa which is or could be the cause for violent conflict between the various States of Africa. And this brings me back to the hon. member for Rondebosch, who insinuated with his remarks that there should be a specific change in the internal situation, a different attitude between peoples, if we want them to support this Bill. With reference to his remark that this Bill will be regarded as a deed of aggression by hostile States in Africa, I also want to ask him whether he is not interested in what the attitude of the friendly States in Africa is, especially in view of what our hon. Minister of Defence, and even the Prime Minister, also said, i.e. that if any of these friendly and non-communist States in Africa were to be threatened and they were to request assistance from our Government, that assistance will be considered on its merits. This, then, is South Africa’s answer as to the reason for this Bill. Our attitude and actions should be assured regarding the threat against us, but our friends should also be assured of what our actions will be if they are threatened.

I say we should also consider the background and the events in Africa which make this Bill essential. I am certain that no threat exists in Africa, other than the communist threat, that could give rise to conflicts between the various States. South Africa is part of Africa. Our domestic policy is not the reason for there having to be confrontation and clashes between the independent States and nations of Africa. Indeed, our policy is in fact the guarantee that various nations can coexist peacefully in Africa. Show me a single coup d’état or any civil war or a single cold-blooded murder of a national leader in Southern Africa, or in the whole of Africa, that was the result of South Africa’s policy of separate development, or that was initiated by South Africa’s policy. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister said repeatedly that we have no territorial claims in Africa. We are there only to guarantee and safeguard that which is our own. The hon. member for Rondebosch used long words to stress the alleged unnecessariness of this Bill if we would only make certain adjustments in South Africa, but I want to tell him that the Russian interest in and penetration into Africa, is not simply a whim or a phenomenon of the moment. It is, indeed, a carefully planned strategy under a long-term policy the object of which is world domination. The communists realized long ago what the potential is of this mighty continent, with its population of almost 300 million people, as trading, military and ideological partners. The object of Russian intervention in Africa is to extend its sphere of influence here so that it can establish these partnerships, even if it is by the subjugation of various nations. This is, after all, not something which has just started; it started a long time ago, as is proved by the history of the Congo.

When the bloody struggle against the Portuguese was commenced by Frelimo 12 years ago, and at the same time by a number of freedom organizations in Angola, which are today embroiled in a bloody civil war, they were already playing that role. And this communist-inspired struggle in Africa against which our troops will possibly have to take action in the future, increased in magnitude and intensity after the termination of the war in Vietnam as the war material which became a surplus and redundant there found its way to the terrorists in Africa, against whom we shall also have to take action in due course. But over and above this potential of Africa as trading, military and ideological partners, Africa also occupies an extremely important strategic position in respect of air and seaborne traffic, if a number of points in Africa can be successfully controlled, which will result in the face of the whole world being changed dramatically. Let me tell you, Sir, that Russia did not discover this now, suddenly, after the Portuguese had left Angola and Mozambique; they have known this for a long time, and prepared themselves a long time ago for these deeds they are at present occupying themselves with in Africa.

I should like to urge the hon. member to deal more specifically with the Bill before this House in his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I am giving you the background which will in all probability make it essential for us in future to take action beyond our borders, and this is why I am trying to find justification for the definition of the borders within which our troops have to operate. The hon. member for Durban Point adopted a certain standpoint in regard to the definition of “Africa south of the equator”. I have no quarrel with him about where the border should be within which our soldiers should operate.

This same strategic importance of Africa is consequently the reason for Russia’s particular interest, for example, in Somalia. Of greater importance, however, is that it is able to cut off the sea routes and therefore the oil supplies of the entire world from there.

[Inaudible.]

No, not at all. I am in the process of telling the hon. member that the communists are not interested only in Angola. This is a long-term policy which has been carefully planned and the steps which Russia is taking to reach South Africa have already been planned over a long period. That is why I am also referring, inter alia, to Somalia.

Of even greater importance and strategic value are Mozambique on the Indian Ocean and Angola on the Atlantic Ocean. Over and above the influence which Russia is able to exercise from these two points over the two important oceans of the world, it is also able to cast its shadow from thence over the whole of Southern Africa, especially because South Africa is in this particular position that its stable and economically viable Government forms the basis for the maintenance of the balance of power here at the southernmost point of Africa between the two most important oceans of the world, namely the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. It is Russia’s aim that this power base should be destroyed.

Russia’s presence in Angola is not the result of our policy of separate development, as the hon. member for Rondebosch wanted to suggest. No, it is Russia’s desire for world domination, an ideology which was formulated more than a generation before the term “apartheid” met with a response throughout the world. Russia’s and Cuba’s presence in Angola has nothing to do with the fact that we are defending our border interests there. No, this is simply the cloak under which it is trying to justify its military intervention in Africa. The statement which I just made is proved by the fact that the Africa states have now split from top to bottom for the first time in the 12 years of the existence of the OAU, and of bitter fulmination against South Africa. Why did a split occur? It did not occur because of colour or racism, which was usually associated with South Africa. No, they split on communism. The intervention of Russia in Angola is the main reason for the split of the African states. In that a very important fact is revealed for South Africa. Two very distinct, distinguishable blocs have developed in Africa, namely a pro-communist bloc and an anti-communist bloc. This division has already been intensified by the accession to power in Mozambique of the outspoken pro-communist, Samora Machel of Frelimo. This is consequently the reason why the MPLA was recognized as the legal government in Angola by a number of African states and communist countries. It is not a matter of South Africa’s involvement as hon. members want to suggest so casually and generally. The slavish obligation to recognize a communist government in Angola existed long before South Africa was mentioned, because the world problem with international communism is that where it has taken root as an ideology, it refuses to let go. Its essence and aspiration is to imperialistic conquest of the whole world, towards the subjugation of the whole world. It is interesting and striking that of all countries, with the exclusion of South Africa, it is China that repeatedly warned against the dangers of Russian imperialism which does not have an eye only on Angola or the Continent of Africa with a view to subjugation, but eye on global conquest.

With this real closeness of the communists to our borders and this real threat, South Africa has no other choice than to live in the present time with its realities and to prepare for the future in a purposeful and meaningful manner.

This Amendment Bill, which is before this House today, is one of the ways in which South Africa is preparing itself purposefully and meaningfully for the future. The fact that we will in all probability have to deal with this communist threat on a larger scale in the future is sufficient reason for me to give my ready support to this Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the debate so far here has been a somewhat wide-ranging one, particularly as demonstrated by the hon. member who has just sat down. He seems to have forgotten that what we are really discussing, is an amendment to the Defence Bill. Several other speakers, too, have ranged somewhat far, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, in particular, decided that he would come back to the Monroe Doctrine.

Tell us about your black-out!

I shall come to that. Just be patient, old man, and relax. I just want to get the situation quite clear as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned. I have been pleading for a Monroe type doctrine for Africa, not for just a short while, but for many years. The basic concept of it is that the affairs of Africa should be decided by Africans, whether they are White or Black, and that the major powers or super powers be kept out of Africa with their arms so as not to create spheres of influence here. If this had been done in Africa years ago, we would now have had a situation in terms of which the OAU could well have met and said they did not want Cuba and Russia to intervene because this goes contrary to such a doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine does not involve sending armies all over Africa, as the hon. member for Pretoria West seemed to suggest. For his benefit, I want to read to him a short passage to demonstrate what the Monroe Doctrine is. I quote—

I take it he agrees with that as far as Africa is concerned—

Those are the three principles which were originally laid down, and the fourth one, which only came into existence many years later, in 1869, was that the United States opposed the transfer of any existing European colonies from one European sovereign to another. The concept of other powers keeping out of Africa, and leaving the affairs of Africa to Africans, is one which I do not believe anyone in this House disagrees with.

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

No, I shall deal with you later. I want to come back specifically to some of the provisions of this Bill. The hon. member for Rondebosch has asked that this particular measure go to a Select Committee, and I think one could motivate this case in a number of ways.

I should like to start with the provisions of the Moratorium Act, which it is sought to amend here. I venture to suggest that the hon. the Minister will agree with me—the hon. member for Durban Point certainly agrees with me—that this particular measure does not go far enough. I could give other examples, over and beyond those given by the hon. member for Durban Point, in relation to this particular matter, for example the issue of forfeiture provisions and their existence and implementation after the moratorium period. There is also the question of the accumulation of debt which, in fact, arises when, after the period of the Act, one has to pay the whole amount. So one could go on and suggest that the Moratorium Act amendments, which are contained here, in fact do not go far enough. Much more is required. In exactly the same way clause 9, which deals with the disablement of soldiers, can be mentioned. I venture to suggest—I know that there are ex-service organizations which have the same view—that the present provisions in respect of pensions, disablement and many related matters are utterly out of date and need substantial amendment.

But that has nothing to do with the Bill.

These are all matters which can be introduced into this piece of legislation if you want to because you can in fact broaden it if you do not accept the Second Reading of the Bill and refer it to a Select Committee. In the same way as you can amend the Moratorium Act in the Defence Amendment Bill, so you can deal with all of these matters. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that there are in fact, sitting around here on the benches of this House, members on all sides who have considerable experience of these matters, who know what the problems are and who can make very substantial contributions in a Select Committee to this particular matter. Even on these grounds, which are not grounds which are in dispute, one can make out a very substantial case for a Select Committee.

Let me deal with the indemnity provisions. Again, when debate takes place, there are distortions as to what our attitude is. We in these benches recognize that in certain circumstances it is not in the national interest to have litigation about matters which may affect the national interest. We accept that; we do not dispute that and we do not argue with that principle. We also accept that you must compensate. However, what many of the members sitting in these benches I think are known for is that we do not believe that you must in fact create machinery which is of such a nature that fundamental principles of the rule of law are ignored. Whereas we shall support the hon. the Minister in the principle that there must be machinery, we believe that there must be machinery which in fact gives a man a fair chance to put his case. There cannot be a fair case when a man has no right to lead evidence. There cannot be a fair case when he has no right to have his case argued on his behalf. Under these circumstances there cannot be justice done and this is not what is necessary to safeguard the security of the State. We shall move detailed amendments which will not in fact embarrass the hon. the Minister in so far as national security is concerned but will see to it that in fact justice is done.

Let me put another point to the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether he has considered it. In this particular provision he has sought to take both crime and civil remedy away from the courts. Has he had a look at the provisions of the schedule to the Military Disciplinary Code and the other provisions of the Act in order to see whether crime can then be adequately punished by the military courts? I do not think he has because if one examines it, it is clear that once you take this away from the courts there is not an adequate remedy to take its place. I believe that the hon. the Minister does not want to have crimes go unpunished, and that the purpose of this legislation is not to have crimes go unpunished, but to protect purely the security of the State and the national interest in circumstances when it may not be in the interest of the State as such that a matter be heard in open court. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it is fundamental that a subject of the State has a remedy, has the right to be heard, has a right to lead evidence, has a right to cross-examine and has a right to argue his own case. The hon. the Minister has a duty to see that these fundamental rights are observed when he seeks to take matters away from the courts in circumstances such as these.

Let me deal with another matter which I think is perhaps the most important part of this debate. We find in this particular debate again the endeavour to use the tactic of the smear. Make no mistake; it comes from both the left and the right here; it comes from both sides.

If the cap fits, wear it.

I think there is no better example than that hon. gentleman who was almost in the HNP, but whose ambitions overtook him so that he then decided that he would rather remain in the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.] I should like to get a few things quite straight. We in these benches believe that there is a communist threat, that there is a threat from Russian imperialism. We accept that and we know that that threat has to be met and fought.

Why did you then not vote for the amendment last Friday?

We also believe that there is a threat from terrorism and we are opposed to terrorism. We are also opposed to aggression upon our country. However, what we object to is some of the little games that are being played here, for example, the game that was played in this House on Friday … [Interjections.] It is time now to ask ourselves whether in fact it is in the national interest for the hon. the Prime Minister to indulge in a little game with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so that he does not have people walking across the floor and embarrassing him at this moment of time …

What about you? [Interjections.]

Tell us how you would deal with communism in South Africa.

You talk about communism, my friend. You know that long before you ever heard about politics, I was opposed to communism and long before it became fashionable …

Tell us about … [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. members want to serve the national interest, then they will have to ask themselves whether in fact these games which are being played here are in the interest of the defence of South Africa. I want to say here and now, so that there is no misunderstanding between us, that I believe that the heads of the army and all our forces are tremendously concerned that there should not be political division in the army because that is not in the interests of South Africa. I do not believe that any terrorist is going to ask whether the bullet that he fires is going to hit a member of the Nationalist Party, a member of the United Party, a member of the PRP or, for that matter, a member of the HNP, the party to which that hon. member almost belonged. When you start sowing this suspicion about loyalty, you must remember that there are the sons of members of the PRP and there are members of the PRP who serve in the army and the other forces. [Interjections.] Those people who talk here and seek to destroy in fact the loyalty that exists …

[Inaudible.]

I include you in that. I say those people who seek to destroy that loyalty are doing a disservice to the army, the navy and the air force of South Africa. This is what is being done here at the moment.

You are the biggest disservice to the country.

I do not think I want to waste even a moment of time on that gentleman sitting on the back-bench there. What is being done here is the issue I think this House has to consider today.

However, I want to refer to another matter. Is it in the interests of South Africa when doubts are cast on the loyalty of the leader of this party in respect of information? Is that in the interests of South Africa? What do hon. members think people belonging to the PRP are going to think about this when they are participating in the defence of South Africa? [Interjections.] Is this in the interests of South Africa? I want to say that I believe that, whereas the hon. the Minister—he can reply to this—may differ very substantially from us who sit in these benches, I do not believe that the hon. the Minister of Defence would like to have political issues, which affect his forces, raised in this House. I do not think it is in the interests of South Africa that such sowing of dissension should take place. I believe that that amounts to sabotage of the worst kind.

Let me deal with some other matters specifically concerned with this Bill. As I have indicated, the Bill deals with a number of principles and I should like to come back again to the issue of the defence of South Africa. We in these benches believe the Republic must be defended, that terrorism must be stamped out and also that the people of South Africa must serve to achieve these ends. Let me go further: I believe that not only White citizens must defend South Africa, but that all citizens, irrespective of their colour, should defend South Africa and should have a feeling that they have something to defend in South Africa. In as far as South Africa is to be defended and terrorism is to be stamped out, we accept that there should be conscription. We also accept that in particular circumstances—here one has to tread warily because these are international political issues—there may have to be hot pursuit. The examples that were given in this regard, viz. that you obviously cannot ask for the consent of the people as you are crossing a river or a border, speak for themselves and do not need to be mentioned again. Therefore, the fact that the concept of hot pursuit is included, is something we obviously accept. However, as I have said, one has to handle this very carefully and very diplomatically; there will not always be hot pursuit because sometimes the interests of South Africa, internationally, may require a political decision rather than a military one. We also accept that there may have to be anticipatory action taken in certain circumstances and that, therefore, the power may have to be given to make this possible. I think one must be in a position to prevent attack. In a war retaliatory action may also be required. One cannot, when under attack, suddenly say: “Here is the border; this is where we stop.” One accepts that in all such instances and under such circumstances there can be conscription. There already is a definition in the Act which deals with the defence of South Africa and which also deals with a situation which hon. members opposite appear to be overlooking, as there is already provision in the Act for us to come to the assistance of other States with which we have agreements.

So much for the question of where one should be defending South Africa and where one should be conscripted in order to defend South Africa. I think we also have to make it clear that we as a country have no territorial ambitions in Africa. I am speaking of Africa as a whole and not only of Southern Africa in that context. What worries one—here, again, one must tread delicately—is that one must not create the impression that the Act is being amended in order to enable us to expand. I am satisfied that the hon. the Minister, the Government and the Nationalist Party, have no territorial ambitions but make no mistake, this sort of thing can be exploited by enemies of South Africa and one would not wish to see it being so exploited. What happens when one wants to go on a military expedition elsewhere? Should one then use people who have been conscripted, or should one then use volunteers or the professional army? We in these benches believe that in the case of such ventures, volunteers or the professional army should be used. We do not believe, however, that the Defence Department or the Army should be hamstrung. For that reason I want to indicate to the hon. the Minister that we have also drafted a definition of “South Africa”. Perhaps I should read it at this point so that the hon. the Minister can consider it. We would move for the deletion of the words “south of the equator” in the definition and substitute the words—

We think that that will cover the situation and will give all the scope that may be required. There are many relevant examples, even after the Second World War. It was volunteers who took part in the Berlin airlift and it was volunteers who went to Korea. We believe—I regret to say I cannot agree with the hon. member for Durban Point—that there cannot now be conscription to serve anywhere in the world. We believe that, where the defence of South Africa is concerned, you will have no difficulty in uniting your people, but we also believe that, when it comes to going outside South Africa, i.e. beyond the limits I have indicated here as the limits required for the defence of our country, volunteers should be used. This is how we view this matter. We believe that this is practical and realistic. We believe that in these sorts of conditions there will be almost unanimous agreement on this point. I do not think there will be any disagreement on the proposed amendment which I have suggested. Some people, such as the hon. member for Durban Point, may want to go further—the hon. the Minister wants to go to the equator—but in our view it is reasonable that conscripts are used within these limits and that, beyond the limits, volunteers and professional soldiers should be used.

There is a final matter with which I want to conclude. I think that the fact that the patriotism of people is queried in this House, is a disservice to South Africa and a disservice to the armed forces. I think it can only harm South Africa. I believe that what is required, in this type of debate, is an entirely different spirit. A while ago I was challenged by the hon. member for Rustenburg, who has disappeared since, to express my attitude towards the motion put by the hon. the Prime Minister on Friday. I want to say here and now—the hon. member for Rondebosch said the same thing—that the hon. the Prime Minister has no quarrel with us on that point. Let me say in what respect we do have a quarrel with him. What worries me and is perhaps the reason why I tore my heart out while I sat in these benches, is that I have to find myself in a situation where I believe in something, but know it to be a game and a trick that is being played in a way to embarrass us. [Interjections.] I make no excuse for the fact that when there is something that I believe to be right, I may feel hurt that I cannot vote for it. The hon. member for Rondebosch has the same view and I think the members sitting in these benches all have that view. If you want to move a motion …

The name of the game … [Interjections.]

Yes, to that hon. gentleman the whole thing is a game. He can be anywhere and argue anything because he is an eloquent orator, but he does not speak from his heart; he speaks with his mouth. [Interjections.] That is the tragedy he has. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Defence that, if he wants to test the situation, let him move a motion separately so that he can see whether in fact we are in agreement on these issues. Let him do that instead of indulging in political games that are designed to cause embarrassment. That, with respect, is the way in which one can bring about unity in South Africa and have your people united behind you in the defence of South Africa. We find ourselves in the situation that, despite being called people who want to play with communists by an hon. member on that side and despite being tarnished with a red brush by that un …—I was going to say something unparliamentary—by the hon. member for Umhlanga, we have to show that we are prepared to participate in the defence of South Africa and that is not in the interests of the Defence Force or of our people.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate, which has probably brought a greater measure of unanimity into this House than other debates we have had, a few astonishing statements were nevertheless made. While we were discussing military matters, I gained the impression that the hon. member for Yeoville was trying very hard to throw up smoke-screens in this House this afternoon.

The hon. member for Yeoville agrees with us about the communist threat, and I shall be glad if he will listen now. He agrees with us about the communist threat, but the other day when he had to vote on an amendment to this effect, he, together with his party, voted against it. Now he calls it a political game. I am wondering now whether it was also a political game last year when he left the United Party on a similar motion. Could it have been a game on his part or on the part of the Government?

Then he was caught for a sucker.

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Yeoville is throwing up smoke screens this afternoon to hide his own embarrassment and that of his party. He refers to the embarrassment of the Opposition and of the Leader of the Opposition as a result of an amendment moved by the Prime Minister, while it was quite clear to everyone in this House where the embarrassment was when the amendment was put to the vote on Friday. Without any doubt, it was the hon. member for Yeoville in particular who was embarrassed.

He referred to the question of patriotism and spoke about people who impair the loyalty of the Army. At the same time his party and he himself are the only people who differ sharply from the Government and from the rest of this House on the introduction of a very essential Bill such as this one. Now, who is trying to cause division and foment dissension? I should like to know that from him.

The hon. member for Rondebosch said in this House today that terrorism actually represents or show up disease symptoms in a community. I should like to know from the hon. members for Yeoville and Houghton whether they agree with this statement: Do you agree that terrorism represents disease symptoms in a community or in national life? Mr. Speaker, they do not want to answer. I think they probably realize what is coming. I should also like to know whether the disease symptoms are characteristic of the Israeli community, which is also subject to terrorist attacks over an even far longer period than South Africa. I should like to know this from the hon. members for Houghton and Yeoville and from their party.

Do you agree, Dave?

Smoke screens such as I have seldom seen were thrown up here this afternoon, but some glimmers of truth have shone very strongly through those smoke screens. Therefore, I can understand very well the embarrassment and the concern of the hon. member for Yeoville at what those belonging to his party must think about the questioning of their leader’s secrecy. I can understand very well that it means a problem for and an embarrassment to him.

However, I leave the matter at that because I want to go further. We are dealing here with legislation which has most decidedly become very essential under our particular circumstances. The legislation provides our Defence Force with the protection it needs to take action against terrorist activities and internal riots. It is a good thing that this protection is being given to our men, because they will otherwise hesitate to take action when they have to and we know that our enemies will not hesitate to hit back. The legislation also protects the public, and it is a good thing that this is so. Particularly when it comes to the combating of terrorism in any operation area, it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between terrorists and non-terrorists. For that reason it is a good thing that the legislation also protects the general public. The Bill also provides greater flexibility to the powers of the Minister of Defence than existed before to call up people for military service. This is a good thing, too, because it is a fact that energetic, quick and prepared action, particularly in view of the combating of terrorism, is of the utmost importance. It is essential and it is a good thing that the Minister receives those powers, which enables him to take the most energetic and rapid action and to offer resistance.

Finally, the Bill also extends our operational area in great measure. I want to add immediately that I am sympathetic towards the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Durban Point. He is of the opinion that the operational area should not be subject to any restrictions whatsoever. In the world in which we are living today and under the particular circumstances in which South Africa finds itself, it has become necessary that there should be no restrictions on the movements or on the operational area of the South African Defence Force. We have a task to fulfil in Southern Africa, and even in Africa, and for that reason it is a good thing that this Bill has been introduced to enable us to fulfill that task well. With the disappearance of colonial powers from Africa, South Africa has become the natural leader in Africa, particularly in view of its technological—scientific superiority or knowledge.

Let us pause for a moment and consider the lessons we can learn from history. In the first place, it is a fact that numbers may sometimes be of a decisive nature, but it is equally true that small nations have made indelible impressions on the world scene in the past. We are one of those small nations. On the other hand, history teaches us that every significant civilization in the past, on every continent, had to be backed, supported and protected by military power. It is also a fact that one can say without fear of contradiction that the Republic of South Africa represents the only significant civilization on the continent of Africa. For that reason we are subject to what I shall call this basic truth, i.e. that any significant civilization on every continent had to be supported and protected by military power in the past.

This Government has appreciated this truth well in time and has, at an increasing rate, always tried to render and maintain South Africa’s preparedness as effectively as possible. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that, at the moment, South Africa is as prepared as before never in history in time of peace.

I also want to tell you that it is with pride that we take notice of the fact that the morale of the men of the South African Defence Force is as high as it can possibly be, that our standard of training is the highest in the world, that it compares favourably with that of any country in the free world, and that it even compares favourably with the standard of training of the strongly motivated Israeli defence force, which is generally regarded as the most prepared and best motivated nation in the world today. We have had evidence in this regard from people who became closely acquainted with the activities of our men on the border. I personally have gathered evidence on that score—not in the operational area, but in a training area—when I visited my former regiment recently and found that these people are motivated in such a way now that, while they were sometimes bored in the past, these men are now doing everything possible to carry out their operations as realistically as possible, and in the finest detail.

As a matter of fact, the standard of training and the morale of men in any defence force are subject to inter-action. If a person enjoys a high standard of training, it tends to enhance his morale. On the other hand, a person with a high morale is able to achieve a higher standard of training than men who are not motivated. I think it can be accepted without any doubt that the men of the South African Defence Force have already shown their mettle in Angola. Therefore, it is a fact that the hon. the Prime Minister could quite rightly and with acclaim say: “Think the Lord, the people of South Africa are prepared to fulfil and are capable of fulfilling their task in Africa.”

What is their task in Africa which this Bill in particular enables them to fulfil? Linked up with this thought of being the only significant civilization on the continent of Africa, there is another historic fact we should like to dwell on for a moment, i.e. that the continents of Asia, Europe and America were the bearers of the standard of civilization of the world in different times and under different nationalities. And the day when it is Africa’s turn it will automatically be the case that the Republic of South Africa will have to fulfil that task as the only significant civilization on the continent of Africa. I want to say that the day is not far off when this will in fact happen. I also want to say, and I do not say this in an unkindly spirit, that the leading country of the West, America, has failed in the task of leading the West against the surging and evidently unstoppable imperialism of Russian Communism. It is a fact that the free world, i.e. the West and, together with them, America has retreated reluctantly before Russian imperialism over the past decades. The hon. the Prime Minister said quite rightly that we had learned one lesson from Angola—that when the worst comes to the worst, we shall stand alone in Africa. I am sympathetic towards the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville that Africa should solve its own problems. This is also the standpoint of this side of the House, and it is also the standpoint of Africa as a whole.

After all, we have had evidence that, after the outstanding performance of our men in Angola, Africa has greater respect for South Africa. Surely, it is also a fact that Africa is already splitting into a non-communist and a communist bloc as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Parys with great dignity some time ago. It is a fact that we find ourselves on the eve of an era in which South Africa will probably have to assume the leadership of the non-communist bloc in Africa to keep communist imperialism, particularly Russian imperialism, out of Africa. It may be our responsibility to help Africa to escape from the strangle-hold Russia is trying to apply to it. For that reason we need this Bill and everything it implies to enable us to fulfil this task. I should like to support this Bill with acclaim.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Sasolburg will excuse me if I do not follow him directly as he has dealt more with the broad assessment of our country’s responsibilities in Africa than with the Bill that is before the House. Before I attend to the Bill as such I have a few questions which I would like to direct towards the hon. member for Yeoville. I think he said in his speech that the Prime Minister played a game at the end of the No-confidence Debate this year and that he played the same game at the end of the No-confidence Debate last year. If that is so, I would like to ask him why he fell for this game last year.

Did you hear your leader say on Friday that this was different from last year? Must I also vote …

That is no answer to my question. I think the answer is quite clear that the hon. member did fall for the game last year. There is a second question I want to put to the hon. member. He stated that the reason why the Leader of the United Party accepted the amendment as being in order was to prevent the United Party from crossing the floor. If that were so, why did his party not call for a division?

I did not say that at all. What I said was that it was to prevent some of your members from …

The answer is clear. The hon. member has no answer as to why his party did not call for a division if he wanted to prove that. I will tell him why his party did not call for a division. It is because there was division amongst themselves. They dared not call for a division. The final question I want to put to the hon. member for Yeoville is this: His leader raised a point of order against the Prime Minister that the amendment was irrelevant to the no-confidence motion moved by my leader. If his party considered that the amendment of the Prime Minister was irrelevant, why then did they not vote for it?

[Inaudible.]

I can tell you that the reason why they did not vote for it was that some would have voted for it and some would not have voted for it. [Interjections.] To get down to the Bill itself, there are certain aspects of the Bill which are a cause of concern to us. Basically we have three objections. Firstly, we object to the drawing of a line regarding service and the definition of “South Africa” itself. Secondly, we have certain objections in regard to the indemnity and the compensation board clauses. Thirdly, we have certain objections to service being considered as being in order to prevent armed conflict outside the Republic. I want to elaborate on some of these objections which have been mentioned in passing by the hon. member for Durban Point. First of all, I would like to deal with the indemnity clause. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions in regard to this particular clause. The purpose of these questions is to clarify the particular points before we go into Committee. In subsection (2) of the proposed new section 103ter the words “or done in good faith” are used in the English text. To me these words are disjunctive in relation to the words which precede them, namely the words “advised, commanded, ordered, directed”. If that is so, the English text will read as follows—

In other words, the whole question of being advised, commanded, ordered or directed is taken out of the context of the subsection itself. If one looks at the Afrikaans text, it seems as if it does not indicate the same thing. I believe that there is a mistake and it is very important that we should know whether there is a mistake or not. If the words “any act done in good faith” are taken in isolation, it would mean that it would cover a far broader field than using it conjunctively with the words “advised, commanded, ordered, directed”. I believe that before we go into the Committee Stage and before we vote on the Second Reading of the Bill, we should know from the hon. the Minister whether that is his intention or whether there is a mistake in the English text. We believe that even if there is a mistake and a test has to be carried out as to whether an act was done in good faith—these words will still remain there—then in terms of subsection (5) of the proposed new section 103ter, the test has to be applied by the State President We believe that this is wrong.

Are you referring to subsection (2)?

I am referring to subsection (2) of section 103ter which is added by clause 8 of the Bill.

I shall now deal with the basic test to find out whether an act was done in good faith or not. In terms of subsection (5)—the hon. the Minister will follow me if he looks at subsection (5)—this test is to be carried out by the State President. We believe that this is wrong because, in view of the arbitrary nature of a test of good faith, the presence or absence of good faith should be considered by some person who is schooled in the impartiality of the law. The people of South Africa should see that the impartiality of the law is in fact being applied in this test. We would suggest that such a person could be an attorney-general, for instance, as he has by the nature of his office, training and background, an eminent suitability to bring about a just finding as to a test of whether an act was done in good faith. We believe that the proposed sections 103ter and 103qual contain drastic provisions. I would refer the House to subsection (7)(a) of section 103ter which provides—

This in itself is an immensely drastic provision. It is the substitution of a quasi-judicial procedure for the normal legal process for obtaining retribution for loss. This in fact applies a form of total moratorium for service personnel with regard to normally accepted contraventions of our civil and criminal law. We accept, however, that there is a need for such a form of legislation under the present circumstances prevailing in the South African situation. An eminent South African jurist as long ago as 1915 said the following with regard to martial law—

I believe that under our present circumstances in South Africa it is not possible to apply martial law but that this type of operation that we are now discussing today is in fact on very similar bases. This Bill is not temporary like martial law. This Bill is going to be incorporated into our Defence Act and will remain as a permanency. Therefore, we must examine the principles extremely carefully. We must call for the greatest measure of objectivity as possible, and for all reasonable precautions to be taken to see that the objects of the Bill are examined during its operation and that it follows as nearly as possible a court process basis. In this regard I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Is there any similar provision anywhere which applies to service in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder? I believe that these provisions of section 103ter and quat only apply in respect of the suppression of terrorism. But there does not seem to be any provision anywhere which applies in respect of the prevention or suppression of internal disorder. If this is not so and if there are no other provisions applying for that form of service in the defence of the Republic, could the hon. the Minister please explain to this House why.

With regard to the Compensation Board we agree broadly with the institution of such a board. We are unable to accept, however, that the Minister of Defence sets up this board. We suggest that the hon. the Minister of Justice should do this, not because we have much confidence in him or that we believe he is better than the hon. the Minister of Defence. We also have little confidence in the latter Minister and I shall tell him why this is so. This is because he admitted in his Second Reading speech here this afternoon that he himself has little faith in the change in the Bill which draws a hypothetical line along the equator. How can we have faith in a Defence Minister who comes forward with a Bill and then says he has got little faith in it?

Nought degrees.

Nought degrees. No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid he has to accept the fact that we have little faith in him.

Minus.

To get back to my point, let me say we believe that the Minister of Justice is the best man for this particular function of appointing a board. After all, the board is a quasi-judicial board and his function is in a judicial field and we believe that he is more qualified to put together a board than the hon. the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Speaker, we also do not like the procedures laid down in terms of subsection 5 of the new section 103quat. We believe that there should be continuity. The wording of the Bill indicates that there will from time to time be different boards appointed. On each occasion the chairman of that particular board is entitled in terms of subsection 5 of 103quat to define what form of procedures he is going to operate under. We believe that this is wrong, that there should be some form of certainty in the minds of the people as to what procedures are going to be followed and that there should be some form of continuity between each board as it is composed so that they know that they will have certain rules and procedures which they will have to follow. We would suggest, that the hon. the Minister of Justice should by regulation set up a standard form of regulations so that the compensation boards could follow those regulations. There are also precedence for compensation boards with regard to similar types of regulations. As the hon. member of Durban Point has mentioned, we cannot accept subsection 9(b). This subsection is totally unacceptable to us. I think the hon. the Minister will know why I think that he actually knows that it is unacceptable to us. We do not believe it is right that a claimant—not a member of the force, but a claimant—cannot attend a court hearing as of right. It is wrong that he should not be allowed to make verbal representations and to question witnesses or to have legal representation there. As I have said previously, these are drastic measures and we should try to follow normal legal procedures as far as possible. I do not believe that if our suggestion is carried into operation, it will detrimentally affect the Defence Force. The claimant by the nature of things in terms of this proposed Compensation Board will usually be a member of the public and not a member of the Defence Force.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the drawing of a line, the line of the equator suggested in clause 1 of the Bill. No line can be drawn. I agree that as the Act stands at present it is impossible legally to define South Africa as used in terms of section 95 of the Act. Section 95 of the Act inter alia reads as follows—

Obviously we have a void here. The words “South Africa,” if not defined in the Act, has really no true meaning. Section 95 deals with the territorial restrictions on the employment of defence forces in times of war. The principle of territorial restriction is vital for a discussion as to the identification of what in fact is South Africa. Either we leave the Act as it stands at present or we try and draw lines, or we delete section 95 altogether. If we leave the Act as it stands now it becomes completely meaningless. South Africa is not defined. If we try and draw lines we are in a hopeless situation. Does the hon. the Minister know where the equator goes? It runs right through the centre of Zaïre. I wonder if anybody knows exactly where the equator is.

It goes through the bar of the White Rhino Hotel.

Yes, it goes through the bar of the White Rhino Hotel. I do not know whether it is on the far side of the counter or this side of it. We are always going to have problems with the drawing of lines. If we were to knock out section 95 of the Act, and have no provision in the Act at all for territorial restrictions, our Defence Forces will be subject to service anywhere in defence of the country in which they live and to which they owe their loyalty. I cannot conceive, in this day and age, of any defence force, in this rapidly constricting world of ours, which would hamstring its operations in such an anachronistic manner as we do in this country. I put it to members of this House that if they were military commanders, with the intent of utilizing their forces to the maximum of their ability, would they like to have placed on them a restriction like this, i.e. that at any time they would not know how many forces they would have at their disposal?

I believe that this is a terrible situation. The only answer lies in removing this historical albatross from around our necks. We should remedy the situation now and not wait for another day before doing so.

The proposal of the extension of the definition of “service in defence of the Republic for the prevention or suppression of armed conflict outside the Republic” is also an extremely drastic and far-reaching measure. The use of our forces, in such a form of operation, can obviously be done without the necessity for a general mobilization. It is only in terms of a general mobilization that Parliament can be called together in order to discuss the action taken by the Government of the day. We will agree with this measure if it is passed, but only on condition that it must also be subject to the same principles of a general mobilization, in other words that the Parliament of South Africa should be informed and should be afforded the opportunity of discussing the decision of the Government to take steps in terms of this new definition of service in the defence of our country. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister what his views are on the question of convening Parliament if, particularly, we have no territorial restrictions on the use of our forces, as we have suggested, and we accept that the extended definition of service in the defence of the Republic be added to the Act.

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the hon. member for East London City, who has just resumed his seat, was aimed more at putting certain questions to the hon. the Minister. I am therefore not going to react at length to what he said. However, as far as the defining of frontiers is concerned, where we are dealing with the definition of South Africa, I tend to agree with the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for East London City. My personal opinion is that it would be better for us rather to begin omitting mention of the borders when issues such as the one we are dealing with at present, are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, the world has become very small in this century of speed we are living in. It is clear that we no longer fight wars on horseback and that cannons are no longer drawn by horses. That is why it is essential that we take this fully into account when we are dealing with the defence of our country and that we should not decide to limit ourselves to a defined area, namely South Africa. However, I know that this aspect will be dealt with in the next stage of the Bill.

The stability and the peace and quiet in this country which have been brought about by legislation introduced by the National Party over the past 26 years has almost caused us to forget—I say this with all respect—to look at certain Acts and to adapt them to today’s circumstances. Owing to circumstances which have virtually been forced on us, viz. the events around us and to the north of our borders, we have suddenly woken up and decided that certain aspects of our Defence Act will have to be considered anew and that they will have to be thoroughly investigated.

It is in this context that I want to support this amendment Bill before the House today in all respects. This Bill is aimed at streamlining our Defence Act, adapting it to altered circumstances and adapting it to demands made on us under the present circumstances. The Bill is therefore aimed at establishing an outstanding and sound Defence Act for South Africa. It is our duty to attend at once to issues which may crop up from time to time and to state this clearly and unambiguously in an Act. This has been done in this Bill at present before the House.

I should like to refer to a few of the clauses in this Act, more specifically to what the hon. member for Yeoville had to say about certain aspects. I note that the hon. member is not in the House at the moment. Last week, during the discussions in the House, the hon. member came forward cooing like a dove and said that he realized that he needed the might and power of a hawk. However, when the real demand was made on him to consider how patriotic that speech of his was, the mountain once again merely brought forth a mouse and nothing more, and what is more, it was a dead mouse.

It is pointless to rise today and refer to a game which is supposedly being played by our hon. Prime Minister. In my opinion our hon. Prime Minister regards this matter as too serious and too urgent to make a game out of it. It will be remembered that he referred to the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville. This shows us that he was of the opinion that the speech was made in all sincerity and that he would have expected the hon. member for Yeoville to show his true colours clearly when this matter was voted on, but the hon. member did not do so. This is no game which is being played. The hon. member mentioned that the Bill—and he said that the hon. the Minister would not realize this—did away with civil and criminal proceedings. This is by no means the case. If we look at subsection (2) of the envisaged subsection 103ter which is being inserted in the Act by clause 8 of the Bill, it is very clear that this procedure is only suspended civilly and criminally when it is quite clear that a person has been “advised, commanded, ordered or directed … by the State President, the Minister, or a member of the South African Defence Force” to do what they had to do in a specific case. This has nothing to do with criminal offences which such a soldier or any person might commit beyond the scope of his orders. As far as this is concerned, the hon. member for Yeoville is quite wrong when he maintains that the hon. the Minister is suspending purely civil and criminal proceedings by means of this legislation. This does not apply to people who commit an ordinary criminal offence, but only to persons who act within the scope of the orders they receive as part of the act of war which they have to carry out.

There is another aspect, too, which I should like to touch on, and this concerns what the hon. member for Rondebosch maintained. He states that if we change the definition of “South Africa” then this in itself will indicate that South Africa has aggressive tendencies and it will undoubtedly make the other states of Africa hostile towards South Africa. In the debate last week we heard what this matter, in the final analysis, was about. The way in which war is waged has changed to such an extent that we cannot limit ourselves to fighting merely within our borders. The sophisticated arms of today which are capable of striking with absolute effectiveness at a distance of 20, 30 and 40 kilometres, have resulted in our being unable to limit ourselves to our borders. If we have an enemy closing round us, then it is essential for us to attack that enemy and for us to drive him a very long way in order to render him absolutely ineffective. That is why the hon. member for Rondebosch is wrong when he states that those countries will think that South Africa has aggressive tendencies. After all, we have often heard from our hon. Prime Minister and other members that the policy of our country is not a policy of territorial expansion. Our policy is purely one of defence, but present circumstances demand that we go further and not merely come to a halt once we have driven the enemy over the border.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Yeoville had to say about compensation. The hon. member for Yeoville came along with his old story and the story we have often had from them, viz. the maintenance of the so-called rule of law. However, we are dealing with legislation today which concerns the waging of war and the defence of our country, of that which is ours, the maintenance of what we have acquired and its preservation. At such a time one cannot concern oneself with petty matters such as actions for compensation. When we are dealing with these things then we are dealing with matters of major importance and we must get our priorities straight and shift the other points into the background, because the main thing is to see to the defence of our country and the preservation of what is ours. I feel that it is essential for us to put a stop immediately to that litigation and not to concern ourselves further with it. Our soldiers, every one of them, will have to do their duty and some of them will be expected to be at the front instead of fighting actions in courts of law.

In conclusion I want to mention clause 10 which concerns the amendments to and adjustment of the Moratorium Act. It is heartening to see that we are now eventually reaching the stage at which we are applying that Act to all the persons who are serving, irrespective of the way in which they are serving, as the hon. member for Durban Point, too, rightly mentioned today. I fully associate myself with the manner of implementation as it is now contained in the Act. I am very pleased about the attitude which our official Opposition has adopted towards this matter and that they are not opposing this Bill. In any event, certain amendments are in store which will be raised in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for Aliwal will forgive me if I do not follow him on the points he has raised. However, I will deal with some of them in the course of the remarks I intend making this afternoon. First of all, I want to make one matter quite clear. The attitude which has been adopted and the amendment which has been suggested in regard to territorial limitation by the hon. member for Durban Point is consistent with the attitude adopted by this side of the House in the 1957 debate on the Defence Act. I want to remind the House, if I may, that the amendment which was moved by the then member for Simonstown, the late Mr. Lewis Gay, during the Second Reading of the Defence Bill—I quote from Hansard, 18 February 1957. col. 1288—said the following—

In (b) he dealt with the second leg of the amendment, namely that the commandos should have the same type of training as the Citizen Force. This has been implemented. The third leg of the amendment was the establishment of a council of defence. In dealing with the amendment, Mr. Gay said—

That is the attitude which this side of the House adopted. The then Minister of Defence, Mr. Erasmus, came with the interesting argument—which is the same one which the hon. member for Rondebosch offered this afternoon—that there would be enough volunteers to fight communism and there would be no need to conscript the army. It is quite interesting if one looks at the persons who supported the amendment which was moved by Mr. Lewis Gay. One finds interesting and leading Progressives such as Dr. De Beer, the late Mr. Harry Lawrence, Mr. Hamilton Russell, Dr. Steytler, Mr. Williams and none other than Mr. Harry Oppenheimer himself supporting that attitude in 1957. It seems that it is not unreasonable to expect that one should have from the Progressive benches the support of this suggestion, so that we in this House could be unanimous in regard to the use of the Defence Force in future.

I believe it is wrong to persist with the volunteer system. I say this because I believe that in South Africa—South Africa is part of Africa, as we now recognize ourselves to be—that where it is necessary for our defence forces to be involved, then everybody must be involved without giving a choice to those who want to sit behind and leave others to do the work. I say this because one has to raise the question of conscientious objectors. I think that in the law of this country we have made adequate provision for the genuine conscientious objector. They are accommodated before the stage of mobilization or active military operation. I can see no reason why there should not be a commitment of all members of the Defence Force in time of a threat to our security. I look back over the years since the last world war and one has a feeling of regret that the South Africanism which is built up in armed combat—there is, in fact, a South Africanism that is built up and I am sure it is being built up by those who are now in operation—becomes dissipated after the war, because of the recrimination and bitterness which developed between those who volunteered and those who did not. It was bitter immediately after the war, and hon. members of this House and you, Mr. Speaker, will be aware that right up to now, 30 years after the war, there are still occasions when, in this House, there are signs of those recriminations in respect of those who volunteered and those who did not volunteer in the last war. By eliminating this question of volunteering, as far as the future is concerned, we can at least save the present generation of South Africans who are serving in our Defence Force—and this also applies to future generations—from the disruptiveness of these recriminations amongst those members of the Defence Force who volunteer and those who do not.

One also has to realize that there are actually three legs to the definition of “service” in the terms of this Bill. The first one relates to service in time of war, the second is the fulfilment of treaty obligations which might exist between the Republic and other countries. It seems to me unthinkable that, in applying the Monroe Doctrine to Southern Africa, and entering into treaties of mutual aid in times of foreign aggression, we would then still have to go to our forces and ask them to volunteer to fulfil a treaty obligation that has been entered into by this country with another country in Southern Africa. I believe the time will come—and it must come very shortly, with more understanding growing in Southern Africa or Capricorn Africa, as my hon. leader refers to it—when there will be treaties of mutual assistance between the countries of Africa in the event of aggression from outside Africa. One remembers that there was a similar provision in the Monroe Doctrine relating to America and South America. If there was an attack on any part of South America, or any attempt at colonization, the United States would regard this as an act of aggression in which they would become involved. This is very similar to what has happened in Angola; it is very similar to what has happened to us in Africa, i.e. being involved in and concerned about an attempt by the imperialism of the communists—if I may use that phrase—to bring influence to bear on self-determination in Africa.

I am afraid I cannot go along with the hon. member for Yeoville in his suggested definition of “Southern Africa”. It is quite clear that if we try to formulate any definition, it becomes a cumbersome and limiting factor in so far as the effectiveness of our Defence Force is concerned. Surely the whole attitude of our country has been made clear over and over again. We are concerned only when our security is threatened. That is all we want a Defence Force for. It is a Defence Force, and we will use that Defence Force when the peace and security of this country is threatened. That being so, we do not want to say we are going here, there or anywhere else. The test of the use of the Defence Force depends on the situation that has arisen and not on the territorial limitat on imposed as far as the Defence Force is concerned. I regret that the hon. member for Yeoville does not see his way clear to accept this principle of conscription in our army, i.e. the obligation on members to serve in the Defence Force, no matter where it is, in cases where our security is threatened. I hope it is an attitude that will change and that we will be able to go further with this.

The hon. member for Rondebosch said that this Bill gives ammunition to our enemies and that it is hostile and aggressive in its terms. I agree to the extent that a definition of “South Africa” as being south of the equator may well provoke, or give opportunities for, criticism of the Republic’s intentions. However, surely the answer to our enemies is simply that we in this House can, in dealing with this Bill, present a resolute and united attitude towards the defence of South Africa when and where our security is threatened. Whenever and wherever our security is threatened, we will all stand together in the defence of this country. I think that is the attitude to accept.