Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last evening, I had made four points. The first was the desire of this side of the House to eliminate territorial restriction on the use of the members of the S.A. Defence Force. Secondly, I had made the point that the attitude we were adopting in this debate was consistent with the attitude that was adopted by this side of the House in 1957 when an amendment of that nature was moved by this side in a debate similar to this. I had said, thirdly, that we on this side of the House looked forward to a commitment so far as South Africa was concerned, a possible commitment for the maintenance of the integrity of the States of Southern Africa by way of mutual non-aggression and defence pacts between these States. The fourth point I had raised was that the emphasis now, as far as our Defence Force was concerned, was on the willingness of all our people to defend the country when the security or the integrity of our State was in peril.

What always arises when one deals with legislation dealing with military activity, is the question of compensation for injuries or damage sustained by individuals. Therefore we welcome the inclusion of provision in clause 8 of this Bill for the payment of compensation to those who are in effect non-combatants—in other words, those who suffer injuries as a result of action taken by our forces in combating terrorism or, alternatively, those who suffer damage to property by reason of such proceedings. One can well understand that there will be situations where properties might well be damaged and where premises occupied by terrorists must be destroyed in order to destroy the terrorists, and that compensation should be paid to the persons concerned. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that the question of compensation is equally important to the persons for whom he is responsible, i.e. those Bantu people who might become involved in so far as terrorist activities are concerned. There is always anxiety in the minds of people as to what is to be their position if they suffer loss, injury or damage as a result of action, of participating in the defence of their country. I have welcomed the fact that in this Bill provision has been made for the security of non-combatants and for compensation for those who might suffer as a result of activities in connection with the curtailment and control of terrorism. I hope that during the session we shall have the opportunity of discussing further the question of pensions generally for war disabilities and disablement apart from the aspect which is touched upon in this Bill. I am sure that this opportunity will be given to us.

In passing I want to say that there is great concern amongst the public—it has become apparent in the Press recently—about the need to care for persons who are involved in military operations. There are a number of funds being run and administered by various bodies to deal with the needs of servicemen. I hope that the hon. the Minister, when dealing with this question of compensation on this basis, will have an opportunity to look at the position with regard to the provision of funds to deal with those hardships which are suffered by members of the Defence Force and their families, hardships which are not directly attributable to their participation in war, in conflict. There are many problems of this nature that arise and which can only be dealt with outside the framework of pension and similar legislation. I believe that when we talk about the defence of this country and about the need for every South African to be prepared to represent his country, the hon. the Minister should give consideration to what our Defence Force terms the development of “weerbaarheid” in our defence forces, a determination to defend, and to see that it is created also in other sections of our community and not only in those who are committed to compulsory national service.

I want to mention to the hon. the Minister—and he will forgive me for mentioning a personal matter at the moment—the members of the Cape Corps who have served South Africa in the past and who are willing to serve South Africa again. I want to mention particularly the instance of one member of the Cape Corps who served as a stretcher-bearer with me in my company during the last war. He was one of three Cape Corps men who was awarded military medals for bravery in action in Italy. He lost his sight as the result of his function, as a stretcher-bearer, of rescuing wounded White people. He lost his sight as a result of machine-gun fire. If one thinks of that man and what has happened to him, the reward which he has received during the last 30 years, then one can only say: Thank God that there is an organization such as St. Dunstan’s that was able to look after him. I believe that one has to look at this seriously, when one is discussing the duty to serve South Africa, as to what is the attitude of these people and whether we as a Parliament are accepting our responsibility to respond to the attitudes which they adopt. I want to read to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs—I see he is not here at the moment—from an address at the recent congress of the S.A. Coloured Ex-Servicemen’s Legion at which both he and I were present. I want to read some of the words which were spoken by the president of that organization. He said—

Sir, that was the attitude of our Coloured people, and I believe it throws a tremendous responsibility on to us when dealing with legislation of this nature.

That brings me to the final point, the point raised by the hon. member for Durban Point, i.e. the need to reconsider the provisions of section 91(2) of the Defence Act in regard to Parliament being convened within 30 days of moblization, as it is now, and to extend that where we are involved in activities which are now to be brought within the definition of “service” and involve activities which are outside the borders of our country. Sir, I believe that by calling Parliament together in those circumstances, not when we are dealing with terrorism but when we are dealing with armed conflict outside the borders of the Republic, it provides an opportunity to motivate the whole nation behind the armed forces involved. I believe that is important and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give serious consideration to accepting the suggestions which have been made by the hon. member for Durban Point. Sir, motivation of the general public means the mobilization of the support of the general public for those committed to armed conflict and ensures confidence, and I believe that confidence will promote greater efficiency in so far as our defence forces are concerned. For those reasons I hope to learn, from the hon. the Minister’s reply, to what extent he is prepared to go along with the suggestions which have been made by this side of the House and which we will be able to discuss in more detail in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point, in the course of his speech, referred to the willingness of our Brown people to defend our country, South Africa. We know this is the attitude of those people. One often hears a discordant note and it is hon. members of this House who often pay attention to those discordant notes. But we have the confidence in our Coloured people that they, just like all of us, will give everything to this country. Then the hon. member for Green Point also stressed the willingness of all our people to defend their country. Sir, this is very important, because the Bill before the House deals with the safeguarding of the State. It is the good right of the electorate outside to expect things from their Government. One can draw up a very long list of these things and right at the top of that list will appear the security of the State. If we draw a line through this, very little will remain, because the security of the State is the basis of all the facets of our life. For that reason it is so essential that we in South Africa should place a very high premium on the security of the State. Sir, within the scope of a few days, we have had two opportunities in this House to show that we are ad idem in this House as far as these matters are concerned. Last week we were able to give such a display, except for a few hon. members, this little team of eleven who are sitting on my right. In cricket terms one could say that this team performed very poorly. If I may take it further using cricket terms, I can say that there was one of the hon. members who played a reasonably good innings, but when he had to round it off, he did not have the courage to do so. I am referring to the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] Now we have another opportunity in dealing with this Bill, to show that we in this House are unanimous when it comes to the protection of our State, and again we have this little team of eleven who appeared on the scene yesterday and again tried to circumvent this Bill on technical grounds. Sir, South Africa’s security is being threatened and I believe this party on my right read and interpreted the wicket quite incorrectly. It was revealed quite clearly during the no-confidence debate, that these people have no idea of what these matters are about. The amendment of the Prime Minister which we accepted here last week confirms that we should be unanimous as far as the security of our State is concerned, because in that amendment we stated that the aim of the aggression against the Republic of South Africa is, inter alia, to subjugate South West Africa and South Africa. After all, this is the aim of the enemies of the Republic of South Africa, namely to subjugate us, to subjugate us to a Marxist state, and we know what this means for us, and what this entails for us. Now we have this legislation before us to rectify and improve certain things in our defence legislation in order to combat this aggression. Sir, it has been said clearly that South Africa does not want to attack and does not want to take other people’s territory, but we cannot sit back and allow South Africa to be thrown to the wolves either. It is essential that South Africa should hit back where the necessity to do so arises. Now it is imperative that reference to armed conflict, armed conflict outside the Republic of South Africa as well, will be made in this legislation. But now the hon. member for Rondebosch says he does not like that wording. He wants that wording deleted and he simply wants reference to be made to terrorism. He does not want these people who commit aggression to be pursued, or, if we were to become involved in armed conflict, that South Africa would act and defend itself. But the hon. member for Yeoville admits this, because when he furnishes his definition he refers to areas along the borders of the Republic. At least, he looks a little further than the hon. member for Rondebosch. He appreciates that one should pursue these people. But now he does not go very far either, because how does one determine that area outside one’s borders? For that reason I think one can agree with the hon. member for Durban Point when he wants that definition amended to read “anywhere”. But this shows us that the hon. member for Durban Point is in earnest about his country, that he is in earnest about this Republic of South Africa, and that, where aggression is committed against our country, we should hit out and defend ourselves.

When coming back to clause 11, which states that this Act should be made of retrospective effect, the Progressive Reform Party also wants to create the idea that we come to this House to ask for condonation as if irregularities had taken place. Sir, I want to tell you that when that party speaks in this spirit, it is in fact an insult to our Defence Force, because we are dealing with changed circumstances which should be duly taken into consideration. Under these circumstances which have arisen and in which South Africa is involved, I believe South Africa acted correctly, that its Defence Force acted correctly and that this is actually an opportunity for us to pay homage to our Defence Force for the heroic deeds which were performed there and to pay homage to young men who were prepared to take up arms for their country. For that reason it is the task of all of us to safeguard our country. It is the primary task of this House, because we are not dealing here with a distant war. It is our own borders that we have to defend, our own territory, and it is our own people—Black, Brown and White—who are involved in this. Therefore, it is a matter which affects everyone of us. For that reason I want to say in conclusion that it is regretted that this House cannot be unanimous on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down said that members on these benches had initiated the concept that the Government had been acting outside the law in respect of its adventure in Angola. Let me say immediately that the debate last week has aroused certain suspicions that this may well be so, but as far as this House is concerned, it was the hon. the Minister of Defence who introduced this thought into the debate by saying that there were certain amendments that were required in order to obviate any doubt about the legality of the Government’s actions. I shall refer to this again in the course of my remarks.

But you made a categorical statement in your no-confidence address.

I am now speaking about this debate in this House, and referring to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. The debate has shown that there are a number of areas of broad agreement in relation to defence and to the aspects of the Bill before us. At this stage I want to come back to two points in respect of which we in these benches find ourselves at odds with other hon. members in this House. One is the question of the volunteer principle, the principle which has been expanded, at the suggestion of hon. members on my right, to exclude any territorial reference and therefore to make volunteering no longer an aspect of South African servicemen serving in a time of war beyond the borders of the country. This is a matter which deserves serious consideration, because clearly there can be arguments on both sides in this connection. We in these benches have not heard arguments which persuade us that the volunteer principle should be abandoned. We think that the arguments in favour of it, with adjustments or amendments to take the territorial concept into account, are necessary, but we would advise against abandoning the volunteer principle, a principle which has been a very important traditional part of defence in South Africa over the years, indeed for generations. We agree with the amendment which has been suggested by the hon. member for Yeoville. He has indicated that when it comes to South Africa, and when it comes to the combating of terrorism within South Africa and the immediately adjoining operational areas, which we see as an integral part of service within South Africa, there is no dispute between ourselves and other members in this House. We advise that this House should not lightly discard the volunteer principle for military service in wars in foreign countries. We should not lightly discard a principle that applied in the old Republics prior to this day and applies in South Africa. Firstly, the argument which has been advanced by some hon. members is that volunteering is necessarily a divisive factor.

I do not want to argue that there will never be problems created in certain sets of circumstances. However, people who do volunteer and those who do not volunteer, merely reflect the divisions within the community. If one looks at the last war, in 1939, one finds that the fact that certain people did volunteer and others did not, did not cause differences, it was merely a reflection of differences that existed within the society. Had one said that people were unpatriotic and that they had to go up North, one would have created a far greater division within the society. Volunteering reflects the division, but conscription can, in certain circumstances, accentuate the divisions. We have referred on numerous occasions to the lessons of Vietnam. Without going into the rights and wrongs of the Vietnam saga, there is no doubt that the concept of conscription in relation to Vietnam was a vital factor in dividing the American people at a time when the president, at least, believed they should be united on a national issue. Therefore, although I do not argue that volunteering has no problems, I believe that compulsory conscription, without taking the mood of the people as a whole into account, can be more divisive. I think this House should take note of this. Secondly, I wish to put forward a view that, in the main, a volunteer army is better than a conscript army, whether it is a volunteer army of the permanent force or whether it is a volunteer army of commandos or citizen forces. They have a better morale, greater motivation and a greater sense of commitment. I do not think we should lightly destroy that because this has played a very important part. I know, as other hon. members on this side of the House will know, that when we, 30 or 40 years younger than we are today, went up north and to Italy as volunteers, we felt more motivated and felt a greater sense of pride than those other armies that were there merely because they had been conscripted. I do not think we must underestimate the spirit that goes with a voluntary commitment to do something for one’s country.

Apart from this, I believe that the volunteer system imposes certain restraints on the Government. The Government can take the vital step of taking us into a war without recalling Parliament until after the act has been done. It is therefore important that if there are no restrictions by Parliament, there should at least be other factors operating within the society which will not discourage the Government from going lightly into a foreign military adventure. If the Government knows that it has to motivate the people, if it knows that the Army depends not on instruction of the law, but on the motivation of the people, I believe the Government will take this into account in deciding the extent to which they should or should not become involved in foreign escapades. Also, the Government would not enter into a state of war unless it knew that it could take the people with it on a voluntary basis. I do not think we want a situation where this Government, by executive action, takes us into a war, so that thereafter everyone is committed. Surely we want this Government to take into account that the maximum effort on the part of South Africa involves the Government telling the people the whole story, involves the Government in motivating them. However, if the Government is in a position to enter a war or to enter into military operations without telling the people, knowing that it has a conscript army which it could bring in, I believe that a very necessary restraint has been taken away from the Government. It has been said that we are all united. Yes, we are all united in general terms. We all believe in the defence of South Africa. However, let us remember that governments have been known to make mistakes. I think the hon. the Minister has the view that in a previous stage of South Africa’s history a Government of South Africa made a mistake and took us into war. Governments do make mistakes. Governments do become involved in wars which they should not become involved in. I think they are much more likely to embark on foreign military adventures if they have a conscript army which they can throw in, rather than having to motivate people and take them along on a voluntary basis.

I believe that these are important factors. I am not denying some of the factors that have been raised in support of abandoning this principle. However, I believe it would be wrong of this House lightly to discard this. I believe it would certainly be wrong to discard this principle before referring this Bill to a Select Committee. I believe that this whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee before the Government commits itself to abandoning this important principle.

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

Yes, later on. What is even more important is that there is a change in the definition of the defence of South Africa contemplated in this Bill. This definition, which deals with armed conflict in other countries, widens tremendously the scope given to the Government to embark on military intervention in foreign countries. Because this House is being asked to widen the scope of military involvement in other countries, there is an added reason why the volunteer system should not be abandoned. Finally, I think that this must be seen against the background of Africa. We are talking about Africa. We are talking about 4 million Whites on a Black continent. I think we should take into account the racial composition of our own country. We have heard that everyone should defend South Africa, and not only that, but everyone should be conscripted to defend South Africa. Are we in a position to apply that to everybody? Are we in a position to apply this conscription rule to the Coloureds, the Blacks and the Indians of South Africa? We must not come with sweeping generalities. We must realize that there is a potential danger for us in Africa and there is a divisive factor within South Africa if our Government starts sending armies consisting of White conscripts into Africa at a stage where it is not able to integrate the Black people into the total defence of South Africa. I do not think we must underestimate the impact of sending White conscripts into Africa when we have not yet reached the stage of being prepared to give the same opportunity to Black people to defend South Africa. For these reasons this House should not lightly abandon the principle of voluntarism as far as the defence of South Africa beyond its borders is concerned.

There is another clause to which we have an objection in principle. I refer to the clause which seeks to amend section 1 (1)(c) of the principal Act. The provisions of this clause seek to introduce a new element in the definition of the “defence of South Africa”. It is the one dealing with the prevention or suppression of any armed conflict outside the Republic. We in these benches, as has been indicated by my hon. colleagues from Yeoville and Rondebosch, have very severe misgivings about this clause, about its scope, about its possible application by this Government, especially in the light of recent events, and about the consequences. I do not believe that this clause can be seen except in the context of the Angolan adventure. Indeed, the hon. the Minister indicated this. The retrospective clauses take us back to a date prior to our involvement in Angola and, in fact, the hon. the Minister even referred to obviating any doubts about the legality of our action. So this clause in particular has to be seen against the background of the Angolan adventure and the explanations, partial though they have been, by the Government of what is happening today. Let us look at this clause for a moment. Whether you like it or not, whether you support or reject it, it does impinge on our traditional non-intervention policy. It does take you outside of our traditional non-intervention policy into a new unknown. [Interjections.]

There is no doubt it does.

I shall deal with it in due course. This is an important step in dismantling our non-intervention policy. It authorizes the Government to become involved militarily in the affairs of another country and it then sets certain conditions or limitations. However, let us look at what it does authorize. First of all this involvement goes beyond normal treaty obligations. So, in respect of all we have heard about “of course we have to fulfil our treaty obligations” I say, “yes, in any case under the Defence Act you have to fulfil your treaty obligations”. Secondly, this goes beyond a state of war. In other words, it does not mean that you can intervene if there is a state of war, you could always have done that. It goes beyond even an anticipated state of war because the Act defines “a time of war” as a time when there is an actual state of war or when a state of war may be anticipated by the State President. In other words, it says that even if you anticipated a state of war, you could have done that. So this clause goes beyond treaty obligations, it goes beyond an actual state of war, it goes beyond a potential state of war and it goes even further than pre-emptive strikes, because in terms of the present Act you could deal with it under the definition of a time of war. It goes beyond the combating of terrorism because the provisions of the Act permit you to act against terrorists. It therefore goes beyond all these things. It gives authority to the Government to intervene militarily in a foreign country on very, very broad grounds. I want to look for a moment at those grounds. If one looks at it in its narrowest context, one finds that it relates to the suppression of any armed conflict which in the opinion of the State President is a threat to the security. In other words, the very narrowest context of this clause means that you can suppress armed conflict if there is no doubt at all that it is a threat to the country. However, that is not where it ends; it goes far, far beyond that. It says that you can prevent any armed conflict which may be a threat. Can you imagine this, Sir? You have the authority to prevent something which has not taken place or which you do not know is going to take place and which may be a threat, not “is” a threat, not “armed conflict which exists”. Therefore, not only must you be correct in your judgment that there is going to be an armed conflict although it has not taken place, but you must also be correct in your judgment that it may be a threat; not that it is a threat. We believe that that is far too wide. This opens the door to military intervention. It opens the door to the kind of adventures which can take place if the Government feels that it wants to intervene in the affairs of another country. This will enable it to become involved, not in a civil war, but in a potential civil war in other countries. It will enable it to become involved, let us say, in suppressing a revolt against a military dictator in another country. It will enable it to become involved in stopping an uprising against corruption in a certain country. These are the kind of things which could well happen in Africa and all of these things would fall within the ambit of the authority which the Government is seeking under this Bill. Not only can this be implemented with the consent of the Government concerned, but it in fact can be implemented in defiance of the Government concerned because the factor of whether the Government concerned is in favour or not of this intervention is irrelevant in terms of this clause. It would mean that South Africa would have to make an accurate assessment that there is a potential conflict and that that potential conflict may be a threat to the security of South Africa. I believe that South Africa could only do that if there were vast numbers of Bureau for State Security people around Africa making their own appraisal of the situation, because surely we would not make this assessment on hearsay evidence given to use by one or other party. I have the fear that in order to make this work, we are going to have some kind of CIA operation around Africa gleaning the information to feed into the machine in order to see that this decision can be properly made in terms of the Act. I believe that in this clause as it reads at the moment, the Government is asking Parliament for a licence to intervene militarily in foreign countries. I do not believe, however, that this licence is going to be recognized by the international community. Indeed, I am sure that it is going to be repudiated, that it is going to be rejected not only by individual states, but by the wider international community.

As I think we all agree, this Bill has to be seen against the background of our recent involvement in Angola. Clause 11 makes provision for certain of the provisions to be retrospective to 9 August, which is prior to our involvement at the dam and the hydro-electric scheme site. The hon. the Minister of Defence, I think, will agree that he did say that the reason for this clause was to obviate any doubt about the legality of the Government’s action. Well, if you want to obviate doubt, then doubt must exist, because if doubt does not exist, why do you need to obviate it? Here the hon. the Minister himself says that he is coming to us four or five months after 9 August because perhaps there is some doubt about the legality of our actions and they want to obviate that. It would appear that not only did the Government not tell the people what it was doing, and not only did it act secretively, but on the statement of the hon. the Minister himself there is doubt as to the legality of the Government’s actions in this connection. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister—I hope he will give us the reply during his response to this debate—what section of the Defence Act the Government invoked when it embarked upon a military operation which had as its consequence that South African soldiers were captured many hundreds of kilometres beyond the South African borders and in Angola. The hon. the Minister should tell us what section of the Defence Act he invoked, because on all the evidence before us and on the statement by the hon. the Minister that there is doubt as to the legality of our actions, we can find no section which could reasonably have been invoked. Clearly the whole story, the whole truth, has not yet been revealed. All the evidence is before us. As the hon. member for Rondebosch said in the course of his speech, part of this Bill is an attempt to cover up a situation that has not yet been revealed to the public.

I must refer, however, to events which, over the past weekend, were reflected in the weekend Press. Statements, coming from a most authoritative individual, have been made and I believe that those statements should not be left unchallenged by the Government. I am referring to the statements that were reported to have been made by the American Secretary of State, Mr. Henry Kissinger, before a Senate sub-committee in America. This is important because, if these statements are allowed to stand as they are, they call into question the credibility of the statements which the hon. the Prime Minister made in this House. I believe it is in the interests of South Africa that the hon. the Minister must refute these allegations to the extent that they are in conflict with what the hon. the Prime Minister has told this House. I do not believe these statements can be allowed to stand. I do not believe it is proper that statements coming from an authoritative source such as this can be left to stand in conflict with what has been said in this House. I believe the credibility of the Government is at stake and that the Government should remedy the situation. In essence, the hon. the Prime Minister said three times the other day that it was quite clear that we were not involved in a civil war. I have the quotation here. It was crisply and clearly stated. We have to accept that on face value. I want to add that Mr. Kissinger has not been an enemy of South Africa in this regard.

Order! I just want to remind the hon. member that this Bill has a certain scope and that he must not go beyond that and discuss matters which he can perhaps discuss under the Part Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to the extent that this Bill makes provision for South African involvement in a foreign country in terms of a new definition, this being made retrospective to 8 August, I would submit that, while not traversing the whole of the subject, within the context of our involvement in Angola and the hon. the Minister’s statement that this Bill is partly there to remove any doubts as to the legality of our involvement there, I could develop my argument. However, I accept your ruling that, clearly, it should not go beyond that. I do think that for this reason the nature of our involvement must be made clear. On the one hand Mr. Kissinger said we went there because we were invited, but on the other hand, the hon. the Prime Minister said we were not involved. I think the hon. the Minister of Defence must answer this allegation crisply because it concerns the nature of our involvement. I do not believe that this particular aspect should be left unanswered. People in South Africa are faced with conflicting statements, one made by the hon. the Prime Minister and another by the American Secretary of State.

We believe that this Bill, which extends the scope of the Act, is an attempt at a partial cover-up of a whole series of errors of judgment made by the Government in respect of its involvement in Angola. It is for this reason that we cannot accept the clause on the basis of the explanations that have at this stage been given by the Government. Certain other consequences would follow, should we accept this clause. First of all, I have no doubt whatsoever that the acceptance of this clause will cause a significant number of African States to say that South Africa is becoming a militaristic power. As I have said on previous occasions, the hon. the Prime Minister’s impeccable attitude towards Mozambique and his withdrawal of South African Police from Rhodesia in my opinion did much to allay that fear, but nevertheless that attitude and that fear still exists. I need only point to the Daily News of Gaberones of a few days ago. I was in Gaberones, where I had certain discussions, and I put it to the newspaper at the time that South Africa’s presence in Angola was primarily due to its assessment that Russia was endeavouring to exploit the situation in Angola to her advantage. This was my assessment of the situation. Botswana is not at loggerheads with South Africa. It is not a country that is hostile towards us. In a way it is very much an extension of us in southern Africa. Nevertheless, Mr. Archie Mogwe, Botswana’s Minister of External Affairs, said—and I quote from the newspaper—

I do not agree with that and I have made it clear that I do not agree with it. However, if a man like Mr. Archie Mogwe can make that kind of statement and believe it, can you imagine what the rest of Africa, which is more remote from us, is saying at this stage?

Secondly, I think there is another consequence of this clause of the Bill. Although this may be seen as a means of giving some umbrella military protection to weaker states near us, I believe it could well be counterproductive. I think that the effect of this Bill and of this clause in particular could cause countries bordering on South Africa to seek military alliance with other countries. It could well happen that, seeing the growth of South Africa’s militarism, as they would see it, these countries would look for some counterbalance and consequently would seek military alliances with countries outside of our orbit of influence. Finally, let us make no mistake about it, we are approaching a very exciting and traumatic experience in South Africa, viz. the independence of the Transkei. I think that this kind of clause is going to cast more doubt on the real meaning of independence of countries such as the Transkei.

Oh, no!

It is all very well for hon. members to say that, but they must go and talk to African leaders. I think we should do everything in our power to allay the fear, mistrust and suspicion that exist as far as South Africa’s military operations are concerned.

There are a number of aspects of this Bill with which we agree. I refer, for instance, to the combating of terrorism, the principle of compensation, the extension of the provisions of the Moratorium Act and the concept of defensive alliances and mutual defence treaties with other countries in Africa. However, we cannot give a mandate to the Government which in our opinion, in view of the experiences of the last three months, amounts to a blank cheque being given to the Government for their involvement in the affairs of another country. There is another area of agreement: I believe that, no matter how much we might argue about the mandate imposed by the political Government in South Africa, all of us want to keep the Defence Force, per se, out of party politics. I think this has been the mood and I believe it is also the spirit of this debate. One of the encouraging features of the S.A. Defence Force today is the absence of party political influence within the Defence Force. I believe that all of us in this House are pleased that this is so. In the circumstances, we believe the hon. the Prime Minister was wrong the other day. I want to say that I was disappointed in him for the way in which he explained the fact that he had not given to me, as the leader of one of the parliamentary parties, any information relating to South Africa’s involvement in Angola. As far as the personal innuendo is concerned, I dismiss it with the contempt it deserves; it is irrelevant. What is much more important, is that the hon. the Prime Minister must realize there are times when one has to be a statesman and not a party politician. At a time of national crisis I believe the hon. the Prime Minister should not try to play party politics and give a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands of people who do support us in these benches. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister should not try to cause artificial divisions in South Africa when such divisions do not exist. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is striking that the only discordant notes which we have heard during this debate, have in fact come from the hon. member for Sea Point and those of kindred spirit. The hon. member for Sea Point is very worried that voluntary service in the South African Defence Force will disappear completely, but it seems to me that the only people who are not prepared to defend the country on a voluntary basis, are those people on that side of the House. The hon. member says that we must become motivated and stand together in defending our country’s borders, but I want to tell him once again that it seems to me that the only people who are not motivated in this respect are, once again, his party and those of kindred spirit. He is very worried about the so-called intervention which is now being allowed with tacit permission in terms of clause 1(c) of this amending Bill. But I want to tell him and his party that the amendments which are being effected by this Bill, will no more be used to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries in any respect than the Angolan situation was an interference by South Africa in the domestic affairs of a neighbouring State. It is no wonder that the hon. the Prime Minister also acted on the premise that furnishing information to that side of the House would not be to act in a responsible manner.

It is with much gratitude that, during this debate on the amendment of the Defence Bill of 1957, we have otherwise been able to experience such a high spirit of unanimity as has been the case—a spirit which has resulted from the previous week’s no-confidence debate. This reflects without a doubt the spirit of patriotism, a spirit of fidelity and loyalty of the citizens of the Republic of South Africa, especially in these days when our existence is once again being threatened by international communism, which incessantly seeks our downfall in this country.

The hon. the Minister of Defence said on one occasion that peace is an unnatural state for man, and that peace does not preserve itself. If we want to keep our country, our air-space and our waters intact, we cannot relax our vigilance. In this spirit of vigilance we vote for the amendments contained in this Bill. We vote for this Bill in order to cope with the changed circumstances, the changed methods of warfare, the changed methods of undermining law and order and the reprehensible murder attacks of treacherous terrorism, which are often initiated far beyond the borders of our country.

The hon. member for Rondebosch’s fear that the world will accuse South Africa of aggression and of territorial expansion if South Africa extends its strategic operational area to exceed the boundaries of the Republic itself, is entirely unfounded. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that it would have been foolish of South Africa not to have beaten off the attack of the Cubans and of the MPLA from Angola. I quote his own words: “That which we have done, we will do repeatedly.” Here we have the assurance that, if a similar situation should again arise on the borders of South Africa, this procedure would be repeated. Even after this onslaught had been warded off no fewer than 22 African States refused point blank to condemn South Africa’s participation there, and that after South Africa had already been engaged in military activities in Angola to protect the borders for which we had accepted responsibility. Why should we therefore not streamline our defence legislation and adjust it so that effective and quick action could be taken should it be necessary? It is apparently only the Progressive Reformist Party and the Herstigte Nasionale Party who have objections against and are suspicious of this amendment. Indeed, they are two strange bed-mates. Yesterday, the hon. member for Green Point and today the hon. member for Sea Point, referred to the great deal of mutual dissent and discord which prevailed during the Second World War between volunteers and non-volunteers or opponents of the war effort at that time, a quarrel which, as he puts it, has been rearing its head in this House for the past 30 years and longer. I do not want to raise those arguments again in this debate. This has probably been done many times in this House, even before I came here. I just want to underline the fact that the circumstances of that time are vastly different from today’s. It is not necessary for me to enlarge upon this any further, except to point out one aspect. In those days there was no question of an undivided loyalty to one flag and one fatherland, as is the case today thanks to the leadership of our honourable Prime Minister and his predecessors. This country has probably never been so consolidated, so unanimous and so united behind a Prime Minister as it is today. One cannot help recalling the words of the late Dr. Verwoerd, who held out the prospect that once South Africa became a republic, a united nation would develop in this country. It now appears as if that ideal of Dr. Verwoerd is now being realized. Therefore the whole question of voluntary or non-voluntary service in the South African Defence Force should never again be an issue in the history of South Africa. While the South African Defence Force is committed to voluntary service to a large extent and while, especially our commandos consist of a large percentage of volunteers, it is wonderful to see how able-bodied men from all walks of life join the ranks with enthusiasm to fulfil their basic duty as citizens and to equip themselves for this purpose. Therefore, it is right that in clause 8 of this amendment Bill the necessary additions to the principal Act should be effected so that protection can be afforded through this Act for compensation and even civil claims which may arise as a result of the combating of terrorism. This amendment, as well as the amendment to the Moratorium Act of 1963, should further stimulate the morale of these people and encourage them to equip themselves to the best of their ability for the difficult task which lies ahead of them and especially for the increasingly difficult task which will lie ahead of them in the future. These voluntary members of the commandos, who are prepared, sometimes with great personal inconvenience and sacrifices, and even financial sacrifices, to give their unselfish service to their country, deserve in every respect the advantages which the amending Bill entails for them. There are young men, and not only young men, but even middle-aged men, who never had the privilege of receiving their basic training under the old ballot system. They feel this deficiency in their civilian set-up and are eager to undergo this training. With their infectious enthusiasm they contribute a great deal towards making our nation—a nation which is prepared, with a trowel in one hand and a gun in the other—unceasingly to develop our bastion here in the south.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Defence on this amending Bill which he will successfully pilot through this House. It can only lead to great advantage for this country and its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg said certain things in respect of this legislation with which I agree. But I do not agree with some of his political remarks. I am going to leave the hon. member at that, however, because I want to come back to certain aspects of the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point.

As regards one principle with which the hon. member dealt, viz. that Parliament should be summoned to meet, I want to tell him that if he had listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point, he would have heard that we are in fact going to move such an amendment. Surely it is true that a Government can also commit an error of judgment and that Parliament should therefore be involved in something of this kind. As regards the point raised by the hon. member with reference to a voluntary army, I want to say that I, too, thought many years ago that this was a wonderful idea. However, we are living in changed circumstances and conditions, and I think if he were to go into all the merits of the case, he would realize that it would be in the interest of both White and Black in the country if we were to renounce this idea.

†I think the hon. member is in grave difficulties as far as the principle of non-intervention is concerned. In the light of clause 1(c) he is accusing the Government of abandoning its policy of non-intervention. Right behind him he, of course, has the hon. member for Yeoville, and yesterday he repeated his appeal for the acceptance of a Monroe Doctrine for Africa. In his speech he said that this did not involve sending armies all over Africa. However, he continued to quote the traditional Monroe Doctrine sections upon that. I would like to say that, where he said that there should be no further colonization in the new world, there should be added to it that any attempt to reconquer the South American Republics by any power would be considered “a manifestation of unfriendly disposition towards the United States”. This, of course, is the type of thing that leads to intervention. If those are his feelings, we are, I think, entitled to know why in fact he is not supporting this Bill, or, in opposing it, is not relating it to his fundamental belief that there should be a Monroe Doctrine applicable in Africa. If a person publicly advocates this, he has two options: You can either reject or accept it. Whatever you do must, however, be proved from your central point of view. I could have understood it if he said that he could not support it because it did not go far enough and that we needed a much more severe provision. On the other hand he could have said that he was prepared to support the Bill because it was moving in the right direction. Once one accepts such a doctrine the whole argument of intervention in the affairs of other countries falls by the way

In accepting such a doctrine one must also accept the responsibilities that go with it. The responsibility lies in upholding the doctrine, and the doctrine can only be upheld if one has the means to do it. One of the important means of doing it is a Defence Bill containing some of the principles set out here. However, such a Bill will have to go much further than this one because in this one, clause 1(c) is centred around the security of South Africa only. South Africa is not, in terms of this Bill, intended to be an international watch-dog or a Police power for Africa. In assuming this role America found that she had to go outside her borders for military, political and economic reasons. At one stage, in her desire to keep European powers out, she was even forced to accept the role of debt collector for European nations. I am now specifically referring to the San Domingo incidents. I want to quote from the History of American Foreign Relations by L. M. Sears the following paragraph—

I can quote other aspects, like the case of the Panama Canal, of which the construction was delayed. Then, when it was ultimately constructed, it was preceded by a revolution and Panama was ceded from Columbia. But once it was built, the Panama Canal came under American control. Yes, she paid some $10 million for it. She paid another million annually to Panama. My point is that historically one can hardly blame some of those countries which were affected in that sphere where it was practised for regarding the American economic penetration under this cloak of the Monroe Doctrine with suspicion, distrust and even an insidious form of empire-building. This brings me to the point I want to make, i.e. to warn this hon. House against the practice to just willy-nilly accept certain political terms, perhaps because they sound nice, without first …

Like Mesopotamia.

Yes, like Mesopotamia, my friend here says … without first carefully considering its historical connotation and its political implications internally for the country itself, internationally in the sphere where it is to be applied and internationally outside the sphere of influence of the doctrine. Therefore, it is worthwhile to look at this because, after all, this doctrine was a doctrine applicable and devised by America some 150 years ago. One cannot simply look and declare oneself an adherent of such a doctrine in the hope that the whole world will only remember the good that flowed from it. Remember, what was regarded as good for the citizens of the United States of America was regarded as evil for other countries within that sphere of influence.

Let us be frank. If one happens to look at the map of America, and be a United States citizen, one may say: “What a great idea. When it started, we were only 22 states; when it finished we had some 50 states.” If in fact you happen to live on the other side, south of the Rio Grande in Mexico, you may also love the Gringos—as they would call them—because they happened to help you during the time of Maximilian and Napoleon III. But if Mexicans look just to the north of them and see the wonderful cattle country and the oil-wells of Texas and think that it once belonged to Mexico, it having been lost to America 23 years after the Monroe Doctrine; if they should look up to California and realize that they lost that too, then they have reason to hate America. Two years after they discovered gold in California, Mexico lost it in a war against America. Perhaps it was the gold, or perhaps it was the 8 000 unmarried girls who left Australia for new pastures on the other side of the Pacific after the gold rush in Australia had been completed—I do not know.

My hon. leader has spoken before and has also advocated greater co-operation on several occasions, and not co-operation in vague terms like this, but the need for specific, firm agreements, definitely military and otherwise, with countries on the continent of Africa within the Capricorn area. But to advocate a Monroe Doctrine in its original form is an invitation to continuous commitment across the border. Sir, historically America was very lucky that she did not get involved in many wars in pursuance of the Monroe Doctrine, that it was not necessary for her to be involved in more wars, wars which would have had nothing to do with her security. But in this Bill we are speaking specifically about the security of our own State. In the beginning stages the British Navy really provided the necessary protection for the upholding of the Monroe Doctrine. It is noteworthy to read what William Spence Robertson had to say about it in the centennial address on the Monroe Doctrine in 1923. He said the following—

Then, in latter years, we also find that outside factors assisted America and prevented them from what would have become necessary, viz. sending armies all over America. I may just mention the incident of the Venezuela border dispute of 1896 where there would have been a war. Luckily there was a Jameson raid here and Britain pulled back. The same happened with Napoleon III and Mexico where luckily there was a civil war and it was not necessary.

I want to make it quite clear that just as little as I am prepared to use this House to advocate a blank cheque for South Africa in international involvement, as I would have done if I had to get up to support the views of the hon. member for Yeoville, just as little am I prepared—and this I direct to the hon. the Minister—to have the position under clause (1)(c) unless it is amended in the Committee Stage, and I hope therefore that he will give serious consideration to the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I think I should convey my sincere thanks to most hon. members for the sense of responsibility they displayed during the discussion of this Bill. In past years, particularly since I have been the Minister concerned, I have always found a sense of responsibility in such measure very gratifying, and I thank the official Opposition in particular for our having been able to reach this understanding in respect of defence. This came from both sides, and I think it was greatly to the benefit of our Defence Force and of our attempt to elevate our Defence Force above party disputes. Therefore, I think we can all state with pride that the S.A. Defence Force is today giving us reason to be proud of it. Therefore I also think, in the second place, that the morale of the S.A. Defence Force is exceptionally high, because they have the feeling that when matters concerning them are debated in Parliament it is done in a responsible manner and in such a manner that they are not prejudiced by it. Of course this does not mean to say that there were no differences of opinion from time to time, but I think the general premise was that we should protect the S.A. Defence Force and that we should make it feel that Parliament stands united behind it. That is also why we made use of Select Committees in the past. When we were dealing with difficult Bills, I gave prior notice that after the principle had been accepted, we would take the basis of that principle to a Select Committee to try to iron out the particulars in detail among ourselves. But the question I ask myself is why the hon. members of the Progressive Party want a Select Committee. As I see it they want a Select Committee because they differ with us on fundamental issues, and also because there appear to be fundamental differences within their own ranks as well. I say this is a pity. I find it regrettable that although we have for so many years now been able to adopt a unified standpoint on the Defence Force, although we differed with one another on lesser details—which is most certainly the right of every hon. member in this House—the Progressive Party has, since its establishment, wanted to introduce a new element of strife within South Africa’s Defence Force. I can find no other explanation for their behaviour. I do not want to refer back to the old debates. However, the hon. member for Sea Point raised this matter, and I am in fact replying to it. He refused to vote in favour of this House expressing its concern at the Russian-Cuban presence in Angola, and he refused to agree that this could possibly bring about aggression against South West Africa. [Interjections.] He refused to vote in favour of this House and the Government taking steps to prevent this. He refused to vote in favour, in view of those threats, of all reasonable steps being taken to fail that aggression, and what is more, Sir, he refused to vote in favour of this House conveying its appreciation to the South African soldiers. [Interjections.] He is now saying that it was a trick of the Prime Minister. Sir, this is an even more serious matter. In other words, when this House is asked to express its confidence in this manner, then it is a game. When does the Progressive Party wish to express its confidence then?

By way of a substantive motion.

But surely it was that hon. member who involved Angola in his actions against the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister told him what we were doing. But let us go a little further. The hon. member has a way of making statements very readily. He said that I was inserting provisions in this Bill because I myself doubted whether I had acted within the law in respect of Angola. Where does the hon. member get that from? I said—

It is not that I had any doubts on this score, for, when I discussed the Angolan issue in this House, I said that I had received legal opinion which substantiated my actions. I said that I had obtained legal advice. But other people in the country, including the hon. member, had doubts, and therefore we were rectifying the matter so that even doubters such as he could see the light in the future. [Interjections.] The hon. member is asking me to make a statement on what Dr. Kissinger is alleged to have said. Was the hon. member not present here when the Prime Minister spoke, when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke, and when I said that we have not gone into Angola in a self-righteous manner? Was he not listening? Was he not listening when we said that for diplomatic and other reasons we were not able to spell everything out then? Why is the hon. member so inclined to believe Dr. Kissinger and always condemn his own people?

I merely asked whether what he had said was true.

When Dr. Kissinger sneezes, you believe him, but when the Prime Minister speaks, then it is a trick. This indicates a mentality in that party of which that party should rid itself if it wishes to inscribe South Africanism On its banner. If what they are preaching should succeed in South Africa, it would be of no avail having a Defence Force. A Defence Force would no longer be necessary, for then South Africa would be committed to surrender.

The hon. member referred to volunteers. Who is abolishing the right to use volunteers? Where does the hon. member read that? It is not stated in the motion of the hon. member for Durban Point, nor is it stated in the Bill. In spite of what is stated in the Act, Volunteers were used in 1939. This was Government policy at the time. What is now being inserted in the Act, is that the Government, in time of war, should have the right to use every able-bodied citizen to perform certain tasks.

Unconditionally?

But of course! I shall come to this at a later stage in my reply ….

[Inaudible]

… if the hon. member would only give me a chance, and if the hon. member sitting next to him would only stop upsetting her nervous system! The hon. member for Houghton is so afraid that someone may offend one of her chicks! She is cackling and cackling as though there were a hundred hawks in the vicinity.

If I have annoyed you, I have achieved my purpose.

The attitude of the hon. members of the Progressive Party is one of finding fault with the Republic, of South Africa. They are seeking escape in a world which is too paralysed to withstand communism. That is why they are the intercedes in this country of all those people who do not want to enable this Government to maintain order.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister was made to withdraw those words when he used them during the last session. May I put this as a point of order?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member must take her medicine this afternoon. The hon. member for Rondebosch said that he was very impressed by the programme of civil action in the north of South West Africa. It impressed him immensely. However, Owambo and Kavango are not the only two places where civil action is taking place. After all, civil action is taking place in the Republic of South Africa as well. It is happening every day. The additional civil action which is taking place there, is taking place precisely because those people do not yet have the means to introduce the civil action of a well-ordered State. Does he not understand this? In other words, the peace task which we are undertaking there is in fact to enable those people to reach a level where they can look after themselves. But surely civil action is taking place in the Republic as well. It is taking place on a very large scale, by way of all the services we are rendering or the upliftment work, or the educational work, and all the services which are being placed at the disposal of the population of South Africa by this House and other boards.

I now want to put this question to the hon. member: What forces constitute a threat to this civil action, and that civil action with which the hon. member was so impressed? At the moment these are the forces which are being unleased in Angola under Russian-Cuban guidance for it is they who, with their military force, wish to undo what is being done by means of civil action to the benefit of other people. Can the hon. member deny that? And how are they doing this? They are doing this by means of terrorism and terroristic activities, and also by causing an armed conflict when terrorism is combated. Does the hon. member not understand this? Surely it must be clear to him for did he not go there as the leader of á group! That civil action, and the civil action in all spheres in the Republic of South Africa, is being threatened today from one quarter only. The threat comes from those forces that wish to overthrow orderly government, and that force is terrorism. If terrorism cannot succeed, the element of intervention comes into play to intensify and escalate that terrorism by means of armed conflict. That is precisely what happened there. However, the hon. member did not perceive when he was in charge of that leadership group!

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

No, I am talking now, The Bill deals primarily with four matters which are aimed at improving the defence of the Republic of South Africa, for what we are dealing with is the defence of the Republic of South Africa. For this purpose South West Africa is included in the defence of the Republic of South Africa, as the legislation states. Our entire defence is based, not on aggression but on defence. It is stated in the Defence Act that the Republic of South Africa may in times of war and against terrorism be defended anywhere in South Africa. That is the first problem we have to contend with. This is not a problem which arose yesterday, it is a problem which has been present since 1912. For other reasons it was then perhaps less of a problem and more of a solution. In 1912 there were other wounds in South Africa that first had to heal. I think the leaders of the time, in their wisdom, inserted these words because they had to unite a people, a people which had then just emerged from a war with one another. Surely we cannot deny our history. The fact of the matter is that wounds had been inflicted and that there was mutual suspicion and mistrust. Those leaders tried, to the best of their ability, to bring the people together to defend the new Union of South Africa in such a way that wounds would not be re-opened. They did not always succeed in doing so. However, to define South Africa as a geographic concept produced problems at the time and is still producing problems today. If the designation were to be removed, section 95 would have to be amended accordingly. This is clear to me. Therefore one either inserts a better definition of South Africa or Southern Africa there, and one spells it out clearly in the light of new circumstances, or it has to disappear. It is one of two choices. In my introductory speech I said that even a definition of what comprises South Africa can produce problems for one. I readily concede that.

In the meantime, however, something else has happened. Hon. members quoted what took place in 1957 when a motion was introduced in this House on the part of the Opposition in favour of which members who were then sensible, but who are today Progressives, voted. I hope they are more sensible than those who are here, and that that is why they are not here. They are now using other people to do the work for them here. I said that something else happened, and I am referring to the introduction of compulsory national service. This created a completely different picture in South Africa. It did not exist in 1939, nor in 1957. Compulsory national service has only been, introduced during the past few years, as a result of a joint investigation which took place, and not as a result of a motion of mine as Minister, for when I became Minister, the process was already in progress. Therefore I do not want to take credit for it, for it was the product of a joint investigation by Defence Force, leaders and members of the public, prominent people from our communities. That investigation was carried out on the instructions of the then State President. It was then requested that Parliament give attention to whether the time had not arrived for the introduction of compulsory military service as a principle in the Defence Act, hut always still “in defence of the Republic of South Africa’’. This confronted us with a new situation, the results of which we as Parliament have perhaps not dealt with sufficiently, for under the system of compulsory national service there is a force-in-being at the disposal of the Minister of Defence. It is stated thus in the Act. The Minister of Defence may employ that force-in-being, which was established under compulsory military service, anywhere in defence of the Republic of South Africa. This is the legal opinion I obtained, and I think that this legal opinion is correct. This new situation then arose, and I personally, and those who have to advise me, are experiencing difficulty in reaching clarity on what is meant by this vague concept of “South Africa”.

According to the motion of the Progressive Party some people think that “South Africa” means nothing more than simply a meandering corridor all around the borders of the former protectorates. They and Dr. Hertzog now agree on this point, they are kindred spirits. However, I do not think that this was what was understood under “South Africa” in the Defence Act, for the military view of “South Africa” is that there is a military theatre in which South Africa’s interests lie, and that this is far wider than our mere borders. The military view is most certainly that it extends at least as far as the equator, and that it extends further seawards than merely along our coastline. There must also be seaward defence of South Africa; its security must also be ensured at sea. This makes the problem of giving a definition of “South Africa” even greater. We must not concentrate solely on defence by the army. In any balanced actions in defence of South Africa the army will to a large extent be dependent on air and naval support, as was also the case recently. I want to point out that South Africa did not recently take action by means of the army only; it also took action by means of the air force and the navy, which played a part in support of the army. Consequently I reconsidered the position, and I am quite prepared to have the motion of the hon. member for Durban Point placed on the Order Paper as an instruction. [Interjections.] I have already discussed this with the law advisers, and in consultation with them a motion in this regard is being prepared. They will also discuss it with the hon. member. Notice of the motion will be given tomorrow so that we will be able to give an additional instruction to the Committee of the Whole House. I admit candidly that this is completely in the spirit in which there has always been consultation on the Defence Act, and I am therefore not ashamed to accept a motion of the hon. member for Durban Point. In any case he has always negotiated with me in the right spirit on matters affecting the Defence Force. I appreciate this on his part, and he knows that I do so. However, this does not detract from the fact that from time to time we oppose one another very strenuously on other matters. But surely we are adults in this House, and not so childish that we wish to turn everything into a party-political game, as the group of hon. members sitting over there wish to do.

However, there is another point I want to make. It is of course possible for agreements between South Africa and neighbouring countries to arise, for example non-aggression treaties, or agreements in terms of which they will jointly oppose the communist danger in Southern Africa, for there are States that are better disposed towards these matters than the Progressive Party. In such a case the agreement will be submitted to Parliament. I cannot imagine our concluding a defence agreement with another country without submitting the essential principles of it to Parliament. After all, this is most certainly the practice, but what is more, it is also sound common sense. It is not stated thus anywhere in the Defence Act, but it shall be done. Out of such agreements a situation of armed conflict may arise, in which South Africa will have certain obligations, which could possibly result from attacks made on the various States. It could then be in South Africa’s interests to help ensure that the lawful governments of those countries are protected. Of course armed conflict could also arise in that terrorism has to be combated, as we recently experienced. In the first place South Africa considered itself primarily involved in the combating of terrorism and terroristic activities. But the next thing South Africa knew was it was confronted with an armed conflict beyond its border as a result of the intervention of forces that had effected an arms build-up on our borders, of forces which constituted a threat to those interests for which South Africa was responsible. I say in all honesty to my friends opposite that however much I want to help them it is not even possible to ask for parliamentary authorization at such a time.

No, we are not asking that this be done at such a time either. It should be done afterwards.

In such circumstances there is no time to summon Parliament. We cannot tell the Defence Force that they should give us 14 days or so in order that we may first summon Parliament.

We made it very clear that parliamentary authorization should be obtained at a subsequent stage.

I am prepared to report properly on such a matter at the next ensuing session of Parliament. If matters were to develop into a state of war, the Defence Act provides that the State President may then declare a state of war, and he then has to summon Parliament within 30 days, not for the purposes of review, but to discuss it. My standpoint is that occasions may arise when we shall have to act, and that it would not be in the interests of the country to summon Parliament at that stage since the crisis situation could by so doing be made far worse than it might in fact be. The Government gave attention to all these matters. Let me say—I do not think I am divulging a secret when I say this—that the Government recently gave attention to all these matters, but if we had, at a given moment, come to this Parliament and requested the powers which we required at that stage to go further, we would have wanted to commit larger forces, and we would not have ended where we did in fact end. The Government did not want to summon Parliament because it did not want to go further than its limited objective. I have already spelled this out very clearly here.

There is a third matter to which I want to refer. Suppression and prevention of terrorism or terroristic activities, for the purposes of employment in terms of section 95, are deemed to be service against an enemy in time of war. I want to emphasize this. The proposed new section 103 ter and 103 quat, contained in clause 8, offers indemnity in connection with the combating of terrorism and terroristic activities. Why is this the case? This only applies to the indemnity of a member of the S.A. Defence Force against proceedings, as it is stated in the proposed section 103ter (2), by reason of any act “advised, commanded, ordered, directed or done’’, in the service of the State in any operational area. Therefore this would also apply in the suppression of any internal disorder if the Defence Force is called in. However, this only applies when he acted in good faith, according to instructions, in the performance of his operational duties. Let me put it in another way: If a soldier in one military area who is not under orders were to go out and attack, assault, injure or kill a private individual, he will not receive indemnity under this section, for he has then committed a crime. In time of war a court martial will deal with him. However, if he hurts someone in good faith in the performance of his duties imposed on him by a higher authority, we do not want that soldier to be dragged before a court while he was merely carrying out the commands and instructions of a higher authority. That is all that is at issue.

Is it the Afrikaans text which is applicable? In the Afrikaans text it is clear that he may only act in good faith and that he may be indemnified when he is under orders. It is not as clear from the English version.

This morning I asked the law advisers to tell me whether they thought there was a difference. They assured me that there is no difference between the Afrikaans and English texts. However, these are matters we could look at again in the Committee Stage. I am not a lawyer. I did study law for a while at university, and I learned one thing from that experience, namely that lawyers and economists are dangerous people. This is at the same time my reply to the hon. member for East London City. My information, therefore, is that there is no difference between the two versions as they are stated in the English and Afrikaans texts. I have read them, and personally I find no difference between the two either.

There is a big difference.

I do not know whether I should accept the hon. member’s opinion; perhaps he should sit in this House a little longer before he can expect us to accept his opinion above that of the law advisers.

There is a fourth matter to which I want to refer, namely the amendment in respect of the Moratorium Act. This amendment is the furthest we are able to go in this connection.

These are the four most important matters we are dealing with. Why, then, all the fuss on the part of the Progressive Party? By now they have placed us in the category of world powers which are waging campaigns of conquest, apparently under the leadership of General Eglin and General Slabbert!

Sergeant Slabbert.

The amendment of the Moratorium Act simply seeks to bring it into line with the practice we already have in the Moratorium Act. I know that the hon. member for Durban Point has it in mind that we should go further in respect of the leasing of flats, and so on.

In the short term.

This is not such an easy matter. We have already discussed it with organized commerce, specifically with bodies such as the Handelsinstitut, the Chamber of Commerce, if I am not mistaken, and other major organizations as well. We came up against very great problems. I do not think that a Select Committee, or even this House, can solve those problems. After all, the lessor also has rights. He has to pay interest on capital, and in many cases he is probably also a person who is affected by this legislation. That is why I believe that a solution to this problem should rather be sought outside Parliament, for example, by holding discussions with building societies, and that it should not be solved by means of legislation. We have already made great progress with employers, after holding discussions with them on the payment of their employees. Let me give you an example. Out of a total of 5 000 persons who were called up to serve in the Citizen Force, there were only, according to a survey which was made, 103 persons who were not being paid in full by their employers. This was as a result of the efforts which the Defence Force and I personally made to persuade employers to pay their employees properly. I think that we should try to solve this problem in that way—I am not saying that we shall succeed—rather than to introduce legislation. In any case I do not know what to do about this problem, nor do I think that we shall find a solution to it.

The hon. member for Durban Point also objected to the concept of “terroristic activities”. He said there was no such thing. Well, I have learned one thing, and that is that in these times in which we are living there is no such thing as something which one has to describe as non-existent. As long as we are dealing with the clever plans from Moscow we will encounter all kinds of things of this nature. I see in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, page 2361, that “terroristic” is given as “the adjective pertaining to terrorism”. I think that that is a good source to quote. Consequently it seems to me that we are right. The difficulty is that as soon as one formulates terrorism too much for our purposes one may run the risk of paralysing oneself, for it manifests itself in various ways.

Let me furnish an example of what I mean. At a certain place a terrorist attack occurred, and murder was committed. Subsequently a state of confusion developed among a part of the population there. Precisely as a result of our military actions there, one of our soldiers requires protection today in terms of these provisions. What happened? Patrols were sent out. Insurgents had painted slogans on the road and when the patrols were not there they had victimized the local population and demonstrated by means of the slogans what would happen to them. They dream up new methods of blackmailing the population every day. In carrying out their task one patrol apprehended certain people. They were warned to remain where they were, but they fled. In the precipitate flight, which occurred at night, shots were fired and one of their number was wounded. Surely we have to afford that soldier protection. After all, he did not deliberately shoot an innocent person. He was protecting innocent people. That is what we are trying to do here. I am mentioning this to indicate to the hon. member how one is constantly dealing with new methods of terroristic activities.

The hon. members said that they did not like my appointing the Compensation Board. Yet they allow me to appoint the Board of Review. They also allow me to appoint the Staff Board. I may appoint the leaders of the Defence Force, but I may not appoint the Compensation Board. It seems so illogical to me. The hon. member for East London City said he does not trust me; that is why he does not want this. He wants this Board to be appointed by someone else. He caused the hon. member for Durban Point to find himself in a difficult spot. The hon. member should not discuss matters before he has consulted the hon. member for Durban Point, who will be able to furnish him with very sound advice and who will also advise him not to make such unnecessary statements here. I want to tell that hon. member now that I do not intend accepting that amendment, and that I have no intention either of avoiding my obligations, for this side of the House trusts me.

You are becoming over-sensitive now.

No, I am merely putting children in their place. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for such an hon. member, who has not been long in Parliament, to display his ignorance here. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member introduced that note here, for we were arguing with one another on an entirely different basis. However, I want to dispose of this matter with the greatest possible dispatch. When I need the advice of a judge and I call him in for that purpose, it does not mean to say that it is an inferior judge because I am asking him. In exactly the same way a judge is not inferior because he is appointed by the Minister of Justice to the Supreme Court or to the Appeal Court, and is subsequently even asked to express an opinion on Government matters. That is a nonsensical argument.

I come now to the hon. member for Albany. He asked about “action in excess of hot pursuit”. This could of course happen. Something like this could result from an engagement with terrorists. As I have said, there is no time for Parliament to be summoned, and it is impossible for us to undertake to summon Parliament shortly afterwards, for conflicts of that kind may arise several times in a space of a month or two. Should we then summon Parliament for every conflict? I think we should leave this matter in the hands of any reasonable Government. If a Government knows that its country is so divided on an issue that it first has to come to Parliament to settle it, it shall do so. This has happened in the past. However, if the Government knows that it has the support of the bulk of its population, of the electorate, in respect of the safeguarding of its borders, it would be a weak Government that does not take action.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to war pensions and “disablement”. This falls under other legislation—not under this legislation. It is the domain of another department. I do not administer pensions. I shall help the hon. member to obtain the greatest possible benefits for soldiers, but this is not relevant here.

There are other bodies which collect funds. The hon. member for Green Point referred to assistance outside the sphere of legislation. That is correct. There are certain bodies that are collecting funds today. There is a registered welfare organization, the Southern Cross Fund, and I hope that everyone in the country will support that organization. It is a bilingual organization. It is an organization that is trying to serve the entire population. That fund is being utilized in many cases to alleviate problems. Then there are the services of the S.A. Legion, which always receives favourable support from me. Furthermore, there is the Governor-General ’ s Fund, to which one could also perhaps look for possible assistance.

Then the question of “professional armies and volunteers” was raised. But surely South Africa cannot maintain a permanent force on a large scale. South Africa is a country which, like Switzerland, Sweden, Israel and to a large extent France, which is a bigger country than ours, makes use of compulsory military service to augment its Permanent Force. Although South Africa should have a larger Permanent Force—and I am in favour of this—it will not be able to escape the obligations it will have to impose on national servicemen and on its Citizen Force and Commandos. Therefore the hon. member for Yeoville was really not making any contribution by advocating this.

Now I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that the right to make use of volunteers is in no way being abolished by this proposed legislation. It is a question of Government policy, and if a Government wishes to go and fight with volunteers only, it is still at liberty to say that it only wants volunteers. Where in the Bill is it stated that this is not allowed? When did the hon. member for Durban Point imply anything of the kind? He merely asked that when we take action against terrorism we should call up everyone who should be called up in terms of the Act to deal with terrorism and an armed conflict which constitutes a threat to the security of our country. If one is called up, everyone should be called up. However, I can imagine, if we wish to take action as we did at the time of the Korean War, when we only needed a handful of people, that we will in fact call for volunteers. We did not call up the whole of South Africa to go and fight in Korea. This is the reason for the existence of the element of voluntariness in the legislation. It is not being prevented. But when South Africa is threatened, when the security of the Republic is at stake, for example in the case of war, terrorism or terroristic action against the interests of South Africa, or in the case of an armed conflict which, in the opinion of the State President, may be a threat to the security of the country, it is deemed to be the duty of everyone to protect the security of South Africa. Whether or not the hon. member likes the Government of the day does not matter. It is the duty of everyone to do so, just as it would have been the duty of everyone in 1939 if there had been an attack on the borders of the country. I am readily prepared to admit that it would be a poor South African who, if his country’s borders were threatened, refused to take up arms to defend it.

And if Hitler had won the battle of Britain, what then?

What is the hon. member for Houghton cackling about? One would say the hon. member had been a field-marshal in the last War. I cannot make it any clearer than to say that section 95 becomes applicable solely for the purposes of making it possible to employ people for the prevention or suppression of terrorism or terroristic activities or armed conflict which is a threat to the security of South Africa. I cannot state it any clearer than this.

The official Opposition and the Government will simply have to continue to take the steps necessary to make the soldiers feel that Parliament is behind them. We shall simply have to continue to take these steps and to ensure the security of the borders of South Africa, and if the Progressive Party wishes to exclude itself, then that is its responsibility. All it should do in that case is to ask itself on whose side it is in these very serious times for the free world and for Southern Africa.

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

Upon which the House divided:

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

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed Bill creates a statutory offence if and when a person purports to act as a representative of the State, Armaments Board and/or Armscor and who while posing as such a representative inquires about the availability of armaments and/or negotiates the possible procurement of armaments.

Certain sections have been provided to ease or facilitate the application of the proposed Bill, with special reference to difficulties and/or problems which are expected to arise with respect to the jurisdiction of the courts and the acceptability of witnesses.

Let us first of all deal with circumstances that give rise to the necessity for legislation of this nature. In the time we are living in, so-called “gun-running” offers excessive profits for the “runner” or agent. This results in persons representing themselves both within the Republic and in foreign countries as accredited agents of the Republic, the Armaments Board and/or Armscor. In this guise, they make inquiries about the availability of armaments, enter into negotiations for the supply thereof and endeavour to establish agency agreements with foreign suppliers. This conduct could and in practice does create embarrassment, hampers official procurement, causes prices to be increased unnecessarily and often results in serious security risks. To cope with this problem, it is proposed that such misrepresentation be prohibited and that the necessary penalties be imposed for offences.

It is my intention to deal only with the cardinal points covered in the Bill. The contents of clause 2 of the Bill comprise

Those actions that constitute an offence;

Those persons who may be guilty of an offence;

The punishment applicable.

The offence of false representation as accredited agent ipso facto entails the acquisition of weapons, information about weapons, the manufacturing rights as regards weapons by way of licences, patents, or other such means. It is not only the acquisition of such information, but also making inquiries about such information which constitutes such an offence. The prohibition of such conduct applies not only to the Republic, but also to other countries where, in many instances, such conduct may occur.

The sentence applicable is a maximum fine of R5 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or both the fine and the imprisonment. The penalty proposed bears relationship to the attractiveness of the weapons trade and the negative repercussions which irresponsible actions impose on our national security and can be regarded as a sufficient deterrent.

Clause 3 read in conjunction with clause 4 makes it possible to prosecute in the Republic of South Africa, as the offence is deemed to have been committed at the place where the accused happens to be in the Republic of South Africa. These provisions are necessary as the offences may, as mentioned previously, be committed outside the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of South Africa.

I now come to clause 5 of the Bill. As will often happen, a witness may not be available or may not be prepared to give evidence before a court in the Republic of South Africa, as he may reside abroad or because of the adverse publicity involved and/or because the negotiations he participated in are prohibited by law or regulation in his own country. To provide the court with sufficient evidence in a prosecution, it is proposed that provision be made for admission as evidence in a trial, the evidence given under oath of a witness taken down in writing—

1. (a) in the presence of the accused;
2. (b) by an officer having functions and responsibilities corresponding to functions and responsibilities in the Republic of South Africa, either of a judge or a magistrate or of a consular officer,

and which statement shall be authenticated in the prescribed manner. This clause merely facilitates the proof of offences committed outside the Republic of South Africa without derogating from the high standards of justice maintained by the courts of the Republic of South Africa.

To conclude, it should be pointed out that the provisions of clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill are in principle identical to sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Civil Aviation Offences Act, No. 10 of 1972, as amended, and that the only new provision is that contained in clause 2 of the Bill which creates the offence.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. However, we have one objection. It is not really an objection, but a suggestion for the improvement of procedure in regard to the procurement of evidence from abroad as provided in clause 5 of the Bill. Like the hon. the Minister of Defence, I am not a lawyer, but even to me as a layman the procedure envisaged looks clumsy. The accused can only be arrested in the Republic of South Africa; we cannot arrest him abroad. The person must therefore be arrested here and subsequently he will have to be taken overseas to be present for the purposes of obtaining a statement. Subsequently he has to be brought back for a hearing.

My learned friend, the hon. member for Green Point, will propose the establishment of a proven and recognized legal procedure in regard to the procurement of overseas evidence, a procedure which we believe will represent a great improvement. However, this is a matter which I am merely mentioning now and which I shall deal with further at the Committee Stage.

We shall never eliminate entirely the evil of the gun runner—that is impossible. They are like vultures. Wherever there is something to scavenge they will be there. Consequently we shall have to attempt to deal with them by any means possible and that is the aim of this Bill.

The unauthorized middleman who steps in not only poses a danger to the country, but also pushes up the price of the armaments we buy. This prejudices the interests of South Africa. It is a very easy way to make a quick profit without risk. However, such an offender will now have to run the risk of falling foul of this Act.

We must admit that we are exceptionally vulnerable as far as the procurement of armaments is concerned. With a few exceptions, we cannot trade or compete on the free market. Secrecy is necessary, therefore, and the more secrecy there is, the more opportunities are there for the person who wants to abuse them illegally and in conflict with the interests of South Africa. Part of the normal check which would otherwise be carried out by Parliament is now withdrawn from Parliament because the necessary secrecy means that we cannot discuss prices and sources in Parliament. A heavy responsibility rests on the hon. the Minister and on the Armaments Board.

For interest’s sake and in passing I just want to mention that the Bill calls to mind a purchase which another South African government department effected through a certain middleman. I refer of course to the Cuban Viscounts which we bought. Today we are getting our hardware from Cuba via another middleman. I must admit that I prefer the middleman we are using today to the one we used then to purchase Cuban Viscounts. The price we are paying now is perhaps a little lower and there is much glory for the middleman who is at present placing some of that hardware in our hands.

One day it will be possible for an interesting history to be written. However, we hope that the time will soon come when the restrictions on our markets for arms will be lifted and when we will again be able to trade on the free market. In the meantime a Bill such as this one is necessary and we on this side of the House support it, because we must have arms. We must obtain arms, since our men need them in order to defend our country. We shall vote for the Second Reading and the hon. member for Green Point will deal with the amendment to which I referred.

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member for Durban Point displayed very sound judgment, something which we also perceived in his support of the Defence Amendment Bill. The hon. member quite rightly said that the vultures abroad who seek carrion to peddle cannot be kept in check by means of this legislation. However, it is important for one to make an effort to check their activities and clip their wings a little.

† The procurement of modern armaments is a very onerous task. Parliament, therefore, found it necessary to create machinery to assist the Department of Defence and the hon. the Minister in this difficult task. I am referring to the Armaments Board, as well as to the Armaments Development and Production Corporation.

This Bill has to do with the procurement of armaments in its widest concept. Because of its sensitive nature it is a very difficult and delicate task to negotiate the procurement of armaments. Because of South Africa’s past and present position, great care should be exercised even by authorized people with knowledge and years of experience in the handling of such matters, let alone by people with no knowledge or experience in this field at all. These people may very well jeopardize a specific procurement by their actions. They may even jeopardize the security of the State directly or indirectly. The latter arguments and the existence of the two armament organizations are the basis of the principles which are to be considered in this Bill.

*Mr. Speaker, in order to understand fully certain principles in this Bill, we must begin by understanding that very unnatural and heavy restrictions have been imposed on the acquisition of armaments under present circumstances as a result of the interference of UNO in transactions of this nature. Secondly: Owing to the age of technological armaments which we are living in, this is extremely difficult and at the moment the Department of Defence must gear itself to specialized tasks and provide the services required for a better understanding of these specialized tasks, and perhaps we can take a brief introductory look at the responsibility of the S.A. Defence Force in this regard. Taking into account the Republic’s appreciation of its threats, it is the task of the S.A. Defence Force to draw up and define the operational need for the necessary armaments for the combating of this threat and in addition, to plan the tactical deployment thereof. Supplementary to this, we could say that the armaments organizations have to build up a certain knowledge in their own ranks by means of which they can make these armaments available. Looking at these tasks of the armaments organizations, we can say that it is their task inter alia to build up knowledge of armaments available throughout the world. It is their task, too, to identify and establish sources and channels from which and through which armaments can be made available to us, to become acquainted with the operational possibilities and possibilities of application of armaments and to be possessed of sufficient knowledge of armaments to be in a position to determine whether armaments purchased will meet the operational requirements of the S.A. Defence Force. They must be acquainted, too, with the manufacturing potential of the industries. We can purchase these armaments, we can have the best and the finest armaments in the world, and this will mean nothing if we are unable to maintain them. One could continue in this way to refer to research programmes, modernization programmes and the levels of skill necessary to effect the modernization of armaments in order to combat new threats. I could continue in this vein, but what I have just mentioned illustrates to a sufficient degree the principle contained in this legislation, viz. that the armaments organizations, in their own ranks, and in co-operation with the Defence Force, have the knowledge and the ability necessary to deal most effectively with the aspect of acquisition. What is most important is that they have the knowledge and that they will need no outsiders to assist them, people without experience or any knowledge who go trudging around abroad making enquiries or purchasing armaments. We note that there are three types of person usually involved in gunrunning abroad. The first kind is the person who has the interests of the Republic and the interests of our Defence Force at heart and who becomes involved in such transactions and matters merely by chance and in good faith. The second type is the person who intentionally goes abroad, has the interests of the Republic of South Africa at heart in good faith, but who tries to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible out of these transactions. The third type is the most dangerous, viz. the kind of person who wants to make sure whatever the circumstances that he is able to obtain armaments for the Government illegally without being concerned as to whether he may be jeopardizing existing relationships, existing contracts and existing agreements, or that he may be compromising the relationships we have built up so far with friendly peoples in view of the present attitude of the UNO in regard to armaments transactions. This legislation is aimed at restricting the activities of these people. There are two kinds of activities these people undertake. The first thing these ferrets do is to go abroad, as I have just mentioned, to attempt to procure armaments or to make inquiries about them. The second kind of ferret goes abroad intentionally in order to try to gain agencies and then bring these to the Republic and by so doing enrich himself. In supporting this legislation, one is inclined to ask oneself whether clause 2 of this Bill goes far enough. Clause 2 of the Bill as it reads at present only concerns those persons who purport to represent the state in South Africa or elsewhere and effect transactions or make inquiries in regard to armaments. The second type of person is one who purports to want to enter into agency agreements on behalf of the State, Board or Corporation. These matters have already been discussed with the hon. the Minister and with the legal advisers, and with the permission of the hon. the Minister we shall quite probably move in the Committee Stage that the agency gunrunners, too, be restricted.

Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the principle of this Bill, which, as is clearly stated in the preamble, is to prohibit an unauthorized person from purporting to represent the State in matters relating to arms transactions. I think that we are all at one that carpet-bagging in arms is a practice which, while making enormous profits for individuals and individual groups, does no good for the countries which these people purport to represent. The problem that I have in relation to this Bill flows from the remarks made by the hon. Minister in his opening speech, where he said that the purpose of the Bill was to deal with the offence of false representation as an accredited agent. Using the word “false” in his opening speech and using the word “unauthorized” in the preamble to the Bill, the Minister fails to give an absolutely clear meaning to it in the Bill.

The words used in clause 2 refer to “any person who, in the Republic or elsewhere, purports” to do a particular act. My difficulty is that someone may purport to do something and at the same time in fact be doing something. Purporting is not necessarily pretending. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary’s definition of the word “purport” is “to have as its purport”, “to convey to the mind”, “to mean”, “to imply”, “to profess or claim by its tenor”. In Webster’s Third International Dictionary the word “purport” is defined as “to convey”, “to imply or profess outwardly as meaning”, “intention of true character”. What I am intending to say is that to use the word “purport” in the Bill is not to give effect to the meaning, completely and clearly, of a false representation or, as is stated in the title, an unauthorized representation. In the Afrikaans section it is of course much better, because the word “voorgee” is used, and in the Verklarende Afrikaanse Woordeboek by Kritzinger and Pienaar, the word “voorgee” means “om te beweer”, which is to allege, or “voorwend”, which is to pretend, to feign or to simulate, or “om die skyn te gee”, which is to give the impression. Therefore, whereas we support the principle of the Bill, we are not certain that the exact meaning as interpreted in the speech of the hon. the Minister and in the title of the Bill is in fact contained in that clause. I would ask the Minister perhaps in the Committee Stage to give a thought to clarifying that, and I will certainly move an amendment to that effect.

The second point was passingly dealt with by the hon. member for Durban Point, and relates to the clause which provides for the taking of evidence in writing of witnesses who are not able to appear in a court case relating to a matter of this nature in South Africa. Whereas it is quite clear that there is a need for this sort of provision, the difficulty, as I see it, is that there is no method outlined in this Bill of cross-examination or of putting questions to a person who would give evidence in this way. We feel that a far better way of dealing with the taking of evidence from people who are overseas and who cannot be brought here would be to incorporate the necessary provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955, the Criminal Code, relating to taking evidence on commissions, and in particular relating to interrogatories. For instance, section 236 of the Criminal Code, relating to interrogatories, says that any party to any criminal proceedings in which a commission is issued may transmit any interrogatory in writing which the court directing the commission may think relevant to the issue, and the magistrate or other person to whom the commission is directed shall examine the witness upon such interrogatory.

Now, the situation is that when a statement in terms of this Bill is brought into South Africa and used in a court, it is quite correct that the accused person through his counsel could query that document and could deal with it in argument in one form or another and could even lead evidence relating to such a document. The written word cannot, however, be cross-examined and the nuances of evidence given by means of a statement of this sort cannot be dealt with. I feel that the position is fully covered by section 236 of the Criminal Code, which authorizes the court to allow questions to be put in writing to such a person so that such replies can then also be taken into account. So while supporting the principle of the Bill, there are these two matters which I think are relevant, and we will be moving the necessary amendments in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, pointed out to us that the Progressive Reform Party supports the principle of this Bill, and one is very grateful for that. It is very good to notice this positive action from those quarters. [Interjection.] Yes, as the hon. member here says, it is probably after the hiding which they received. The hon. member for Sandton mentioned that they foresee problems with the word “purport” in the English text and also with the submission of evidence. I think we will be able to thrash out this matter in the Committee Stage quite easily. We are also very grateful for the attitude adopted by the official Opposition as put forward by the hon. member for Durban Point. This is responsible action on the part of the Opposition, and one can appreciate it.

Sir, seeing that we all agree now, I just want to point out briefly in what respect the actions of these so-called arms pedlars endanger the safety of South Africa. We notice that clause 2 of the Bill determines, inter alia, that a person who purports, without having the power to do so, to make inquiries about armaments or acquire information in regard thereto on behalf of the State or the Armaments Corporation, is guilty of an offence. It is essential that it must be so, because under present world conditions where the underhand buying and selling of weapons have become commonplace and where weapons or information is often acquired in a devious manner, it is obvious that conduct of this nature, these unauthorized actions, may seriously involve not only the name of South Africa, but also the security of the Republic. If people can purport freely without being authorized to do so, that they are negotiating on behalf of South Africa, the dangers attached to it are obvious; because when it comes to the conclusion of these so-called agreements and South Africa would quite rightly refuse to honour them our credibility would become involved and afterwards we could very easily find that, in future, an important door which should have been open to us in obtaining the necessary armaments, is closed with the real supplier. Only one loyalty counts with these unscrupulous weapon pedlars and so-called agents, and that is loyalty towards themselves. All they want to do, is to see how much money they can make out of these transactions and they will not hesitate hawking around everywhere, with the information they gathered in this manner, supposedly on behalf of South Africa, and taking advantage of it. It is obvious that this will deter prospective, sensitive suppliers from making contact with South Africa, and this may have very serious repercussions for South Africa’s security in obtaining essential armaments. Therefore it is essential that everyone who wants to obtain armaments, and so on, on behalf of South Africa or the Armaments Board, must be able to prove that he is a properly authorized person. He must be able to identify himself. People with whom we negotiate in this way, must and will very quickly realize and know that every Tom, Dick and Harry cannot obtain armaments, and so on, on behalf of South Africa.

But clause 2 contains a further provision, namely that someone who purports to make enquiries on behalf of the State or the Armaments Corporation about the availability, and so on, of armaments, is also guilty of an offence, and it is good and right that this must be so, because this person who makes enquiries and noses around under the pretence that he is acting on behalf of South Africa, is prejudicing South Africa’s security in a serious way. It is reasonably easy for the cunning operator who sails under false colours, to determine what the requirements of the Defence Force in certain respects are, by putting questions here and there. You would all agree, Sir, that this could be extremely dangerous for the Republic. Therefore it is high time that these people who are only bent on filling their own pockets, should be dealt with firmly. Bona fide and sincere agents and suppliers and sellers of armaments have nothing to fear from this Bill or from South Africa. We will still be able to obtain and purchase through these people certain armaments, which we might need from time to time. However, we can definitely do without the unscrupulous and dangerous arms pedlars.

I just want to make one final remark about a further provision of the Act. This offence could also be committed outside the Republic, and therefore clause 3 of the proposed Bill is, to my mind, quite justified. From the nature of the case a great many of the offences will be committed overseas, because that is where these arms pedlars operate. However, if we could get hold of such a person here, when he returns to this country to sell his wares to us, and we could punish him for any damages he caused us over there, I am sure he will think twice before doing this kind of thing again and then come back to us quite presumptuously. Therefore I think it is right that his actions, which take place overseas, should also be made an offence in this of this Act. It is so—and one has to admit this—that these measures may deter certain arms dealers, whom we could possibly have used, but the real, honest, bona fide supplier of arms or trader will still make contact with us and we shall still be able to obtain the necessary arms from him. I therefore want to support very strongly this Bill with all its provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I obviously have nothing to disagree with the hon. member for Verwoerdburg about. I want to restrict myself entirely to some comments in regard to clause 5 of this Bill. As I see the position, the statement which is referred to in clause 5 might be the most important piece of evidence in a prosecution that arises from the circumstances covered by this Bill. I am referring to the statement made by a person outside the Republic whose presence cannot be procured within the Republic. One knows that a court of law, in dealing with written statements, assesses the value of that evidence by the extent to which it has been tested and by the extent to which the credibility of the witness has been tested. The hon. member for Sandton mentioned certain procedures under the Criminal Procedure Act. I believe that those can be applied, and there is consequently no need to include those sections, i.e. sections 235 to 238 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court, in any case, can appoint a commission, or send interrogatories to a commissioner overseas. That applies, and it is consequently unnecessary to put this into the Act. The law of criminal procedure applies. However, it is difficult to visualize the circumstances in which a statement of this sort could be obtained. First of all, the accused person must be present, and we must remember that he will be in a foreign country. He cannot be taken under arrest from South Africa and detained under arrest by South African Police in that foreign country. There must be some peculiar circumstances to bring about the fact that he is present when the statement is made in front of a person who is authorized to record that statement. In order that that statement can be strenghtened, I believe the right should be given to the person charged to put questions to the deponent, i.e. the maker of the statement, and to have those questions and the answers recorded. Then, when that statement comes before a court in the Republic, and is presented as evidence, the accused will not be in a position to say that the statement is false, unless he had had the authority or opportunity to ask questions and did so. In terms of my suggestion, when he comes to court he will have had an opportunity to put questions, and to have those questions and answers recorded. I believe that would strengthen the hands of the court. I think hon. members of this House will agree with me that it would also strengthen the value of that statement if the accused had had the opportunity to put questions to the deponent at the time the statement was made, and it is not simply a statement handed in without there having been any opportunity of it being tested by the accused. I shall move, therefore, in the Committee Stage that authority should be given to the person who is to be charged in the Republic, and who is present when the statement is made, to put questions and have the questions and answers recorded by the official who is taking down the statement overseas. That is additional to the rights of the court in South Africa, when the matter comes up for trial, to apply sections 235 to 238 of the Criminal Procedure Act to issue a commission or interrogatories. That is the amendment I propose to suggest to the hon. the Minister. I know that he and my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point, profess that they are not lawyers, so I thought I should mention the matter now in some detail in the Second Reading so that the legal advisers of the hon. the Minister can consider the suggestion I have made before it comes up in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support. It seems to me as if even the Progref Party had a change of heart. At least they want to help now to bring some order into the procurement of weapons. This is a first step. However, I think it is merely as a result of the behaviour of the hon. member for Sandton. He has a fine constituency; all I do not know is how he got there. All I can say, is that even with this measure, it will to my mind still be difficult to contain this evil. It is an attempt to contain it. With this I do not want to imply that one must throw up one’s arms in despair and say that one can do nothing. However, we, as a Parliament, should at least help the Armaments Board to combat this evil as far as is possible. If hon. members want to place their amendments on the Order Paper, I will try and find an opportunity to consider them and discuss them with the law advisers. I thank the hon. members for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although this Bill is somewhat related to the coming independence of the Transkei, the provisions of this Bill may also apply to a homeland which is not becoming independent.

Since this Bill does not make direct provision for independence, I would like to remind hon. members that I have explained before that special legislation will be required for this. I may add that there is still a great deal to be done in this regard, and that I cannot yet set a possible date for this.

Although this Bill is not complicated in itself, I shall now briefly explain the contents clause by clause. Firstly, I shall deal with clauses 1 to 3 and 7 together. Hon. members will recall that the first composition of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei consisted of 64 traditional members (chiefs) and 45 elected members, i.e. a ratio of 58%:42%. During 1967, and in terms of section 1 of Act 101 of 1967, the composition was amended as far as the ratio between paramount chiefs and chiefs was concerned, but the Legislative Assembly still consisted of 64 traditional members and 45 elected members. During 1971 the composition of the Legislative Assembly was once again amended by section 8 of Act 31 of 1971, by the creation of one additional “chief’s constituency”, so that the assembly then consisted of 65 chiefs and 45 elected members. All this naturally took place at the request of the Transkei Legislative Assembly and Government.

During the previous Parliamentary session the composition was further amended to provide for the representation of the districts of Glen Grey and Herschel which were to be incorporated with the Transkei, and the number of traditional members and elected members was then increased for this purpose.

Since the first composition of the Transkei Legislative Assembly, the composition has therefore been amended three times and the numerical ratio between traditional members and elected members has changed from the original 64 chiefs as against 45 elected members to the present not more than 69 chiefs and 50 elected members.

The reasons for these changes varied from the creation of an additional paramount chieftainship, as was the case in the first assembly, and a corresponding decrease in the number of ordinary chiefs, to the granting of representation as a result of the incorporation of the additional territory to which I have just referred.

On the recommendation of the Recess Committee of the Legislative Assembly, the Transkei Government has now requested that the composition of the Transkei Legislative Assembly be further amended. While the body presently consists of the present five paramount chiefs, a number of chiefs—not exceeding 69—as well as 50 elected members, it is now being proposed that it will consist of five paramount chiefs, 70 chiefs and 75 elected members. This will therefore result in a composition ratio of 75 chiefs and paramount chiefs—the “traditional members”—on the one hand, and 75 elected members on the other hand. There will therefore be representation on a basis of 50% as against 50%, which should be compared with the previous basis of 58% traditional members as against 42% elected members.

The reason for the present request for the amendment of the composition is however quite different, because the purpose of the amendment is now to obtain equality of numbers between the traditional members and the elected members in the Legislative Assembly. This occurrence is naturally a historic one for the Transkei in that the preponderance of traditional authority in the Legislative Assembly will now disappear and that the traditional members and the elected members will be of equal number.

Hon. members are probably aware of the fact—they will surely be able to recall this—that this tendency has already manifested itself in Owambo, where the elected members actually have a numerical preponderance over the traditional members, with 42 elected members as against 35 traditional members. Previously the opposite applied.

In the Nyanda region one additional “chief’s constituency”, if I may call it that, was created so that the district of Port St. Johns would also be represented by a chief in the Legislative Assembly.

Since the Transkei has been given districts instead of regions as electoral divisions, more chieftainships have been established in the district of Lusikisiki, and at the request of the paramount chief a redivision of “chiefs constituencies” has been made among the districts.

As far as clauses 4 and 6 are concerned, I must point out that it is essential to arrange various matters through agreement between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei, and also to grant the Transkei authority over civil aviation so that a start can now be made with the provision of airport facilities for the area by the Transkei Government. The objective of the amendments are therefore to place the two matters above within the legislative and executive authority of the Transkei.

Clause 5 deals with a consequential matter. At present the Controller and Auditor-General is responsible for the granting of credits to be issued from the Revenue Fund of the Homeland Governments, but as a result of the approval of the new Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975—except in the case of the Transkei—this will no longer be the case with effect from 1 April 1976. For the sake of uniformity it is therefore necessary that section 56 of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, which among other things provides that a warrant for the issue of money out of the Revenue Fund should be countersigned by the Controller and Auditor-General, should be appropriately amended.

Clause 8 contains the short title and arranges for the date of the coming into operation to be determined by proclamation.

This is briefly the entire matter, and I hope the Bill will be supported by members on all sides of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given us a clear and concise outline of what is embodied in this measure. As he has said, the principal part of the Bill deals with a change in the proportion of representation in the Transkei Assembly of those who are there as a result of holding a traditional office and those who are elected by the Transkei electorate. There are historical reasons for having both these elements represented. It is arguable as to whether they are better represented in a single chamber or in separate chambers. Nevertheless, we are faced with the situation where they are present in a single chamber and even if this change, which now brings the two elements into numerical parity with each other did not emanate from the Assembly itself, I think it is something we would accept. It is a change which seems to us to be desirable. This is the gravamen of clause 1, and clauses 2 and 3 are really consequential upon the change which is made in clause 1.

A second part of clause 1 deals with the redistribution of chieftainships in certain areas of Pondoland, and Port St. Johns in particular. This, apparently, is at the request of the paramount chief and other authorities in East Pondoland, and it accordingly has our support.

As the hon. the Minister has indicated, clause 4 and 6 deal with the question of enabling the Government of the Transkei, prior to independence, to enter into treaties with the Government of the Republic. Because of the evolution of events, this is something which one can understand, and one can foresee the type of situation in which the two Governments would require the power to enter into treaties with each other. One normally enters into treaties with a body that is independent of oneself, but circumstances could arise, and no doubt will, which will require an agreement to come into existence prior to independence. It is rather like entering into an agreement with a company about to be formed, to put it in terms of the commercial life of this country.

Clause 4 also deals with the empowering of the Government of the Transkei to deal with civil aviation, something which is acceptable to us. Finally, there is the clause that is consequent upon changes in the Exchequer and Audit Act, which provides that it is no longer necessary for the Controller and Auditor-General to exercise his authority in respect of the treasury and the activities of the Minister of Finance of the Transkei. That being so, the measure will have our support at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana for the good sense which the official Opposition is beginning to display in respect of the homelands and their development.

This Bill encompasses two very important matters. The one is that the number of elected representatives is now being brought on a par with the number of traditional representatives. When looking at this one can see that it shows a tendency towards democracy. In the time in which we are living, this says a great deal, especially when one looks at what is happening in the rest of Africa. One sees that in the large majority of African states democracy is completely thrown overboard. Here in the Transkei we have the situation that, what the recess committee of the Legislative Assembly is requesting is, according to our norms, a much more democratic system. This means that the Government of the Transkei is not afraid of going to its voters and that conditions have been created in the Transkei and circumstances prevail which make it possible and easy for a Government to go to its voters without being afraid of their judgment. In my opinion this is one of the many very important pieces of evidence we have today of the successful development of our policy of separate development with regard to the homelands.

Furthermore, this Bill authorizes the Legislative Assembly to conclude agreements with the Government of the Republic. This too is indicative of the development which is taking place there and the success which is being achieved through the policy of separate development there.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to agree with the hon. member for Lydenburg that this Bill is evidence that the Government’s policy of separate development is succeeding. As proof of this, he brought forward the fact that the Government is now prepared to allow a more fully elective system for the Transkei Legislative Assembly. If that test were to be carried through, parity would not be the answer, because in that case all the members of the Transkeian Assembly would be elected and not just half the members, as will be the case when this Bill is passed. I agree with the hon. the Minister that, in reaching parity, at least some advance has been made. As he told us, we have had three successive measures, each of which has increased the number of elected members vis-á-vis the number of traditional chiefs in the Assembly. Now we have reached the stage that there will be 75 traditional chiefs and 75 elected members—parity. At least that is something, and we approve of it. It is at least a step in the direction of a democratic system. However, hon. members on that side of the House must not bluff themselves that this means that the policy of separate development has therefore succeeded. I would say that, before that claim could be made, one would, firstly, need to have a fully elected Transkeian Assembly and, what is even more important, one would need economic viability in that area, a situation where the Transkei did not have to import what amounts to almost 90% of its foodstuffs, for instance. One would also need a situation where the Transkei could provide more than 16 000 jobs in the ten years that the Xhosa Development Corporation has been in operation. Consequently, I am not impressed with this as an argument that points to the success of the policy of separate development. We in these benches are supporting this Bill for one reason only, and that is that it is an advance in the right direction, certainly as far as the composition of the Transkeian Assembly is concerned. We do not have any objection either to the change that is being introduced to remove the exclusive clause, in terms of which the Transkeian Assembly could not make treaties with other countries. Now that Assembly is at least able to make treaties and have discussions with the Government of the Republic of South Africa, a procedure that is clearly necessary in view of the nature of the discussions that are taking place at the present time between the Republican Government and the Transkeian Assembly. For those reasons we are not opposing this Bill.

I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will bear in mind that there are many objections to the course of events presently taking place, such as the fact that the negotiations are being proceeded with without a proper referendum having been held by the people of the Transkei and the fact that objections such as those voiced by the new Leader of the Opposition in the Transkei, have been brushed aside by Chief Minister Matanzima. The most important fact of all, as far as we are concerned, is that the negotiations are taking place and the elections will take place with proclamation No. 400 still in force in the Transkei. Therefore, to claim that the Transkei has a democratic organization under the present circumstances is, I feel, somewhat euphoric, especially in view of the fact that, as I have said, only parity will have been reached. However, because it is an advancement and because, as I say, it is obviously necessary that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei be enabled to take part in discussions with the Republic on the question of the independence that is forthcoming, we in these benches will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton, and I thank her for adopting that attitude. I think that the speech she has just made is the shortest speech she has ever made on any Bantu legislation brought before the House.

I have often just said “no”.

Do not lengthen your speech now. It was the shortest speech the hon. member has ever held in this House and, what is more, it was a speech with very little what can be termed objectionable in it.

There was nothing objectionable in it.

Let me first of all reply briefly to the hon. member’s speech. As regards a referendum in the Transkei, the last point she mentioned, I want to say that it is the intention, or so I was informed, of the Transkeian Government to hold a general election based on the draft constitution of the Transkei for their republic. In other words, there will be an opportunity for the Transkeian electorate to express themselves on that matter.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? [Interjections.] No, I am not lengthening my speech. Can a general election be held in a real spirit of democracy as long as proclamation 400 obtains and meetings may not be held without permission?

It will be entirely for the Transkeian Government to decide that matter.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, it seems I shall have to withdraw my remarks in regard to the length of the hon. member’s speech.

The hon. member also referred to the question of parity in respect of the membership of the Transkeian Assembly. That is another question which the Transkei itself has to resolve.

It is a matter for the Transkei; it is their choice. If they would like to change the composition, the percentage relationship between the two, it is a matter for them to decide on. We are not going to influence them in that direction.

As for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I am very glad also for the support he gave us in this respect. It is not so much of a surprise because we have had support from him and his party already in the past and I therefore want to thank them and the House for the manner in which this Bill has been dealt with. I hope it can be regarded as a token of other support later during the session.

Don’t be too sure of that.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before I proceed to deal with the legislation, I should just like to tell the hon. House that worry about the introduction of this first Bill of mine has quite exhausted me.

An explanatory memorandum on the Bill has already been tabled, and I hope it has been of use to hon. members; further to that I shall now deal with the Bill briefly.

Clauses 1 and 2: In the process of the revision of pre-Union legislation by the South African Law Commission, my department was requested by the said commission to indicate whether it was possible to repeal Act 19 of 1891 of Natal. As hon. members know, Bantu law in Natal was codified and proclaimed as the Natal Code of Bantu Law in the schedule to Act 19 of 1891 of Natal. In order to assist the South African Law Commission in its task, the said Act is now being repealed, but because the schedule to the Act, as replaced by Proclamation R. 195 of 1967, is still in regular use, it must be retained, and consequently the necessary provisions are being embodied in the Bantu Administration Act, 1927.

Clauses 3, 20 and 28: Since section 17 of the Interpretation Act, 1957, was amended in 1973, it is no longer necessary to table proclamations and Government notices containing rules and regulations, and only a list of such publications containing rules and regulations are tabled in Parliament. The legal provisions to which these clauses refer, however, provide that the instrument itself—for example, a proclamation—must be tabled, and if it contains rules or regulations, it must also be listed in terms of section 17 of the Interpretation Act, 1957. In order to eliminate this duplication and confusion, the Acts concerned are now being amended to create uniformity in the whole matter, in terms of the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1957.

Clause 4: Owing to a lack of money and time, it will not be possible in the case of the Transkei, and perhaps in the case of other areas as well at a later stage, to buy and transfer all the land intended for a particular homeland before independence is granted. The amendment is intended to make it possible in such a case to purchase and transfer the balance of the land after a homeland has become independent.

Clause 5: In terms of section 9bis (2) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956 (Act 23 of 1956) referring to surcharges are applicable mutatis mutandis to the South African Bantu Trust Fund. However, the said provisions in section 9bis (2) are repealed by the new Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975. In terms of the new section, therefore, provision is made once again for surcharges in respect of the South African Bantu Trust Fund.

Clause 6: Land which was held by the Trust and which was alienated or transferred to the government of a self-governing area is still considered by law as being part of the “quota”. When the Transkei becomes independent shortly, the “quota land” will come into the possession of an independent state and the amendments are intended to make it clear that “quota land” which is so held by an independent state—a former self-governing area—is still considered to be part of the “quota”.

Certain lands in homelands which used to be part of the “quota” have been transferred from the possession of the Trust, a Bantu or other party, to owners such as a development or an investment corporation, as a result of which change in ownership it is no longer deemed to be part of the “quota”. In terms of the amendment it will in fact be considered part of the “quota” under certain circumstances.

Clauses 7 and 8: In order to lighten the burden of the State President, and also to promote efficiency by shortening communication lines, the power to make regulations is transferred from the State President to the Minister.

Clause 9: The definition of “general dealer” is being extended to include certain larger employers of Bantu as well, so that such employers will also be able to obtain authorization to sell Bantu beer in terms of the provisions of section 5(iA).

Clause 10: In order to improve refreshment facilities for Bantu persons, provision is being made in this clause for Bantu beer to be provided along with meals in Bantu eating-houses.

Clause 11: The definition of “Minister” is being extended to enable the Minister to delegate certain functions to officials of his department in the interests of efficiency.

Clauses 12 and 13: In order for the Investment Corporation, development corporations and corporations to be better equipped for their task, they have to be empowered to lend and to borrow money and to promote the negotiation of loans by the said bodies. It is also deemed necessary to authorize the State to guarantee such loans.

Clauses 14 and 15: The purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for the Investment Corporation, in addition to the Trust, also to hold shares in a development corporation or a corporation. Only consequential amendments are made to clause 15.

Clauses 16 and 25: In terms of existing legislation, the proclamation establishing a legislative council or assembly can only be amended, subsequent to the constitution of such council or assembly, after the council or assembly concerned has been consulted on the amendment. Such amendments are mostly made at the request of the authority concerned and the purpose of the amendment is to eliminate further formal consultations in such cases.

Clause 17: In terms of section 5A(f) of the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South West Africa, 1968, “national roads” is a matter which is excluded from the authority of homeland governments. In South West African legislation—I am referring to Ordinance 17 of 1972—the term “proclaimed roads” is used and the term “national roads” is unknown there. The amendment corrects the terminology.

Clause 21: (a) According to White Paper NN—’68, the South West African Administration would continue to handle the main lines of communication in Bantu areas. The existing position is now being made clear in the Act as well. (b) and (c): The legislative power of legislative councils in South West Africa is being extended by transferring motor carrier transportation with effect from a date to be determined by the Minister.

Clauses 18, 19, 26 and 27: In terms of the laws concerned, legislative councils or assemblies have obtained executive powers over matters which fall within their legislative authority and which immediately prior to the date on which a legislative council or assembly had been established for the area, had been vested in an authority in the Republic, and such powers were obtained with effect from the date on which such legislative council or assembly was established. In addition, further matters were transferred to the authority of the said councils or assemblies from time to time after the said date. According to legal opinion, the executive authority in respect of matters transferred after the said date did not pass to the homeland bodies. The effect of this amendment is that the executive authority in respect of all matters within the legislative authority of a council or assembly will also be vested in the functionaries of the homeland concerned.

Clause 22: It has happened that functions of a local authority (such as the management of a Bantu township) have been taken over by homeland administrations, and in the process officials who enjoy pension benefits have been taken over. Several mission hospitals with their staff have also been taken over in this way. However, the definition of “municipal pension fund” is so limited that it does not include all pension funds and schemes which are involved, and for this reason it is being extended in order to include all funds and schemes concerned.

Clause 23: (a) In terms of existing legal provisions, the previous pensionable service which a member has accumulated with a “municipal pension fund” is considered to be pensionable service in the event of a take-over. Some mission hospitals have made representations to the effect that the pensionable service of their members should not automatically be considered pensionable for the fund of the Bantu authority on take-over, but that the official should have a choice in the matter. These representations are now being complied with. The rules of all the pension funds concerned do not make provision for the payment of transfer values if some of their members join another pension fund, and provision is now being made for determining such transfer value. (b) Because deficits may arise in a fund when members are taken over, arrangements are being made for such deficits to be defrayed from revenue. If there should be a surplus from the amount paid over in respect of a member from his previous fund, the surplus accrues to the member himself. In order to cover cases which have already occurred, the provisions of sections 22 and 23 are given retrospective effect from 1 April 1975.

†Clause 24: The implementation of the consolidation plans which was approved by Parliament will result in the inclusion of more land into the areas of legislative assemblies. It is therefore necessary that certain terms and designations be properly interpreted.

Clauses 29 and 30; (a) In terms of existing legislation the Minister shall, in respect of each magisterial district or part of a magisterial district in the board’s administration area, appoint in such area one or more members, who are members of a body contemplated in section 11(1)(e), to the Bantu Affairs Administration Board. Hon. members are aware that several magisterial districts are situated in the administration area of each Bantu Affairs Administration Board. The above-mentioned requirement results in the appointment of a large number of members out of bodies contemplated in section 11(1)(e). To counteract the clumsiness and high cost brought on by such a large membership, it is intended to do away with the compulsory appointment of a member per magisterial district. (b) In terms of section 4(2)(e) a member of a Bantu Affairs Administration Board who is a member of a body contemplated in section 11(1)(e), loses his membership of such Board on losing the qualifications required for his appointment. By this amendment it is arranged that a member of a Board will not lose his membership of such Board during his term of office merely by his losing membership of a body contemplated in section 11(1)(e).

Clause 31: This clause contains the short title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Bill has been adequately explained and that it will find general support in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant task to congratulate the new Deputy Minister on the speech he made now that he has introduced a Bill in this House for the first time in his capacity as Deputy Minister. I hope he will enjoy his new office and that there will be sound co-operation between him and the thousands of Black people whose affairs he has to deal with.

†Mr. Speaker, one got to know the hon. the Deputy Minister during the time that he was chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission. We know him as one who approaches his task with calm and thoroughness and I feel sure that it is those qualities that will take him far in the office which he now adorns.

Coming to the Second Reading of the Bill, may I say that whilst there are some clauses which we shall oppose and which we wish to debate at greater length during the Committee Stage, the Bill as a whole will have our support at the Second Reading. I think the House will agree that this is to a large extent a Committee Stage Bill, being an amending Bill on a whole series of measures. The Minister has given a full explanation of this measure. The early clauses of the Bill, as he has indicated, were introduced as a result of recommendations by the South African Law Commission to bring old provincial or colonial legislation up to date but which retains the essential part of that legislation, which is the Natal Native Code, the Natal code of Bantu law. There are other clauses, namely 3, 20 and 28, which as it were, hang together and where the amendments removed an apparent conflict in some of the existing legislation as to whether a list of proclamations and Government notices only or whether the notices themselves should be tabled. In some cases duplication in the tabling of measures of that nature will be eliminated. Then there are those clauses which deal with quota land to be purchased in respect of those homelands which may become independent before the quota purchases are fulfilled. Provision is being made to rectify that situation. I believe that it will be generally agreed that that land should be purchased even although those areas may have become separated from the Republic of South Africa.

That is a very new line.

There has never been any objection by this side of the House to the purchase of quota land and I am astonished that a person who has been in this House for as long as the hon. member does not know it.

What was the whole argument of Douglas Mitchell about?

She believes her own propaganda.

As I am being reminded, she is being carried away by the propaganda of her own party. The other clauses which follow chronologically in the Bill, provide for changes in the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975, and are to a large extent consequential. There are then, as always—we seem to have one every year—amendments in the legislation in regard to Bantu beer. The definition of “employer” is changed to enable an employer of more than 25 persons over the age of 18 to sell Bantu beer. There is a reason for that which one can understand and accept. There is provision for Bantu beer to be sold in Bantu eating houses whilst persons are having meals. That is also something which can be accepted. There is also provision for the guarantee by the Government of loans in respect of the various Bantu investment corporations. This may require further discussion. I think at some stage—I do not know quite what the appropriate stage will be—there ought to be a great deal more discussion and information given in respect of the activities of these institutions.

Then there are clauses which refer to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards where there is a conflict in points of view. There is the desire to make some of the boards smaller so as to make them more efficient and less expensive to operate, which is an understandable and acceptable point of view. There is at the same time the machinery which is being used to achieve that end, and that is to reduce the number of persons the Minister is required to appoint, representative of the various magisterial districts, which under the existing legislation are chosen from a list drawn up by the municipalities concerned. That is in a sense an adverse aspect of this measure, because of the importance of municipalities and the part that they play in relation to Bantu affairs and the urban Bantu in particular. One would regret it if there were to be a substantial reduction in the representation on the Bantu Boards from that quarter. This, too, is probably something which we shall want to discuss in greater detail in the Committee Stage.

Then there are the various sets of clauses—and there are numbers of them—which deal with delegated legislation, either empowering the Minister to appoint officials to act in his name or bringing about a change where, instead of the State President deciding certain things, the Minister is to decide certain things. This of course, as you know, Sir, means that instead of it being a Cabinet decision and responsibility, it is a ministerial decision and responsibility. There again, particularly in those clauses relating to the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act and the Bantu Labour Act, it may be that we will have something further to say in the Committee Stage because where you have a principal Act of that kind, having very wide import indeed, affecting large numbers of persons in their activities, there are cases where we feel that it is better that the responsibility be a Cabinet responsibility; in other words that the State President takes the decision rather than the hon. the Minister himself. I think that that covers the piece of legislation before us generally, but as I say it is in its nature essentially a Committee Stage discussion, and it remains merely for me to say that this measure will not be opposed by us at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I should like to thank the hon. member for Umhlatuzana for the friendly gesture towards this side of the House by, in the first place, giving the assurance that we shall have the co-operation of his side. I did hope though, that we would also hear from the hon. member for Houghton what we were to expect from her.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage, I think it is a most suitable time to move the adjournment of the debate, and I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.