Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that when I introduced the legislation establishing the Armaments Development and Production Corporation of South Africa Limited (herein called Armscor) in 1968, I referred specifically to the function that Armscor would perform together with its envisaged subsidiaries as an instrument of the Armaments Board in achieving self-sufficiency as regards South Africa’s armaments requirements. This important phase in the creation and establishment of a local manufacturing capacity and fund of skills through the role of Armscor has now been completed and it has now become desirable that the procurement function previously exercised by the Armaments Board, and the manufacturing side, which was the responsibility of Armscor, be combined to form a single compact unit which will be more fully integrated with the South African Defence Force and its requirements. The Bill under discussion seeks to accomplish the amalgamation of the Armaments Board and Armscor, something which has already been implemented in practice as far as possible by way of an amendment to the Armaments Development and Production Act of 1968 (Act 57 of 1968) hereinafter referred to as the Principal. Briefly, then, what the body of the Bill amounts to is that the responsibility for the procurement of armaments, which had previously rested with the Armaments Board, is being transferred to Armscor. The Bill further provides for the transfer of all assets and current liabilities, and of staff, and will enable Armscor to take over the function of the Armaments Board on an ongoing basis from the date the Bill comes into effect, which will probably be 1 April of this year. If this Bill is passed, the Armaments Board will cease to exist from that date and the name of Armscor will be changed to the Armaments Corporation of South Africa Limited.

An effort was made in drafting the Bill to minimize amendments to the principal Act in so far as it related to the Armaments Board, and the Bill only contains those provisions essential for an orderly transfer of activities from the Armaments Board to the new corporation. The Bill therefore introduces no new principles.

Consequently I shall confine myself solely to the proposals in the Bill which are essential for the establishment of a streamlined organization.

Clause 1:

This clause contains a number of essential amendments to the existing definitions.

Paragraph (a):

The amendment to the definition of “Corporation” is essential since the name of the corporation is being changed.

Paragraph (b):

The principal Act does contain a definition of “armaments”, but defines it merely by referring to the definition of “armaments” in the Armaments Act, 1964 (Act 87 of 1964), the Act which is now being repealed. An amendment of the definition is therefore essential.

Paragraph (c):

This essential amendment arises from the fact that the Armaments Board will cease to exist as an employer.

Clause 2:

The change in the name of the corporation is effected by the proposed subsections (3) and (4) of section 2 of the principal Act and essential transitional measures are adopted in order to ensure continuity of action.

Clause 3:

The essential transfer of assets, liabilities, rights and obligations from the Armaments Board to the corporation is effected by the proposed subsection (1) and further transitional measures are adopted.

Subsection (2) makes possible a rapid registration of ownership rights in fixed assets transferred from the Armaments Board to the new corporation in terms of this section.

Clause 4:

Paragraph (a):

In terms of the provisions of section 4(a)(iii) of the Armaments Act 1964, the Armaments Board was authorized, inter alia, “to supply or render to the State such armaments or services as may from time to time be determined by the Minister …”

Since the procurement function of the Armaments Board is being transferred to the corporation in terms of this Bill, and the Armaments Board could only perform that function with its sanction, it has been deemed necessary to amend subsection (1) of section 3 of the principal Act to provide that the acquisition of the Republic’s armaments requirements be subject to the sanction of the Minister. The proposed paragraphs of sub-section 3(2) of the principal Act contained in this clause have all been taken over from the Armaments Act of 1964 and seek to extend the powers of the corporation, due to the disappearance of the Armaments Board, to enable it to perform all the transactions which the Armaments Board has previously been able to perform. No powers other than those previously vested in the Armaments Board are granted to the corporation by this clause.

Clause 5:

The proposed section 4Abis of the principal Act makes provision for the employees of the Armaments Board to be taken over by the corporation and this ensures the orderly transition of staff from one organization to the other. Provision is accordingly also made for the protection of such employees’ salary rights and leave benefits.

At this stage I should like to say a few words about the pension rights of employees of the Armaments Board who are transferred to the service of the corporation in terms of the Bill. The vast majority of such persons are members of the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions, established by the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, Act No. 41 of 1963, while a few individuals are still members of the Government Service Pension Fund. Since the corporation is not an associated institution for the purposes of the Act in question, this would normally have meant that such persons could no longer remain members of the said fund. After long and extensive deliberation, agreement was reached on the best methods whereby the rights of these persons could be protected. The conclusion was reached that the fairest arrangement would be for these persons to remain members of the pension fund to which they belonged before the date of inception of this Bill. My colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, will introduce the legislation necessary to legalize this arrangement during this Parliamentary session.

Clause 6:

By virtue of the provisions of section 6A(2) of the principal Act, the Minister already has the authority to issue guarantees on behalf of the Government for the repayment of moneys borrowed by the corporation. In the past, however, it sometimes occurred that due to political or other reasons, bodies did not wish to have a conspicuous connection with a department like the Department of Defence. Furthermore, it was sometimes also necessary for guarantees to be issued in respect of subsidiary companies. The aim of this amendment, therefore, is, firstly, to authorize the Minister to issue guarantees on behalf of the corporation’s subsidiaries as well, and secondly, to authorize the Minister of Finance to issue such guarantees on behalf of the corporation or its subsidiaries where necessary. This makes the legislation more flexible.

Clause 7:

Since the corporation is taking over the procurement function of the Armaments Board in terms of the Bill, it will require additional funds to enable it to do so. The proposed section 7B of the principal Act therefore seeks to establish the sources of the necessary funds.

Clause 8:

Through the proposed section 13 of the principal Act, the Armaments Act of 1964 is repealed and the Armaments Board will cease to exist as a result of such repeal.

The aforegoing constitute more or less the most important provisions of the Bill. The envisaged streamlined organization has already been given effect to in practice to a large extent and a great deal of practical experience has also been acquired, and what this points to is the necessity of placing the Bill on the Statute Book if we are to achieve our goals as regards the procurement and manufacture of our armaments.

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition support this measure. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will not begrudge me saying that we raised this matter some time ago. In fact, I think it is only fair if I quote from Hansard of 9 September 1974, where I said the following at col. 2455—

Three years ago we foresaw the need for streamlining and whilst the mills grind slow, we welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister has taken the good advice of this side of the House. We shall give this measure our full support in order to achieve the objectives which we then asked for. At the same time I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will not now do the whole job which we asked for and consider whether some of the subsidiary manufacturing companies of the corporation should not operate as manufacturing units with their management, without the need for separate boards of directors controlling each of the subsidiaries. Then we would be really streamlining, with the policy and direction control in one organization with a strong board of directors, but with the executive power, the performance of the manufacturing function, operated by management without necessarily duplicating the boards at lower levels.

This is, however, a major step forward and we give it our full support. The method by which the transfer is effected seems an efficient and reasonable one. We have checked the transfer of the power and are satisfied that there are no new powers. As regards the transfer of staff, provision appears to have been made for protection of the staff to ensure that they do not lose either in status, position or remuneration as a result of the merger. This is guaranteed and we shall accept as a matter of good faith that not only will they not be penalized or lose positions by their absorption, but that the normal promotion channel will still be open and that there will be no preferential treatment given to the staff of any one of the two bodies when it comes to future promotion opportunities. In the same way the transfer of funds appears to have been properly done.

This brings me to one aspect with which we are not happy and which we shall raise in greater detail in Committee and that is that in the Armaments Board Act the auditing of the Armaments Board is performed by the Auditor-General, the person who is responsible to Parliament and is therefore the watch-dog of Parliament over Government expenditure. The auditing of the corporation is done by a private auditor. Whilst we had reservations when this was introduced originally, the fact is that the corporation was a manufacturing organization and therefore, as a manufacturing industrial organization, would probably be better audited by a private auditor conversant with the normal procedures of any industrial company in the private sector. The Armaments Board, as a purchasing organization, has a different type of function. Now that the board is being absorbed into the corporation, clause 8 of the Bill repeals the Armaments Board legislation. With the repeal is repealed the position of the Auditor-General as the auditor responsible for auditing the funds. We believe that this is a retrograde step. We would have liked to see the Auditor-General have an overall supervision over the auditing of the corporation as well. We accept, however, that a private auditor can perhaps operate with more experience in that field. When it comes to the Armaments Board’s function, however, namely that of purchase, we believe that Parliament has a major role to play in control.

The official of Parliament is not the accounting officer of the Department of Defence. The Chief of the SADF is the accounting officer for the Department of Defence and for the Special Defence Fund, but the person who is the watch-dog for Parliament is the Auditor-General. We believe that he should still be the person who deals with the auditing of the acquirement functions, at least, which are now being transferred. I have here the Auditor-General’s report for the financial year 1974-’75, dealing with the Armaments Board. In the Revenue and Expenditure Account he deals with 12 cases involving additional expenditure of almost R500 000, where contracts were varied or cancelled. He deals with losses, with furniture and equipment, and then he sets out the Balance Sheet of the Armaments Board and the Revenue and Expenditure Account for the period under review. Let us take a look at the Balance Sheet as at 31 March 1975. We are dealing here with a Balance Sheet of R275 606 172,71 of which R205 575 584,07 is for Stock and Advance Account under Current Account. When we look at the Revenue and Expenditure Account for the period 1 April 1974 to 31 March 1975, we find that we are dealing with R351 915 514,51 covering running expenses of—in round figures—R7 500 000, procurement of armaments expenses of R296 000 000, research, development and manufacturing rights expenses of R8 700 000 and capital expenditure of some R900 000. This gives a total of R313 million, apart from amounts recovered from the Department of Defence and other Government departments, which amount to R38 million. This is major money. This is money which Parliament and the taxpayer is voting for a vital need for South Africa, namely for strengthening the defences of our country. Because Parliament has accepted, and because we as the official Opposition have accepted, that much of this expenditure must be kept secret and that it cannot be dealt with in the normal way in which one would deal with normal tenders, it becomes all the more important that what safeguards there are, should be the most effective and should be seen to be the most effective from the point of view of the public whom we represent in this House. I do not for one moment say that a private auditor is not going to give effective control. What I am interested in is that it should be seen to be effective through this highest body of the country, whose servant is the Auditor-General. We should be able to say to any South African taxpayer that the machinery exists for ensuring that this vast expenditure is properly controlled, properly audited and is responsibly reported back to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Whether we like it or not, in any sort of organization like this the stories start. During the last year I have heard a dozen stories, most of which are “gogga” stories on which I place no value at all; nevertheless things which harm South Africa are being said by the public, and indirectly this harms the reputation of our whole defence effort.

When a secret organization spends hundreds of millions of rands, you are inevitably going to get people who have been disappointed in not winning a tender. They then start to ask: Why did B get it and why did C get it? One may get a person who has been dismissed for some reason or another and he may then start talking of wastage, of inefficiency, of overlapping and of the changing of minds in the middle of contracts. Fruitless expenditure of that nature is reported on when it is dealt with by the Auditor-General. If we are now to pass this off into a secret account which is audited privately, we are going to remove that one safeguard in the public mind, and that is that Parliament, the highest body in the land, keeps its finger on the pulse. The answer may be that Parliament and the Auditor-General still control the Special Defence Account. I have here this year’s report of the Auditor-General. Paragraph 9 on page 128 is the total report we get on the Special Defence Account. This paragraph reads—

1. 9. Special Defence Account (Act 6 of 1974)—

That is the total report. That is all Parliament knows about the Special Defence Fund. We know what we vote in the budget and that is the end of it. All that we are told is that the provisions of the Act have been complied with, and no further information comes to us as Parliament. Naturally the ideal would be what we have always pleaded for, namely the creation of the Select Committee on the lines of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours and the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which in private and confidentially could inspect and question and have insight into defence expenditure. Although that has been rejected, perhaps the hon. the Minister may reconsider it under the new set-up. I would ask him whether he would reconsider it now that we are to have one organization because in that way, I believe we would eliminate the need to raise the sort of problems which I am raising here.

Therefore, with the one reservation that the Auditor-General should continue to have control of the acquisition, the purchasing aspects of the new corporation, we give our full support to the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the official Opposition for their support. It is therefore not necessary for me to go into the Bill in detail, since it is already crystal clear. Presently I shall reply to one aspect which the hon. member indicated he would discuss further during the Committee Stage, namely the appropriateness of the audit by the Auditor-General. However, before I come to this, it is very pleasant for me to point out that the Armaments Board has done South Africa a great service by establishing our own weapon industry in the short space of about 13 years that they have been involved in the matter. No country can be completely independent as far as the manufacture of weapons is concerned. The best example of this is the United States, because it had to look to the Leopard tank of Germany for its tanks. There are also other examples where countries who are known for the fact that they manufacture sophisticated weapons, have to look elsewhere. Therefore, it seems to me as if it is necessary for some countries to look even to the Russian models, and it is well known that in their turn, the Russians take trouble to learn about the development of armaments in other countries. Therefore we may inquire whether the Armaments Board has pursued its policy, as laid down at its inception. It would seem as if this policy has been carried out as far as possible, namely to involve the private sector as far as was strategically and economically possible; and then, if not strategically and economically possible, to involve the subsidiaries of Armscor and, finally, to look to the outside world for the provision of armaments. I am expanding on this in order to emphasize a particular function of the Armaments Board, namely the acquisition and purchasing function, which is now being transferred to the Armaments Corporation in terms of this Bill. It is important to note that funds for carrying out this function have to be found in the Special Defence Account. There is no change in this regards. The provisions of the Defence Special Account Act of 1974 are still applicable, and I refer specifically to section 5 of that Act which reads as follows—

And this must be emphasized—

The meaning this has to me, if words have any meaning, is that this is a special account and that there are special factors which apply in regard to this account, factors such as security, secrecy, etc. Therefore it seems to me as if the hon. member for Durban Point is not actually opposed to the fact that the acquisition and purchasing function of the Armaments Corporation will in fact be subject to audit. Apparently he is opposed to the application of section 5 of the Act, which I have just quoted. As far as the manufacturing function is concerned, the hon. member also made a suggestion, namely that the subsidiaries should be streamlined, that their boards of directors should be abolished or reduced—if I understood the hon. member correctly—and that everything should fall under the Armaments Corporation. In this activity as a whole he would also like to see the hand of the Auditor-General. However, I feel that this is a contradiction in itself for the simple reason that the functions of the Auditor-General as I understand them, are to see to authorization of expenditure, documentation as evidence of expenditure, purchases, etc., and in the final place, proof of delivery of what has been purchased.

And malpractices!

I cannot imagine that the Auditor-General is historically or practically equipped to carry out this function. On the other hand, if one considers the new Companies Act—here I am thinking of the provisions of section 269 up to and including section 280—one sees that companies, as the subsidiaries of the Armaments Corporation in fact are, are required to appoint an auditor. There the duties of an auditor are defined, and it is also possible for the auditor to go into the effectiveness of the management of a company.

All the objections which the hon. member for Durban Point raised, are in this sphere, the management sphere. If our auditors have their weak spots, this is an exception; in general it is considered to be one of the most highly respected professions in our country. It is a profession which, when an audit is entrusted to them, is equipped to pay the necessary attention to it, and also to take into account the effectiveness of management and the effective application of funds. In practice—and this is what I ascertained for myself—these reports are sent through to the directors of the subsidiaries concerned. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Durban Point when he wants to abolish the boards of directors of these subsidiaries, because who have representation on boards? They are the most respected businessmen of South Africa. They are people who have gained experience over a wide sphere and who are experts in the management of companies. I do not want to mention names.

I came to the conclusion, Sir, that it is perhaps possible to bring about more streamlining, but these reports are submitted to select and skilled men, and I cannot see how the hon. member for Durban Point can object to a private firm of auditors presenting a report to such select men. These people in turn send their report to the management of the Armaments Corporation, where it is evaluated. It is then bound in a final report. If I understand things correctly, this information, as far as the acquisition aspects and the Special Defence Account are concerned, are also made available to the Auditor-General. I am not referring specifically to the reports themselves now, but to those aspects which I have already mentioned. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s attitude in respect of this matter is going to be, but in the light of the facts before us, I am not very enthusiastic, to put it mildly, about the ideas of the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member who has just sat down has actually missed the point of what the hon. member for Durban Point was seeking to bring to the attention of the House in respect of the position of the Auditor-General. The issue is the question of accountability to Parliament, and I shall come back to that in a moment. The attitude which we in these benches have in respect of this legislation is, in the first place, that we shall vote for it at Second Reading. Our view is that whatever can be done to ensure that equipment is available for our servicemen to make sure that they are not outgunned and that they are adequately protected, will in fact receive our support. That is why we have no difficulty in voting for this measure.

There are, however, some matters that we should touch upon. In respect of this very matter of not being outgunned or inadequately protected, I should like to suggest that we should direct our research towards the type of activity in which our Defence Force is actually going to be engaged in the future. In other words, we are not going to be involved in a stereotyped war. Conditions are not going to be the same as elsewhere in the world. It is therefore vitally important that our research should at all times be directed towards the type of activity in which our Defence Force is actually going to be engaged.

I think this is vitally important and I would like to impress that on the hon. the Minister again. One of the matters which I find important in this legislation is that, in terms of clause 4, the question of effectively and economically meeting the armaments requirements of the Republic is still going to be the responsibility of the Minister. This to some extent makes it clear that the Minister who is responsible is accountable to Parliament, and therefore he is the right person to whom we should address this argument.

Accountability to Parliament, which the hon. member for Durban Point has touched upon and which I would like to come back to immediately, creates a problem which I accept from the point of view of the difficulty which the hon. the Minister has because, firstly, we are creating a corporate body and we know what the attitude of the Government has been so far with regard to the explanations which it was asked to give to this House in respect of the activities of corporate bodies created in terms of statutes. What is even more important, however, is the defence aspect of the matter. To my mind, where this type of secrecy exists there is an even higher responsibility on the hon. the Minister. There is the responsibility to ensure that integrity exists at all times, responsibility to ensure that waste is eliminated to the maximum extent possible, and responsibility to make sure that we have the skills available, in such a corporation, which are required for the tasks that are being performed. Accountability to Parliament comes not merely through the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General is, after all, the arm which is responsible in order to investigate, to report and to put the facts before us. In that regard we support the submission made by the hon. member for Durban Point, because we believe that Parliament should have a responsibility. The argument that the Auditor-General is not the right person to deal with the accounts of a corporation, I think can be readily met, because in any case the Auditor-General has in the past, and can by law, delegate functions to private auditors if he wishes to do so. But if this were a problem, then it can be overcome by amending the legislation.

I regret to state that the point raised by the hon. member for Durban Point with regard to the subsidiary companies being abolished, I cannot support holus-bolus. I think there can be circumstances where the activities of a particular nature would best and appropriately be carried out by a subsidiary. It does not require any further legislation to do away with subsidiaries, but I cannot now, without further ado, accept the concept that a subsidiary is undesirable in all instances. In fact, in many instances subsidiaries will have to exist.

Not in all.

In that case we appear to be in agreement on this point. The next question I would like to come to is the question of private enterprise. One of the main objects of the corporation is the provision of armaments for export and also firearms, ammunition or pyro-technical products required for supply to members of the public. I believe, and I would like to submit it to the hon. the Minister, that to the extent possible, private enterprise must be involved in this matter, and I know he is involving private enterprise in many ways already in these activities. I also accept that private enterprise cannot fulfil all the functions in regard to the supply of armaments as far as South Africa is concerned. It just cannot do it; it is not a practical proposition. It may well be that one day somebody will point a finger and say when we talk of private enterprise: “But you agreed to it in regard to the armaments situation.” The answer is very simple. We believe in private enterprise but we also believe that when private enterprise cannot fulfil a function then the State has a responsibility. To me the present situation in regard to armaments is a classic situation where private enterprise cannot fully do the job. Having said that, I still think there is some greater degree of scope in respect of some of the matters, particularly where we are talking about the supplying of arms and ammunition to the public. To the extent possible I would like to see that a greater part is played by private enterprise in these circumstances, not from the point of view of just importing, but from the point of view of encouraging local manufacture in these fields.

Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the end of what I really wanted to say on this matter. Sir, when one supports a measure, one does not need to speak at length on it. There is just one minor point to which I want the hon. the Minister to react, and that is in clause 6, when we talk about the guarantee for subsidiary companies. I believe that these should be wholly owned subsidiary companies, in other words, they should not be partially owned subsidiary companies. I hope that the hon. the Minister would accept an amendment inserting “wholly owned” in front of the word “subsidiary”, because that is, I believe, the intention of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are highly delighted today, and I believe that every hon. member has the interests of the Republic of South Africa at heart—especially the interests of those organizations who have to ensure the safety of our people and of our Government. The hon. member for Yeoville’s attitude, as well as that of the hon. member for Durban Point, who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, showed that there is no basic difference of opinion among us on the importance of this legislation. I therefore do not think that a further discussion of this will be of much value. In any event, I believe that the hon. member for Yeoville raised one matter which should be elucidated in a little greater detail. This revolves round the fact that the equipment which this corporation has to provide to the Defence Force, as it did in the past, as well as in its future form, is unique to the requirements of South Africa in the operational area, and should also be closely connected to the type of threat which South Africa is experiencing there.

Suffice it to say that I believe that there has never been any legislation placed on the Statute Book by this House which complied so absolutely with all its objectives as the legislation under discussion has done already. The existing legislation was introduced in 1964 and amended in 1968 and is now being amended once again in order to make the consolidation of these bodies possible. Briefly, it has been the aim of this legislation, ever since the principal Act came into operation to make South Africa as self-sufficient as possible as far as the provision of armaments is concerned. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West made it very clear that it is not possible for any country in the world to be fully self-sufficient as regards the provision of armaments, but that in the process of achieving self-sufficiency, priority must be given to certain things and that there are certain strategic components of armaments which are more important than others. The hon. member for Yeoville raised certain objections in regard to the fact that the armaments must comply with the requirements which exist in our own operational area, and must take the threats which prevail there into consideration. However, if we take note of a few of the aims in regard to the provision of armaments, we can ask ourselves whether the attempts up to now to form an armaments organization by means of legislation has been successful, an organization which, although it may function perfectly, has also succeeded in all its other aims. This armaments organization undertook inquiries in the past which led to South Africa at present having the best armaments in the world at its disposal—with regard to the particular purpose for which it is required here of course. As far as the provision of armaments is concerned, South Africa has succeeded in complying with the requirements which have been set for achieving self-sufficiency and independence of the outside world, and of foreign sources.

I want to mention two examples. Firstly, investigations which were piloted by the Armaments Organization, led to the establishment of the Silvermine Communication Project, a project which is regarded in all respects as one of the best communication projects in the world. A second project of cardinal importance which was recently opened by the hon. the Minister of Defence, is the establishment of an integrated circuit industry in South Africa. This industry is considered to be the Achilles heel of sophisticated electronic equipment. The task of the project is to develop this to such an extent so that it can comply with the unique requirements of South African armaments in South African operational conditions.

The second example which I want to mention quickly is research and development. This was also mentioned by the hon. member. I can assure the hon. member that the research and development which is being done by this organization in co-operation with other Government organizations, most certainly has only one aim, namely to develop armaments for South African conditions and not for other conditions. We can discuss the export aspects later on, but I do not think that they are relevant in this legislation.

We might as well mention a few examples. The one example which I should like to mention, is security equipment. The security equipment which will be developed by this research project, is of the best available in the world, so much so that the techniques which are used for this equipment, have caused so much interest in the outside world that the outside world comes to our research bodies in order to see what techniques are being used and what methods put into operation in order to obtain this result. I can state that this research and development contributed towards our Defence Force probably having the best integrated communications system in the world. It is interesting to note that certain countries wanted to carry out a combined air force and army exercise a few years ago, and had to call it off after the second attempt because they could not communicate with one another. I believe that with our communications equipment this cannot happen.

A third example is the armoured car of our Defence Force. I believe that the armoured car which South Africa has today is definitely one of the best armoured cars which the world can offer for the South African operational conditions. Once can continue to talk about rationalization and what progress the Defence Force has made with standardization by for example using the same communications equipment which one carries on one’s back, with certain additions, in a vehicle. In this away the Armaments Organization made it possible, and they created the machinery for us to be able to comply with the unique requirements of the South African Defence Force’s operational conditions.

I want to conclude by saying that we on this side of the House believe that this legislation is necessary because the aims which have been laid down over the years have been fully and very effectively carried out. Since an amalgamation of the original Armaments Board and the original Armscor under the new name of “The Armaments Corporation” is taking place at this stage, I think that we should from Parliament express our thanks to those organizations which were involved and to their management boards as well as to the management of the new organization which comes into effect as from 1 April, for the particular dedication and enthusiasm which they displayed, in co-operation with the Defence Force, in making South Africa as self-sufficient as possible. Therefore, we on this side of the House would like to support this amendment Bill very strongly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wonderboom seemed to speak from knowledge that many of us in this House do not have. He seems to have a knowledge of the workings of the Armaments Board, research projects undertaken by them and techniques with which many of us are not familiar. I do not know whether the hon. member has special insight into such matters, but as far as I know there are many of us who do not know of some of the particular projects and matters to which he referred. [Interjections.] He says there are no differences between us on this side of the House and the Government. That may well be so. One of our difficulties is that we do not know to what extent there may be any differences between us, because we are not given adequate information. We are not very often in a position to judge, and we are consequently in many ways unable to fulfil the role of the Opposition. I want to make the point, without over-emphasizing it. This is the first of successive defence Bills on the Order Paper. This particular one deals with the question of arms supply, which is undoubtedly the most sensitive of all issues and certainly not a fit subject to be discussed in this House. It is far too delicate a matter.

The hon. member for Durban Point has referred to the fact that many people have asked for years for more information to be made available. I recall that there were requests at one time for a joint Defence Council on which members of the Opposition and the Government would sit. I can understand that there can be arguments as to why that could perhaps not have been granted. It might have been a cumbersome body and it might have opened the doors too widely. There were also suggestions from time to time to the effect that there could be a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to discuss defence matters in secret session. I think the same argument applies to that, i.e. that it is perhaps a cumbersome body and that there is a risk of leakages. I can see that there should be a reluctance to grant that request.

I do think, however, that a sensible proposal is that the rules of this House should be amended to allow for a Defence Select Committee to be in permanent sitting to discuss matters relating to defence. The reason why I suggest that is because in that way there will be more people, although a small body of people in this House, intimately associated with the development of the Defence Force and matters of secrecy. To that extent they will acquire specialized knowledge, and they may be of greater assistance to the hon. the Minister and the Defence Force. In addition to that, it will enable those of us who serve on such a defence committee better to fulfil our role as an Opposition, because if there is any matter that has to do with armaments and the Armaments Board of which we have information, our only recourse at the moment is to go to the Minister and speak to him privately. Now I must say that I have never had any difficulty in discussing such matters with the hon. the Minister, but he must also realize that it the duty of an Opposition to bring up such matters on behalf of the public, and very often we are in receipt of information that we feel should be ventilated, not necessarily privately with the hon. the Minister, but also in a responsible forum. I would suggest that a Defence Select Committee in permanent session would perhaps be the body to deal with this sort of matter. I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate that these are not easy subjects that we can bring up in the House; this is not an easy topic. I have made this suggestion in the belief that it will facilitate the work of the hon. the Minister, his department and the Defence Force and that it will also enable us as parliamentarians to carry out our functions as Opposition members.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Simonstown that I cannot understand why he appears to be so concerned this afternoon. I do not know why the hon. member thinks the Opposition is entitled to have access to matters in which the Cabinet is engaged. After all, the Government has been formed by a reliable party, and will not act to the detriment of the interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Durban Point said in his speech that the legislation was actually a product of their proposals which they made two or three years ago. Sir, I once proposed that naval headquarters should be moved to Pretoria and subsequently this did happen. However, it did not happen because I suggested it. Matters such as these are studied for years, consultations are held and after that the authorities decide whether something like this should be done or not. The UP must therefore not allege now that the legislation is theirs and that they deserve the credit for it.

I do not think that we can discuss the legislation without a word of praise for the person who took the lead in the developments with which we are involved at the moment. I do not want to sing a personal paean of praise, but upon reading many military magazines and other books I find that the hon. the Minister of Defence was always in the front-line during the planning of this matter. They say that he has the pragmatic ability of getting to the bottom of new developments. I find it said of him that he is a man who knows how to organize and that he knows how and when to take decisions. They also say that new ideas are important to him as a prime requirement for prepardeness. That is why the University of Stellenbosch awarded him an honorary doctorate in military science, because the creation of the Armaments Board as well as the Manufacturing Corporation was actually his brainchild. Therefore we cannot discuss the legislation before we state that we are greatly indebted to the leader of the Defence Force, in the person of the hon. the Minister of Defence.

The corporation—I am not going to discuss its aims, because these are not relevant in this Bill—seeks primarily to serve and not to make a profit. It renders a service to South Africa, and when the Defence Force has identified its requirements and when the requirements have to be acquired or ordered, we find that the corporation does so. It has been proved during the past year that things went smoothly in the organizational sphere. After a great deal of thought by experts, the time has now come for a little more centralization, to forge closer ties and to obtain a little more unity in the organization. The creation of a single compact unit is mentioned on page 41 of the September 1976 issue of Paratus. While mentioning the words “compact unit”, you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to pay a word of tribute to the man who is second in command of the whole set-up, namely the chairman of the board of directors, Commandant Marais. He is a compact man, both in stature and in his thinking, and in his projections he is not a person who tolerates frills. That is why, other than the hon. member for Durban Point or even the hon. member for Simonstown, I trust that not only will a physically compact organization be built now, but that the leaders and their assistants who have to carry through the process, are people of character and integrity.

It has nothing to do with personalities.

I know that, but there have been doubts about whether we should throw open the books so that Parliament can look at them, or that mistakes may occur, and this is why I mention it.

What are you hiding?

We do not have anything to hide. The hon. member must not be so sensitive. The staff of the two organizations which are going to be integrated, is a highly specialized one. I recently read that, after having taken a tour of inspection of some of the Defence Force’s installations, a well-known businessman became extremely aware of the need for the successful operation of these organizations. This man said that he became deeply aware that these organizations were able to do what they had to do, because they were doing it for South Africa. Then this businessman addressed a plea to the private sector not to coax these expert technicians, these highly qualified persons, away from their jobs. He expressed it in this way—these are not my words, but the words of a businessman: “It is treason to coax an artisan or technician of the Defence Force or of this Armaments Corporation away from his work.” This must also be told to the people outside, namely that we need to have this organization functioning with more success than it had in the past. To do this, it is essential not to coax away the staff which they have, and use them for the private sector.

What is being done now, is actually just to make legal provision for what is already being done in practice now. As far as the future of South Africa’s defence supplies and requirements for defence is concerned, these matters are now, more than ever before, in the hands of competent, well-organized planners who can prepare South Africa to cope with the dangers which lie ahead, whether they are conventional or unconventional. Therefore it is a privilege for me to give my support as well to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester said that the hon. member for Durban Point had asked for the books of the corporation to be made available for inspection by the public.

I said “Parliament.”

If they were to be made available to Parliament, it would be just as good as making them available to the public. I should remind the hon. member for Worcester that he is a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He knows that the reports of the Auditor-General on the accounts of the Armaments Board are submitted to that Select Committee year after year.

He does not know what is going on.

You do not expect him to know what goes on in that Committee?

Well, I did expect him to know. I expected him to know that it was the case and I expected him to take an intelligent interest in it. Notwithstanding that fact, I see that the hon. the Minister has a difficulty in this matter because, in the first place, the Armaments Board is going to disappear. It is quite clear, of course, that if the Armaments Board disappears, the audit of the books of the Armaments Board can no longer be done as an audit of the Armaments Board. It can only be done as an audit of the corporation. I can see, however, that as far as the corporation is concerned the hon. the Minister has some difficulty too, because the corporation has a public accountant to audit the books, and at this stage it would probably be very difficult for the hon. the Minister to tell the corporation that whereas in the past he was quite happy to have a public accountant, now, however, when the functions of the Armaments Board are being taken over, he does not think a public accountant is sufficient because he now requires the books to be audited by the Auditor-General. I have some sympathy with the hon. the Minister as far as this legislation is concerned. It is a difficult situation. However, I believe there is a compromise solution, and it is about that that I wish to say a few words.

One of the difficulties about books being audited by an ordinary public accountant is that a public accountant reports on the books in a very stereotyped way. He says that he has looked at all the accounts, has examined the books and has received the explanations he has asked for, and he states that the balance sheet is, in fact, a fair reflection of the activities of the corporation. That is all very well as far as it goes. We know that that happens. We have seen that that is how the reports of all the corporations tabled in this House read, but that does not get us very far. The Auditor-General has a particular brand of know-how, and with this particular know-how he is able to highlight certain aspects of the accounts, and that is what we on this side of the House feel we should have.

We should have those highlights. If we should further desire to discuss these matters, they can be discussed in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and if there are any matters in the account that should not see the light of day, it is quite a simple matter merely to have them expunged from the records of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. However, the Select Committee on Public Accounts would be able to inquire into the various matters which the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned. An ordinary registered auditor, however, would not do that. At this stage I believe we can possibly do something about this. I think that this Bill, as it stands, cannot be amended in such a way as to give effect to what I have proposed. When we come to the Committee Stage, however, the amendment I would have proposed would not be acceptable, but I do believe that the hon. the Minister can, at a later stage, amend the corporation legislation by adding several further clauses on the auditing aspect. I have, in fact, five subsections that can be added to the audit clause.

One must remember that the auditor is a public accountant, and I suggest that an amendment on the following lines should be introduced. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he could do so at a later stage during this session. I suggest, as an amendment, that the accounts of the corporation should be compiled in the form prescribed by the Auditor-General. That will help for a start. Secondly, I suggest that the auditor should have the right to investigate whether the moneys have been spent in an advantageous and efficient manner and also that the auditor should draw attention to any grant which has been exceeded or which has been utilized for a service or purpose other than that for which it was intended; also, that the wasteful or inefficient utilization of money which is not conducive to the best interests of the corporation should also be focused upon. Attention should also be given to any stores whose use or custody are detrimental to the interests of the corporation, and any other matters of public interest.

I believe that if the hon. the Minister would amend the legislation relating to the corporation in this manner, he would still have an ordinary public accountant serving as auditor, but that accountant would then have these additional duties. It would mean that the public accountant, who is the accountant for the corporation, would then to a very large extent do his auditing in consultation with the Auditor-General. I must agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that the procurement function of the Armaments Board is going to be taken over by the corporation, and it is in the procurement that a vast sum of money is going to be spent. We all know that in the last few years the amount that has been spent has increased. Last year more was spent than the year before. Indeed, the figure was greater than the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Point. I imagine that this year the figure will probably be greater still. A vast sum of money is involved and we on this side of the House feel that it is not sufficient for the Auditor-General merely to audit the Special Defence Fund, because whatever else that fund shows, it certainly does not show the transactions of the corporation which, we believe, will involve all the transactions which the Armaments Board has dealt with up till now. Those transactions are very large and complicated and require the sort of auditing I have in mind.

You will notice, Sir, that I did not suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should take over and introduce these possible amendments at the committee stage. These amendments relate to section 8 of the principal Act and that section is not affected at all by this Bill. Therefore it will not be admissible for the Minister to introduce these amendments. However, I think the hon. the Minister could find an opportunity to amend this measure at a later stage. I suggest that in the meantime the Armaments Corporation might consider asking its public account, who will be auditing its books, to work in close collaboration with the Auditor-General in this interim period. Then, by the time the amendments become law, it will be a fairly simple matter for the public account to highlight the matters we have asked for. If the hon. the Minister feels that to highlight these in the ordinary way would perhaps be not quite proper for a public accountant, I suggest that the public accountant could give his ordinary certificate in the accounts that are tabled here and that he could say that a special certificate would be issued to the Minister who could then lay that special certificate before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. In that way the whole matter would be completely open to the scrutiny of the members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I feel that everyone would then be quite satisfied that the money was being properly spent.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I should like to thank hon. members sincerely for the calm and sober spirit in which they discussed this Bill. Everyone showed an interest in this undertaking, an undertaking of so much importance for our country.

†I thank the hon. members of the Opposition for the way in which they discussed the Bill on its merits. I can give them the assurance that I highly appreciate it.

*The hon. member for Simonstown said that he did not know how it was that the hon. member for Wonderboom could display so much knowledge about this matter. For the record I want to set this matter straight. The hon. member for Simonstown should know by now that the hon. member for Wonderboom was a senior employee of the Armaments Board for many years. He was also a project leader for some of the largest projects we have tackled and brought to fruition in this country. Hence his knowledge. I think, therefore, that we can take note of what he says. It was, inter alia, under his guidance that Silvermine came into being.

I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. members for Bloemfontein West, Wonderboom and Worcester for the support they gave me in getting this Bill accepted. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West quite rightly referred to the question of auditing, for which provision is made in the special legislation already in existence. I shall come back to that later. I am grateful, too, for the friendly words of the hon. member for Worcester. He need not be so modest. He did help convince me that Navy headquarters should, in fact, be transferred.

†Mr. Speaker, the status and responsibility of the Auditor-General are not affected by this Bill, not in one single instance. The Chief of the S.A. Defence Force is still accountable to the Select Committee on Public Accounts as in the past. Nothing is being changed as far as that is concerned. If hon. members look at the Act to provide for the establishment of a Special Defence Account and refer to section 1, they will see that it states—

1. (a) moneys appropriated by Parliament for the account;
2. (c) interest derived from the investment of moneys standing to the credit of the account;
3. (d) refunds of expenditure incurred on the account at any time.

That was the position up till now.

That is the Special Defence Account.

Yes. But the position was changed when we instituted the Special Defence Account. In 1974 the whole system of financing changed. Before that we had another method of financing, but the Act of 1974 changed the system of financing. I should like to quote further from the Act, from section 5—

In other words, he is capable of auditing the whole account. My personal attitude is that that should remain the position. For the purpose of the internal management of Armscor and its subsidiary companies, the corporation will continue using public accountants registered in terms of the Act of 1951. These public accountants are appointed annually by the Minister. Their report comes to the Minister every year together with a report by the board of directors of Armscor. That has always been the case, and we are not altering that; we are not changing anything. They must do what the hon. member for Wynberg suggested, i.e. also report on management, on efficiency, which they in fact do. The only reason why I need not table the report is that laid down in the Armscor Act, which stipulates that it should be laid before both Houses of Parliament “unless the disclosure of any such report may in the opinion of the Minister jeopardize the safety of the State”. That is the only reason why I need not do so. There is, however, an annual report by the public accountant and there is an annual report by the board of directors to the Minister. The only reason why it is not published is to maintain the security and safety of the State, and nothing else.

May I ask the hon. the Minister what sort of certificate the public accountants give? Can he tell us what is in that certificate?

It is a long report. It is not only a certificate. It is an audited report which is submitted to the Minister and to the board, and it is sent to the Minister, together with the report of the board. It is a very comprehensive document. It is not only a certificate.

I want to make another point, viz. that the services rendered by the two auditing parties are complementary and beneficial both to the State and the corporation. I believe it is to the advantage of both the State and the corporation, and I can say further that long discussions have taken place among the representatives of Armscor, the head of the Defence Force and the Auditor-General on these matters only a few weeks ago. I do not believe the Auditor-General will take exception if I say that he is quite satisfied with the procedure we are going to follow. Therefore I fail to understand the problems raised here by the hon. member for Durban Point.

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

No, not now. The hon. member may put his question at a later stage. The hon. member for Durban Point said two things that I believe should be corrected. In the first place, he said that I am now accepting his good advice. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not advise me to establish Armscor. He never even thought of it. When Armscor was established, the aim was that it should eventually take over all functions. The hon. member did not have the faintest idea that Armscor would be established. However, I leave the matter at that.

Why then did you refuse in 1974?

Because the time was not ripe for it then. [Interjections.] If I were to have left these matters to the hon. member for Durban Point, there would really have been a mess by this time. [Interjections.] This is not a matter we can argue about here, of course. It will have to stand over until my Vote comes up.

The hon. member for Durban Point mentioned a second matter. He said that he objected to the establishment of boards of directors for the subsidiary companies of Armscor. Of course, I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. I believe that he is quite correct. What is now taking place in practice? Armscor has an excellent board, on which only two State officials have a seat, namely the Secretary for Finance and the Secretary for Trade and Industry. The other board members are either industrial leaders or businessmen or experts in a particular and relevant field, and this board …

They are not all satisfied with what is taking place there, of course.

I do not know what the hon. member means by that. If he says that, he knows more about that board than I do, and I meet them regularly. The hon. member has apparently got hold of some story again, but the fact of the matter is that chairmen for the various subsidiaries are elected from among the board members. In other words, the control the hon. member for Durban Point requests, namely overall control by the central board of directors over all the subsidiaries, already exists in effect. This takes place in two ways, namely, by way of the members of the main board of directors who are chairmen of the subsidiaries, and by way of the executive officials who have a seat in the boards of directors of the subsidiaries. Control is thus exercised over each subsidiary by the central board of directors and the central management of Armscor.

†I hope the hon. member follows what I am saying.

*The central board of Armscor is a board consisting of the most distinguished people and has the right to expect, apart from the funds paid over by the Defence Force from the Special Defence Account and which can be fully audited by the Auditor-General, wherever it may be spent, that the auditors appointed by the Minister shall report to the board and to the Minister in respect of every division of Armscor’s activities, including its efficiency. This goes much further than the ordinary audit of the Auditor-General.

†The audit of the public accountant goes much further than the audit of the Auditor-General.

In what respect?

I have just mentioned it.

[Inaudible.]

That is the position at the moment. The Minister appoints the auditors, not the board. The directors of the board do not even appoint the auditors; it is done each year by the Minister, and those auditors then have to report to him. They also have to report to the board, and the board is an important, responsible body. If the hon. member were to look at section 8 of the Act in terms of which Armscor was established, he would see that—

1. (3) The accounts of the corporation shall be audited annually by a person registered as an accountant and auditor under the provisions of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act … and nominated annually by the Minister.
2. (4) As soon as may be after the completion of every audit the board shall furnish the Minister with the report of the auditor containing such particulars as may be prescribed …

Part of the regulations is that they should also report on the efficiency—

†That is the only consideration that keeps me from laying it on the table of the House. If it were not for this reason, I would have done so with pleasure, because we have nothing else to hide.

*How, then, are we to deal with this problem? The board of directors of Armscor is selected from among the most prominent people who can be found for that purpose. They are people with business acumen, leadership ability and knowledge. The Secretary of Finance has a seat on the board and the Secretary of Trade and Industry also serves on the board as a full director. Apart from this, and apart from the fact that one member of this board of directors acts as chairman of the subsidiaries, in other words, so that that link is maintained together with the executive officers and management of Armscor, we have taken a further step. This is where the hon. member for Durban Point disagrees with me.

I approached business leaders from all sectors and asked them to serve on these subsidiaries. Some of the most prominent business leaders and industrialists in South Africa serve on that subsidiary board of directors, precisely because I wanted to ensure that, apart from the high efficiency on the part of our officials, efficient management would also be promoted by the private sector. I can go no further than that. I am faced with the problem that I am unable to make these financial reports public in the form I receive them, because if I were to do that, I would cause South Africa the most serious difficulties, for obvious reasons; not because there is anything that should be concealed, but because there are certain things which the security of the State makes priority number one. I now table a White Paper in the House every second year. In this way we try to give members an idea, in the form of a summary, of the type of thing they ought to know about. They are then able to have a discussion and debate every second year arising out of this. This year happens to be the year in which a White Paper on the defence of the country will be tabled once again.

†What is more—and the hon. member for Durban Point will agree with me—is that never in the history of South Africa has a Minister of Defence done what I did, namely to inform the leaders of the defence groups of every party in this House from time to time on delicate matters. We go out of our way to keep them informed. They know, as the hon. member for Simonstown has admitted, that if they come to me, I am always prepared to discuss with them any matter concerning defence and the armaments policy of the country, provided they do not force me to divulge information which I should not divulge in the interest of the safety of the State. That is all. I agree with the hon. members when they say that the Parliament has the right to know as much as possible, but I think the guarantees which we have built into our system are enough. That is my view and if hon. members differ with me, we must agree to differ.

*I cannot concede that there is no proper auditing and that the Auditor-General does not have full access. There is the most cordial personal co-operation with the Auditor-General and his staff, and there is no objection to the Auditor-General having discussions with representatives of Armscor from time to time. There is nothing in this legislation depriving him of rights he had before.

May I ask whether we shall, in fact, receive a report in future, as we have before, on the balance sheet of the Armaments Board?

In so far as this has nothing to do with security, with the safety of the State, Parliament will receive all it should. I shall again investigate methods of making available to Parliament the information it ought to have. I do not think I can go any further than that. We shall do so in co-operation with the Auditor-General.

That cannot be done.

Of course it can. The hon. member for Durban Point wants me to do something else. He wants me to make public the internal affairs of Armscor, which are regulated in a specific way by an Act of this Parliament, and I am saying now that I am not prepared to do that, even if it should mean the loss of our co-operation.

†The hon. member for Yeoville raised a very important point when he referred to the question of research. I agree with him that research should be directed to the type of activity in which the Defence Force is going to be engaged. In other words, I believe in a policy of applied research as far as defence is concerned. Basic research is a matter for other bodies, but we co-operate with them, because one never knows what can be produced as a result of basic research. As a priority, defence research is directed to applied research. I think that is what the hon. member for Yeoville wanted to convey to this House. He also underlined the principle of private enterprise, with which I agree. Armscor has a number of subsidiaries which are concentrating only on the production of strategic material and equipment. The cost factor is of such a nature that private enterprise will not undertake it. That is the policy applied by the board. The result is that more than 50% of Armscor production is being done by private enterprise even today.

*I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that this is more than 50%. Private industry has a major share in what is being achieved, and I think it is of the utmost importance to our private industry to have the necessary co-operation with us, because in the field of engineering, electronics and other fields, the country is not only keeping watch in the field of defence, but in other fields too, as a result of the demands they make on us.

†Therefore I agree with the hon. member as far as that is concerned. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to move the amendment which he has in mind, because Armscor has only full subsidiary companies.

*We do not have percentages in subsidiaries; they are all wholly owned subsidiaries.

It could happen, however.

That is not our policy, although it might be necessary at a given moment, in order to get something off the ground, to give it impetus until it gets going. I hope the hon. member is not going to take this too far because this is policy at the moment and it will only be in very exceptional cases that we shall depart from this.

The hon. member for Wynberg said that he sympathized with me. I am pleased about that, although it is in respect of such a minor point. I can give him the assurance that I need much more sympathy on points other than this one, because in my opinion, the Auditor-General’s rights are fully protected.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the 1976 session legislation was passed, necessitating consequential amendments to the Defence Act. In terms of section 1 of the Defence Amendment Act, No. 1 of 1976, the definition of the concept “service in defence of the Republic” was amended by the substitution for “service in the combating of terrorism”, which formed part thereof, by “service for the prevention or suppression of any armed conflict outside the Republic which, in the opinion of the State President, is or may be a threat to the security of the Republic”. “Service in the prevention or suppression of terrorism” was inserted by section 2 as a substantive service to which members of the S.A. Defence Force may be employed in terms of section 3(2) of the Act.

Section 24 of the Military Pensions Act, 1976 (Act No. 84 of 1976), repealed section 145 of the Defence Act.

The rectifications necessitated by these amendments are contained in clauses 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14.

The amendments proposed in the other clauses are necessary mainly as a result of the present political and military situation, and are aimed at providing for members of the S.A. Defence Force to be employed more effectively as well as at an adaptation of the Act to present-day concepts of war. In its present form the Act is based on the old common law concept of war and times of war, whereas South Africa in particular experiences circumstances which, by different names, are sometimes fraught with dangers similar to those of war. Other amendments envisaged are better security of military premises; the making available for service in the Citizen Force of specially trained persons; and the insertion of an additional subsection to section 103ter to provide for the exclusion of inquests under certain circumstances.

Clause 1:

Because of the amendments in clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, it is considered necessary to apply to the phrase “operations in defence of the Republic” the same meaning as applies to the phrase “service in defence of the Republic”. This clause contains the necessary provision.

Clauses 2(a) and 3(a):

During the latest developments on our borders members have often been required to render service for periods shorter than those provided for in the Act. Sections 22(3) and 44(3), which deal with the Citizen Force and the Commandos respectively, provide for six periods of continuous service which shall not exceed 12 months during the first period and 19 days during each of the remaining five periods or camps. Whenever service was required for less than 19 days, the remaining days had to be forfeited. The proposed amendments provide for service for any number of periods, subject however to an aggregate not exceeding the total existing provision. This will ensure a more efficient utilization of available manpower.

Clauses 2(b) and 3(b):

The amendments in clauses 2(b) and 3(b) provide for an extension of the Minister’s power under sections 22 and 44 of the Act to direct that certain services rendered, or training undergone, shall be regarded, for the purposes of the Act, as service in the Citizen Force and the commandos. Sections 22 and 44 only provide for service in the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force, the commandos, the South African Police the Railways and Harbours Police, the Prisons Service or the merchant fleet. The amendment includes “any other training or service which the Minister deems suitable”.

Clause 4:

Members of the Permanent Force who undergo special in-service training are required to enter into a contract of service whereby they undertake to serve the Government for a specified period after completion of training. Because the courts refuse to grant orders for specific performance of service contracts, the tendency has developed among members to redeem their undertakings to serve in cash and to purchase their discharge. This results in loss to the Defence Force of dearly needed professional services, apart from a loss of valuable time. During their training very little, if any, productive service has been rendered, and in order to be assured of at least some of their specialized knowledge and skill, it has been decided that provision should be made for them to be called back for service in the Citizen Force. The Minister or a person acting under his authority will decide upon the extent of their service.

Clause 5:

In terms of section 99 of the Act, the State President may, in time of war, issue orders and instructions with regard to the safety of harbours and aerodromes. Circumstances on our borders which may develop inland, make it necessary for the State President also to have the same powers during any other emergency. The proposed amendment extends the power to operations in defence of the Republic in all its aspects, as well as to operations for the prevention or suppression of terrorism and internal disorder.

Clause 7:

In terms of section 101(1) of the Act, the State President may, in time of war, establish a censorship over all or any description of postal, telegraphic, telephonic or radio matter or communications. For the same reasons as apply to clause 5, the term “in time of war” and the State President’s powers are extended to operations in defence of the Republic in all its aspects, as well as to operations for the prevention or suppression of terrorism and internal disorder in the Republic.

Clause 10:

The Secretary of Justice requested this amendment, whereby criminal proceedings not instituted in terms of section 103ter of the Act, inserted by section 8 of the Defence Amendment Act, No. 1 of 1976, are expressly excluded from the provisions of the Inquests Act. The amendment further prescribes the administrative processes to be followed instead.

Clause 12:

Section 119 of the Act prohibits the taking of photographs or making of sketches, etc., “of any area defined by the Minister by notice published in the Gazette”. Under present circumstances it is undesirable that the situation and extent of any military or security area be made known in any manner, least of all by publication in the Gazette. For the same reason it cannot be allowed that photographs be taken or sketches made of military areas without the exercising of proper control. The proposed amendment prohibits the taking of photographs, etc., of any military area without the authority of the Minister. Sanctions are provided for. These are the most important amendments to the Act.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition supports the Second Reading of this Bill. We see no new fundamental principles in it, but only an extension of a principle already accepted by this House. I am referring to the amended concept of “war” in modern times. The concepts of the “combating of terrorism” and the “prevention or suppression of any armed conflict” were discussed and accepted last year. In this Bill, this concept is being extended so that the further provision of chapter X of the principal Act may be made applicable to it. I notice, by the way, that the heading of chapter X is not being changed. I do not know whether it might be necessary, for the sake of clarity, to change it. It was amended last year in order to introduce the concept of the “combating of terrorism”, etc. I do not know whether it might not be better to insert the new terminology, “operation in defence of the Republic”, into the headings as well. In any event, this is of no great importance, for I believe that it already covers the present position. There are a few aspects of the legislation to which I wish to refer.

†I shall begin with clause 1. Here we have a purely linguistic problem. According to the existing definition, “service in defence of the Republic” means military service under the three conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), i.e. in time of war, in connection with the discharge of treaty obligations, and for the prevention or suppression of any armed conflict. The basic definition is “‘service in defence of the Republic’ means military service …”. In terms of this Bill the following words are added—

This does not make sense because operations cannot mean military service—they must mean military operations. We have discussed this with officials of the department and I shall move in the Committee Stage either that to the initial sentence “ ‘service in defence of the Republic’ means military service” be added “and ‘operations in defence of the Republic’ means military operations”, after which the three conditions can be listed; or that the conditions be set out twice so as to relate firstly to military service and secondly to the definition so that “‘operations in defence of the Republic’ shall mean military operations”. There is no difference in principle involved. We accept the intention and the principle, but we do not think it makes sense as it stands. It is purely a question of linguistics.

I now come to clause 2. For the sake of clarity I should like to raise the point that the power to call up people more than once a year provided that the total period does not exceed 19 days in any one year means for periods of continuous training and cannot be used for intermittent training. I think that that is the intention and that is what the Bill says—in fact, I do not doubt it. However, the question has been raised that this power could be used to hold parades in excess of the period of two days intermittent training as laid down at present, by designating each parade as one day towards the period of 19 days’ continuous service. I think it is a bit far-fetched, but I do raise the matter so that I may get the hon. the Minister’s assurance on this matter, because technically a person could be called up for one day’s continuous service. That, for example, could be his Saturday parade and that could be done for 19 consecutive weeks. I realize that that is not the intention, but it could possibly be done. The more often people are disrupted, the more it is resented by those who are liable for service. However, I can see a considerable advantage in this clause, particularly in respect of commandos, where it may suit the commando to do a number of weekend bivouacs instead of one continuous period of training. It would cause less of a break in the civilian occupations of people, it would take them away less from their work and, therefore, from their earning capacity. Once they had done their basic training and it was a question of “shoots” and specialized training of that nature, this could be done in short bivouacs.

In this respect I would like to raise one point. I know the sensitivity which is attached to this. The hon. the Minister of Justice is sitting here; he is even more sensitive than many of us are to this fact, but I do believe that we are now in wartime conditions. We have to fight the enemy on a Sunday in the field, and I see no reason why a commando cannot take its men out on a Friday afternoon until a Sunday night and therefore get the full benefit of two days’ training in the field, rather than apply the peacetime concept to Sunday training. In fact I believe we have passed the stage where we can afford such niceties. It would then enable particularly, as I say, commandos, to take men out for two full days into the bush, onto a range, wherever it may be, and fit in a greater degree of intensive training. I do not suggest that this should be applied to all services, but it could be applied where it would fit in, and when it is acceptable to the people concerned I think that it should be allowed. I earnestly raise this matter with the hon. the Minister for consideration.

With regard to the other amendment in clause 3, relating to the recognition of “any other training or service which the Minister may deem suitable”, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a little more detail on what he has in mind in this respect. Would he for instance consider service in the armed forces of another country? Let us take Israel as an example. There could be the case of a South African who went to Israel and did two years’ military service there as a parachutist or in some other specialized field. Would he consider that as “any other training or service” which could be taken into account? If not, what does he have in mind? Could it, for instance, be training with the Atlas company in a technical field, working in the aircraft factory? The hon. the Minister has left this rather open and I would be grateful to know what he has in mind as “other training or service which he may deem suitable”. It may be, for instance, in other capacities than the Army in other Government departments.

Then I come to clause 7, on which there has been a great deal of speculation, some of it, I am afraid, wild speculation, when the Bill was first published. Here I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that he, because he is responsible, could have avoided a lot of this had he informed the public media at the time. I know that the Press approached him for information. They asked for an explanation of the Bill but were unable to obtain that explanation. They came to the spokesmen of the parties and asked for our explanation, an explanation which, in some cases, they apparently did not believe or accept. I believe though that it would have obviated some of the confusion and some of the wild reports which were written on this, had there been a proper briefing of the Press at the time of publication, because the damage is done once publication takes place. One can never really undo that damage at a later date.

We, Mr. Speaker, recognize and accept that in the new circumstances in which South Africa lives, it is not only in a time of war that drastic powers have sometimes to be taken by the State. Therefore we are not opposed to the principle of the extension of the powers in clause 7 pertaining to the question of censorship. We accept them as we accept them in their extension to securing harbours and airports, commandeering premises, vehicles and aircraft and controlling transportation. When one is in a state of armed conflict, when there is terrorism and lives are threatened, our forces have to have the power to counter the threats against them. However, we want to—and we shall move accordingly in Committee—introduce one safeguard, and that is that when the State President exercises his power, this should be known. We will suggest in Committee that it should be known by proclamation in the Gazette, or in terms of the same wording which is used in clause 5 of the Bill—which amends section 99 of the principal Act—in “any other way which may be made known in such a manner as he deems most suitable in the circumstances.” When the State President exercises his power to secure a harbour or airport he issues the orders and instructions and then says, as section 5 of the Bill provides—

We accept this as one way of making known the use of the powers under section 101 of the Act. The other is the normal way—by proclamation. I put this to the hon. the Minister as a suggestion for his consideration because we believe, that when such drastic powers are taken, the public should be entitled to know that those powers are being exercised. If the State is to take control of mail, telegraphic, telephonic, radio or other communication media, and to exercise censorship of them, it is only right that South Africa should know that such censorship is to be exercised. The two ways it can be made known are the normal way by proclamation in the Gazette or, in an emergency when there is no time to publish it in the Gazette, in such other manner as is suitable to the circumstances.

In principle we are opposed to censorship. This side of the House has always been opposed to censorship, even though, Mr. Speaker, there are certain of the media which apply their own strange form of censorship to what they publish. One sees statements handed out in one form, but appearing somewhat censored and with a very different meaning when ultimately presented to the reader. Nonetheless, even though we believe that the media …

Do they also use a proclamation?

Well, sometimes it is brought to public knowledge in other ways. That is why we accept another way of doing it, if necessary. However, even though they may accept self-censorship, we are opposed to any form of imposed censorship in the normal process of day-to-day life and in normal circumstances. However, no one can pretend that we are living in times and in circumstances which are normal. Let me say at once that I believe the Defence Force has been committing an offence for quite a long time, because they have been censoring mail from the operational area whereas, in point of fact, without a declaration of war, the censoring of servicemen’s mail could not technically have taken place. I do not believe anyone would question the need for that and I do not believe that anyone would question the right and the need of the department to ensure that military information is in fact not sent out of an operational area. If there is: and if I am right that there has been a technical infringement, we would back the correction of that to cover the period during which it has taken place. However, I do not think that anyone would be so stupid or so unpatriotic as to even raise the matter by complaint or by action. Nevertheless, circumstances can arise when this may spread to other areas in South Africa, areas other than the operational area. Where there is insurrection, terrorism or internal disorder we recognize that the State must have the power to act, to suppress this. Such power must include control of messages which may hinder operations or damage the morale of the people in a time of crisis. We therefore do not oppose the concept that in operations in defence of the Republic or in the circumstances listed, this power may be needed and used, but we believe that if exercised, then the public should know by proclamation or by other form of announcement that it has been used.

There may be odd points which we shall raise during the Committee Stage, but the last point that I should like to raise now concerns clause 12, the question of photographs. As the proposed section 119 reads at the moment, it may prevent any serviceman having a snapshot taken of himself with his family on parents’ visiting day or something of this nature. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would make provision—he can do it without amending the legislation—for the normal personal snapshots, things of that nature, in a non-security type of camp not to be interfered with. At the moment the provision stipulates that no person shall have in his possession in any—I shall not list them all—military installation any camera or other apparatus which may be used for the taking of photographs. I do not think that we really need to go as far as that.

With these reservations which we shall take further during the Committee State, we support the Second Reading of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, one is of course naturally pleased about the attitude of the official Opposition in giving their support to this, to my mind, very important piece of legislation. However, I am disturbed about the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point has now thought it necessary to bring into this debate the question of Sunday observance as far as the Defence Force is concerned.

*I feel that the question of Sunday observance is so contentious and so charged with emotion that it should really not be made into a subject for political debate, as has now been done in this case. For the rest, I am happy with the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Durban Point, but I want to warn him that he had better not interfere with the question of how Sundays are spent in the Defence Force. This is an emotional matter which could cause us a great deal of trouble.

Although the legislation under consideration really contains only minor changes of principle, it certainly bears the stamp of the times in which we live. It is meant to enable us to counter the attack on us, as it has developed in its various phases, with maximum utilization of the available manpower potential. The evolution of the Defence Act, as expressed in the various amendments moved from year to year, is in fact the history of the threat against us as it has developed over the years.

Initially, the system of national service, introduced by legislation in 1967, was intended to establish a national army and to train it under the most favourable circumstances, considering the requirements in the economic field as far as manpower is concerned. I refer to this because clause 2 of the Bill, in particular, brings about a change in the service performed by national servicemen. The system of national service was designed to enable us to arm an efficient defence force in the shortest possible time, but very thorough account was taken of the needs of our economy. It was intended to maintain an effective and delicate balance between the requirements of our economic situation and those of the threat against us. No-one has yet denied that this system has achieved that objective and I believe that no-one would be justified in denying it.

In the demands it has made on the available manpower, therefore, the Defence Force has not only adopted a balanced and fair attitude towards our economy, but in the process it has also succeeded, within the framework of the shortcomings and deficiencies built into the structure of the system, in raising an army which today commands the respect of the world, and especially of Africa. Now that the story of our involvement in Angola has recently been pieced together and publicized by the Press, we have all the more reason for being proud of the achievements of our young men.

As I have already said, there have been changes in the system of national service, and the obligations of national servicemen, as these have emerged from several amendments to the Defence Act over the past decade, tell the story of the various changes and shifts of emphasis in the strategy of our enemies in their assault on us and their threat against us. Initially, the threat in the military field was considered to be mainly one of guerrilla warfare, and the training and strategy of the Defence Force were adjusted accordingly. The system was also designed to provide for a basic training of one year to be undergone by servicemen allocated to Citizen Force units, and for three months’ basic or full-time training to be undergone by servicemen allocated to the commandos. After the initial period of training, the service obligation of 20 years in the case of commandos and 16 years in the case of Citizen Force units, with various requirements regarding the rendering of service, came into operation during this period.

It rapidly became clear that this system could not function efficiently in the light of the changes in the strategy of the enemy, and adjustments had to be made. One of the greatest deficiencies in this system was the fact that thousands of young men were lost to active, operational service because they were sent to the commandos, inter alia, where they were available for only three months to be placed in specific positions. Naturally, the training of these men was deficient, and for all practical purposes, they were lost to the Defence Force. The build-up of strong forces in neighbouring countries, the appearance of the Russian bear on the scene of Southern Africa, the change-over to a Marxist Government in Mozambique, the increasing pressure of hostility experienced from sources such as the UNO and the OAU, and the early signs that the West did not have the will to try and counter the Russian imperialist desire for world domination, rapidly proved and emphasized that we could no longer afford the luxury of a plural system of national service. Especially in view of the differences in the service performed and in the period of training, it was found that under these circumstances, a uniform system would be the most desirable.

That these changes kept pace with the nature of the threat against us was proved very clearly by the Angolan debacle, where our troops, commandos as well as Citizen Force units, could be deployed with the greatest effectiveness, as is now being revealed by the series of articles by one Moss. While the Marxist enemy was apparently concentrating on the mobilization of forces beyond our borders, it did not neglect to establish and to encourage revolutionary and Marxist cells inside the country. People were indoctrinated and prepared for battle and forces inside the country were incited to revolt against the established order in the Republic of South Africa. As far back as June last year, there were manifestations of the programme of sedition, as there were during the subsequent exposure of Marxist plots which were aimed at creating urban terrorism and revolution. This was the beginning of a new phase in the assault on South Africa, and therefore it is urgently necessary that our Defence Act be adjusted to meet the needs and requirements with which the new situation confronts us.

The legislation before the House seems to contain very minor and merely consequential amendments, but it nevertheless remains a vital piece of legislation if we take note of its objectives. It is clear that in the period in which we live, in view of the use of urban and internal terrorism as a strategic means of bringing about the downfall of the established order, our police, who have hitherto been able to maintain law and order in the country very effectively, will eventually find—I say this in view of the nature of the threat—that their task has become far too difficult for them because of the great number of their adversaries and of the incidents created by them. Under certain circumstances it may therefore become necessary for Defence Force elements to be called in to bring specific situations under control. In this connection one thinks especially of situations in which national key points are endangered or where a situation threatens to develop in such a way that it may give rise to national disorders and rioting.

For this reason we welcome the fact that the legislation provides for the Minister to call people up for periods of less than 19 days and for more periods than only the five which were applicable under the old dispensation. This gives us a total of 95 days in any period of 10 years’ service. From the nature of the case, the situation anticipated by the clause concerned is the kind of situation which must be brought under control in the shortest possible time and with the greatest measure of efficiency; in other words, under such circumstances, elements of the Citizen Force and of the commandos may be utilized for a few days only. Under the old dispensation this would have meant that a few days of service would have counted as a full period of 19 days. The resultant waste of manpower potential encouraged by the old dispensation is obvious and is a luxury which, in the light of the threat against us, we certainly cannot afford any longer.

I repeat that the legislation before the House bears the stamp of the new element which has been introduced into the assault on us and the threat against us. It must therefore be seen as a manifestation of the expressed intention and firm resolve of the Government to strike with all the forces and with every means at its disposal at those who try to create or promote internal unrest and disorder. The Government and the people of South Africa are getting somewhat impatient and fed-up with elements which attempt to destroy the existing order in a way which involves loss of life. I believe that the Bill is an important instrument for achieving the ideal of peace and quiet and the elimination of those who wish to create disorder and chaos.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite remarkable that what is an important piece of legislation, which every hon. member who has spoken so far has referred to as being important, is greeted with an atmosphere of such somnambulance and almost of indifference, with almost half the House not being here. I think it is time we dealt with some of the realities of what this piece of legislation really contains and that we should try to draw attention to what really is the significance of this piece of legislation.

The first issue that I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister is why this legislation is not going to a Select Committee. There is a belief, which I think is shared on all the benches in this House, that when it comes to this type of legislation we should agree to have or endeavour to find some degree of unanimity. There is a feeling that we should endeavour to find each other, so that matters which pertain to the defence of South Africa should be treated with the greatest degree of unanimity which is possible. The mechanism to achieve that degree of unanimity has in the past on many occasions been a Select Committee. There has, I think, always been a tradition that defence legislation should go to a Select Committee. I think the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation as to why this legislation is not going to a Select Committee. I want to pay tribute to the members of the Defence Force, particularly those in high positions in that body, for the degree of availability and consultation that is made available to us, but that is no substitute for a Select Committee. With great respect, Sir, this legislation should have been referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading, and I believe it should be referred to a Select Committee.

I then come to a second matter with which I regret I would like to disturb the tranquility of this House and perhaps the slumbers of some of its members. The hon. the Minister is quite happy to seek to deal with the question of extended service for national servicemen, but he appears to be completely deaf to the requests of those of us who believe that what is required in this particular time in South Africa is a larger Permanent Force. That aspect is ignored in this legislation and we cannot get any action in that regard. A case can be made out that in these circumstances a larger Permanent Force is required in South Africa, and as the threats to South Africa’s security become greater there will be an even greater need for that. A short-term war in which the country is mobilized is one thing, but a long-term situation in which hostile activity accelerates, is quite another. A situation in which virtually every Citizen Force regiment is called up every year and where this may in future—and I hope this will not be the case—occur more often, is disruptive to the life of South Africa and is disruptive to the economic well-being of the country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to accept that the defence of South Africa requires the acceptance of two major manpower principles. The first is a commital by the whole population against violence and the necessary political change to make this a practical possibility, and the second is that it needs a large, mobile Permanent Force. I have said before and I want to repeat that at this stage I believe two brigades would be adequate to handle the situation. Manpower would be saved. It would not be more expensive either, bearing in mind the additional expense for the continuous mobilization and movement of citizen force troops and commandos and the effect this has on the economy of the country. That is my second quarrel with the hon. the Minister.

The third matter I want to deal with involves the sharing of the burden. As I understand it, the attitude of the youth of South Africa as a whole—and naturally there are limited exceptions—is that they oppose endeavour to foist change on our country by violence. They will oppose any form of aggression anyone seeks to commit against South Africa. They will play their part in defending South Africa, and I mean South Africa, not a particular régime or a particular political party. I mean the country as a whole. They want to do their share, but they also believe that the burden should be shared equally and justly among all those who are able to share in that burden. I asked the hon. the Minister a question a very short while ago. I tried to draw attention to the fact that at the present moment the burden is not being shared fairly, and I believe that it should be shared fairly. There are many who have escaped service altogether and there are many who, after having done their year’s national service, are never called upon again. There are others, however, who are expected to play a far bigger part. I therefore want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. In these circumstances I think he should apply his mind to the sharing of the burden equally amongst the youth of South Africa. He should not only take advantage of those who have to do more and more, again and again. That is my approach to some of the amendments here before us.

Let me firstly deal with clauses 2(a) and 3(a) of this Bill. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware—I am sure he must be—that the effect of these amendments is that theoretically a serviceman can now be asked to do 95 periods of service of six months each. I say this because if the service is extended after the first day, in terms of section 92ter of the Act, the serviceman can be made to serve 95 periods of six months, in addition to the period of six months he can be called upon to serve if he is mobilized. Has the hon. the Minister considered this? This may, on some counts be said to be theoretical, but the truth is that it is now possible to impose an even more inequitable burden on some young people relative to others. I believe, however, that there should be some safeguards here. I therefore want to suggest to the hon. the Minister—and I shall move an amendment accordingly in due course in the Committee Stage—that there should not be an extension in terms of section 92ter(2), either until the 18th day or else, if there is an extension at any time, the serviceman should be deemed to have served for at least 19 days. The effect of this will be to deal with the difficulty, as we understand it, that sometimes servicemen are called up for only two, three or four days, this counting as a camp, until eventually the army runs out of camps it can ask servicemen to attend. If, when service is extended, one gives him the full benefit of the 19 days, one would be seeing to it that everyone shares in the burden equally. We are speaking today of 19-day camps, but I do not really believe, with respect, that there is this concept of a 19-day camp any more. I think today the servicemen are called up for three months. They know they are going to have to serve for at least three months, and I think we must recognize that this is a fact and we must bear it in mind and not have a situation where a man can theoretically be called up for 95 periods of six months. With respect, that does not make sense.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister how servicemen are going to be treated who have done four camps already and have one camp left to attend, one camp of 19 days, theoretically, or perhaps in the present circumstances one camp of three months, which is what would be expected.

What, in practice, is going to be expected of them? Are the remaining 19 days going to be used to make the serviceman do 19 camps of three months each? How is he going to be treated in these particular circumstances?

The provision relating to equivalent training, I want to say, has our support. On the strength of the information given to us, it seems a desirable provision. I think the hon. member for Durban Point knows what some of the activities are which will be covered by this provision. The only matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is whether, in cases where reasons of security are not involved, the public should not be aware of the type of activities which are to be regarded as equivalent. In other words, should it not be published in the Gazette or elsewhere that, where a man is performing a particular service, the State regards that as being equivalent to army service so that it will not be thought that he is seeking to escape his responsibilities. I think the hon. the Minister might consider that matter.

Then we come to the provisions of clause 4. Again, the principle involved is accepted because, quite clearly, when a man takes advantage of such service to obtain a particular qualification, that qualification is sometimes so valuable, and the training involved so expensive, that the person concerned would be only too happy to buy himself out. It is, in fact, a very cheap way of obtaining training. Therefore one can understand that the State requires a safeguard in that connection. Quite obviously, then, this provision should be supported.

Then I come to the provisions contained in clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. These are all covered by much the same principle. The intention is that in addition to the concept “in time of war” being included in respect of these measures, there will now also be inserted “operations in defence of the Republic” and also “the prevention or suppression of terrorism or internal disorder”. These provisions deal with a number of powers of the State which are extended to the commandeering of property, to censorship, to the controlling of transport and to the evacuation of persons. These powers could previously only be exercised during a state of war.

In terms of this Bill it will now be possible to exercise them in peace-time. Not only will it be possible to exercise them when there are actual acts of insurrection or of terrorism being committed, but it will also be possible to exercise them in order to prevent such particular acts taking place. This really means that we are preparing for a continuous long-term situation in which action to prevent terrorism will be taken and in which powers, which were commonly related to a state of martial law, can be exercised on a permanent basis. These are very wide powers which must, in fact, demonstrate a real fear of prolonged danger.

One is concerned about the situation in which these powers can be exercised. While drastic, emergency conditions do require equally drastic remedies, if there is no actual war, we believe that safeguards are required. Firstly, we believe that the public must be made fully aware of the fact that such powers are being exercised or are about to be exercised. Let me give an example. We have here a power in terms of which censorship may be exercised. People’s letters may be opened, and here I am not referring to the letters of servicemen because those are already covered by the Act. The public’s letters can be opened, the authorities can listen in to the telephone conversations of the public and there can be censorship of all printed matter, including the Press. In these circumstances, the very least the public are entitled to know is at what particular moment in time these powers, are being exercised. Otherwise this happens in secret and the public may or may not know whether telephone conversations are being tapped and whether letters are being opened. In other words they will not know from one day to the next whether censorship is being exercised. That is the first point.

The second issue is that we believe that if censorship is exercised, that censorship must relate solely to military and security matters which, if published, would assist the cause of the terrorist or other aggressor. It must, furthermore, not encroach upon the public domain. It must, in other words, not be used to withhold information which prevents the public from being informed, which prevents the public from forming a value judgment and which does not endanger the security of the State. We do not believe that one can justify censorship except in this particular limited form. I want to say here and now that there are already provisions in our Statute Book in terms of which there can be censorship in respect of military security matters, and we cannot see a situation where the passing of a piece of legislation in terms of which censorship, both in respect of the private individual and in respect of the Press, becomes a matter which is not limited purely to military matters in the manner in which I have indicated. We will have a situation where the public will not be adequately informed and as a result will not be able to form value judgments in regard to what is happening. Sir, with great respect, one of the major things that was wrong with the Angolan adventure was that the public did not know what was happening. The hon. the Minister must know that if he wants to motivate people, if people must participate, if there must be a feeling in a community, they must know what is going on, not know what is going on where it affects military security, not with respect to the disclosing of information which can help an enemy, but information in respect of the ability of the public to form a value judgment. In so far as censorship is concerned, we believe that the provisions in this particular clause go far too far, and we regret that in this form we cannot support it.

I now wish to deal with the next provision, the provision which deals with the holding of inquests. Here again I believe that a safeguard is required. If an inquest is practically possible and if the next of kin want to have an inquest, and if there is no danger to national security, one cannot see why there should not be an inquest. In this connection one must remember that people might have been killed who were not themselves in the military, but who might be in quite different circumstances. I put these points to the hon. the Minister.

There is one other with which we want to deal and that is the issuing of photographs, a matter which falls under clause 12. In this connection I have a difficulty with which I should like the hon. the Minister to assist me. If it is not necessary to proclaim military areas in the Gazette—and I accept the difficulty in doing that—how does one actually know when an area is a military area where it is not designated? In the cases of military camps, barracks, dockyards, etc., it is obvious, and one should not take photographs of them. However, when this is extended and one is dealing with any area of land or water which is being used for military defence purposes or which is under military control, if there is nothing which designates it as such, one may be committing an offence without knowing it. There is no element of mens rea required in order to commit an offence. I believe that before this can be brought into operation in respect of matters which are not obviously military installations, there should be a sign. There should be something to indicate that this is an area which is under military control. Let me give an example of this. There may be a vast extent of veld and it may happen that at a particular time it is under military control because manoeuvres are being held there. But we might not know this and might, therefore, commit an offence without knowing it. Similarly, one might not know that an extent of shoreline is being used as a range or as an operating area for a submarine. Simply by taking a photograph of a sea-life scene, or of a bird, one could be committing an offence. I believe that one cannot impose a criminal sanction upon people unless it is actually designated, so that they may know that the object is something of which they cannot take a photograph.

These are matters which can be debated. But is this the place to debate them? Should they not be debated in a Select Committee? We believe that this legislation should go to a Select Committee and accordingly I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, as far as the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned—the one that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee—I want to remind the hon. member that in the past, when defence legislation and other relevant matters were referred to a Select Committee, some matters of principle were involved. In the first place, in referring those Bills to a Select Committee, interference in the interest of the public was envisaged. Now, the fact is that no such encroachment is at issue in this Bill. The period of service, which was divided into 5 training camps of 19 days each, is now being combined into a single period of 95 days and that period remains unchanged. Furthermore, it was in the public interest, in a matter of this nature, for the parties to reach consensus, for them to iron out their differences on a Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition has already made known its agreement with the principal ideas in this Bill. The Independent UP may be expected to adopt the same attitude. Consequently, I cannot imagine the hon. member for Yeoville differing on this principle; the principle that the public interest is not being prejudiced. He came up with a fairly absurd argument—if I may say so—in relation to employment in terms of section 92ter of the Defence Act, whereby, according to him, this can occur about 95 times and then he eventually ends up with a tremendous number of days. This is an absurd example. I shall return to it later.

A further argument which, in my opinion, would be valid in respect of a Select Committee, is not valid here. This is that the public ought to be informed about the new principles of the Bill. However, no new principles are contained in this Bill. Last but not least, the Bill contains no contentious measures and consequently there is no justification for its referral to a Select Committee. No existing order is being changed hereby. Nor is there any change in an existing arrangement as far as national service is concerned. Consequently, I am unable to support the idea of the hon. member for Yeoville, viz. that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. If this is the only reason why the hon. member does not agree with this Bill, then I am of the opinion that he is putting up a smokescreen, a smokescreen to enable him to say, for other reasons and at suitable venues, that he did not support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if we go on to look at other arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville, we find, inter alia, that he found fault with the hon. Minister because, according to him, this Bill allegedly did not penetrate to the heart of the matter, the heart of the matter being the creation of a larger defence force. He has in mind a brigade or two. In the first place—in my opinion, the hon. member made the same mistake in his approach last year—the hon. member did not differentiate between a larger permanent force and a larger defence force with its different components such as, inter alia, the citizen force and commandos. The hon. member now wants to argue that the Bill is unacceptable to him because that vital matter is not touched on. But what is the crux of the matter? The crux of the matter concerns funds. This is the crux of the matter. These hon. members argued in many debates last year that the defence budget was too large and that the appropriation ought to be employed in another way.

That is untrue! [Interjections.]

Then we shall have to quote other hon. members of the hon. member’s party who said this, but in different ways. The hon. members must now follow the example of the hon. member for Yeoville in saying by implication, that last year’s defence budget, and possibly this year’s as well, is too small. Then we shall accept their good faith because, with regard to a larger Permanent Force, we are in agreement with the hon. member for Yeoville. The Permanent Force are the directors, the managers of our South African Defence Force. They are the people who must administer and co-ordinate and we need more of them. In all three elements of the Defence Force, the Permanent Force is too small in comparison with the Citizen Force and Commandos. We need specialists and I want to say that perhaps we need differentiated remuneration in order to attract the best people, but this is an open argument. The fact is, however, that we need a larger permanent force to perform these functions. When it comes to a larger defence force as a whole and the hon. member for Yeoville advocates a permanent brigade or two, the hon. member is displaying what seems to me to be somewhat intentional ignorance. I think the hon. member has an idea that we already have highly specialized units at our disposal in the S.A. Defence Force. They are formidable units and if he is pleading for the expansion of such units, we understand each other, but the hon. member must not act as if this matter has received no attention in the past. I have an idea that he knows this, but he is being obstreperous.

As regards the hon. member’s plea that the responsibility for the defence of our country be spread across the whole spectrum of the population of our country, I want to say that this is our policy, after all, in so far as opportunities, facilities and funds permit, and the hon. member knows this. Why must he now advance an issue in this way which he knows is a delicate one for us to debate in the House? Once again, I think that the hon. member meant it for a forum other than this particular one.

As regards the hon. member’s arguments in connection with clause 6 and those which follow it, particularly clause 7, it seems to me as if he is supporting the hon. member for Durban Point, namely that it ought to be made known when the State President makes use of the powers to introduce censorship. It seems to me that the hon. member for Durban Point has a case which may be argued, because it has its merits. I do not want to take the matter any further because I am sure that the hon. Minister will deal with it in his way and in good time. However, I take it amiss of the hon. member for Durban Point for arguing that this matter ought to be referred to a Select Committee.

It was not I.

Pardon me, it was the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] What is more, when we introduced, inter alia, two amendments to the Defence Act last year, the PRP fought us tooth and nail. Firstly, we added a substantive period of service to section 3(2) of the Defence Act, and secondly, we amended the definition of military service in defence of the Republic. These are principles on which a decision was taken at that time and which are now established principles in the Bill. Altering these principles is not envisaged.

Then the hon. member again concluded his argument by asking that it be referred to a Select Committee, with specific reference to these sections. The fact is that they are principles—and I want to underline this— which have already been accepted by Parliament. Consequently, there are no new principles involved. He must not attempt to create the impression amongst the general public that we are coming to the House with new principles. As I have already indicated, they fought it tooth and nail, but lost by a considerable number of votes. The official Opposition has agreed with us and consequently there are no new matters which could be referred to a Select Committee.

As regards Clause 7, I think that the opening words of the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister are of decisive importance to us here. As I understand it, the hon. the Minister referred to the situation in which warfare had taken on a new dimension and in which the definition of wartime to be found in the handbooks, was no longer applicable. Consequently it has become necessary to include in the Act powers corresponding to the new style and technique of present-day warfare. For that reason, I think that clause 7, which will become section 101 of the principal Act, originally endured unfair criticism from the Press. One press organ referred to it as a Draconian measure. Fortunately, this matter took its course and other newspapers came to the fore and put the matter into perspective. The fact is—I want to conclude with this—that by including the concepts “operations in defence of the Republic or for the prevention or suppression of terrorism or for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder”, we have put the Defence Force in a position to be prepared to deal with immediate situations. It is not only the Defence Force which is being put in a position to do this. We are running the State machinery in its totality so as to keep in step with the Defence Force and this is the rationale behind the amendment that the State President may take these powers under these circumstances and not only in time of war, as the definition stated previously.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville made three points at the beginning of his speech. Firstly, he asked why this legislation was not going to a Select Committee. Secondly, he said that the hon. the Minister was quite happy to deal with extended service, but was deaf to a request for a larger Permanent Force. I do not know how the hon. the Minister can legislate to enlarge the Permanent Force. Surely, that is an administrative matter. I do not see where the hon. member for Yeoville’s complaint comes in. He then raised the matter of the sharing of the burden and he said amongst other things that our youth opposed any movement that wished to force change upon us through violence. I think that in using that argument the hon. member for Yeoville has indicated that there is a time of crisis in Southern Africa and South Africa.

Yet, when we come to clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and the powers which can be exercised under those clauses, the hon. member says that these are powers which ought only to be exercised in time of war but may now be used in peace-time. The hon. member then demands that the public should be kept informed at all times. I believe the public should be kept informed as far as possible in the interest of the State, although I think there might be times and questions about which the public should not be informed. The hon. member for Durban Point was even more interesting. He raised quite a number of technicalities, which I believe would have been unnecessary had he listened carefully to the briefing that was held in November in Pretoria. What really interested me about the arguments raised by the hon. member, was that he stated early in his speech that he firmly believed that there was a state of war and later in his speech said that nobody could pretend that we were not living in times that were not normal. I find this most interesting because earlier in this session of Parliament, when there was a working arrangement and a pending marriage, the Indemnity Bill was before the House, then the argument was used by those hon. members that they could not accept certain of the provisions of the Indemnity Bill because such provisions were necessary only in times of war or in a grave state of national unrest.

We in these benches support the Second Reading of this Bill, particularly those amendments to the principal Act which are consequential to the amendments which were introduced last year. The amendments that are introduced to sections 22(3) and 44(3) of the principal Act, which provide for the service of any number of periods subject to the aggregate not exceeding the total—the hon. member for Yeoville was very worried about this—and his amendment will be looked at during the Committee Stage and, if it is an improvement, we might even vote for it. We believe it is necessary in order to deal with those units who are called up in times of emergency for a shorter period than 19 days and who when their short period of service is finished, need not be kept on unnecessarily merely to complete the 19 days. I believe such an instance occurred in South West Africa when the murders near Grootfontein took place last year.

We believe that the amendment in clause 4, which provides that members of the Permanent Force who undergo special in-service training should enter into a contract of service for a specified period after concluding their training, is a very important provision. It is of vital importance to our security as it ensures continuity in specialized branches of the Defence Force. One cannot permit the Defence Force to be used as a free technical college or as a free university for individuals who do not have the interests of the force or South Africa at heart. The provisions of clause 5, to extend the powers of the State President during operations in defence of the Republic in all aspects, as well as the operations for the prevention or suppression of terrorism and internal disorder, are supported by my colleagues in these benches. We accept that all of us who live in Southern Africa live in a perpetual state of undeclared emergency or, sometimes, of undeclared war. For the same reasons we also support the extension of powers by clause 10(1).

The prohibition on the taking of photographs and the making of sketches, provided for in clause 12, has the full support of this party, although we fear that in some instances it might be a little late for this sort of provision. One cannot have every Tom, Dick or Harry photographing defence objects … [Interjections.] I did not say Dave, Dick and Harry. In considering the powers that are exercised by the State President under the Defence Act, one wonders whether—it might sound light-hearted now, but perhaps one could consider it seriously in the times in which we live—in the election of future State Presidents we should not consider either having a past Chief of the Defence Force or the Chief of the Defence Force as State President. If that were the case, I think we would get far greater co-ordination between the Government and the Defence Force.

Finally, we in these benches wish to express our gratitude to the Defence Force, the General Staff and the hon. the Minister for preparing their legislation timeously, for their willingness at all times to brief the various parties of this House in good time and for their readiness to accept positive suggestions whenever these are put forward. Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that that party supports the Bill. Since the issue of “time of war” has been raised here, and is also relevant to this Bill, and since the hon. member for Yeoville has made a considerable number of references to it, I just want to refer the House, since we are now nearing the end of the debate, to a few statements made by people of authority concerning the state of affairs prevailing in the world at present. First of all, I want to quote what the commander of the mobile unit of the Allied forces in Europe, the forces of Nato, Major-General John Groven, said in November 1975—

I should like to call your attention to the fact that he considers the situation in which we find ourselves at present as already constituting the third world war. He goes on to say—

It is interesting that when one rereads the background to this state of affairs, one gains a clear impression of what the Marxist understands by the term war. It is not what we in the West understand by the term “war”. Since, therefore, we are debating the meaning of war, I want to refer briefly to another authority, namely P. H. Vigor. He is head of the Soviet Studies Centre at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. In one of his most recent books, he gives the following background to the Marxist’s conception of war—

Consequently, the Marxist sees peace and war quite differently. I therefore just want to refer to the fact that a few years ago people were feeling grave concern—and these were people who were familiar with the world scene— about the real danger of a war which could erupt suddenly, another world war, a shooting war. Today, the situation is no longer seen in these terms. Whatever the reason may be, the feeling is that at the present moment, the danger of an actual physical, violent war, does not exist. The result is that the West in particular has been lulled by the false idea that there are no more dangers, that halfhearted action may be taken and that the communists no longer harbour hostile intentions and a wish to dominate. This is one of the reasons why it is as well that this Bill is before this House today. We must utilize all possible methods of preparing ourselves. Just as we are preparing ourselves to get our armaments ready and to make our economy healthy and strong again, similarly it is essential that this Bill before the House be passed in order to eliminate any shortcomings which existed previously. Consequently, I have no doubt that any attacks on this Bill, which is based on principle, ought to be rejected because we in this House must convey to the people of our country the clear message that we will not hesitate to take steps to prepare ourselves in every sphere for any struggle which may lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to state here publicly what our attitude is to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. Subsequent to his moving his amendment, we considered the whole issue and asked ourselves certain questions. We wondered why it is that, despite the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville attended a briefing which took place in the Department of Defence between the officials of the department and members of the Opposition parties—there were only two at that time—he raised no objections of the kind that so basically seem to underline his thinking today. He has also had the opportunity—I do not know whether he has availed himself of this—of discussing the background and principles with the officials concerned, thus enabling him to elaborate upon the information contained in a very carefully documented little booklet which was prepared by the officials and given to each of the leaders of the defence group in each Opposition party. It is our belief that despite this he did not raise any objection. We therefore find it very strange, at this late hour, that he does raise an objection amounting to an insistence, on his part, that the matter should go to a Select Committee. I believe that the hon. member for Bloemfontein West was correct when he said that in this Bill there is no fundamental principle being changed. However, even if he feels that a fundamental principle is being changed, there are precedents for the fact that all Defence Amendment Bills do not necessarily go to a Select Committee. We have tried to analyse the clauses and, in our opinion, there are no fundamental principles being changed, and for this reason we also find ourselves unable to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

We also asked ourselves from whom and for what purpose evidence would be obtained in a Select Committee in order to clarify and perhaps improve upon the Bill now before the House. We feel that the three items, mentioned by the hon. member as being in dispute, could be quite satisfactorily discussed by us in the Committee Stage. The hon. member mentioned the question of extended service. I do not believe that the point he made in this regard was a valid point at all. I believe that there is no question of extended service whatsoever in the amendments contained in clause 2 of the Bill. The second point which, according to him, should be discussed was the question of notifying the public that certain steps were to be taken to enforce censorship, for instance. I believe we can discuss this matter quite satisfactorily in the Committee Stage. We shall be able to debate it then, and I am hopeful that the hon. the Minister may even concede that we have a point in regard to notifying the public when censorship is to be introduced.

The third point mentioned by the hon. member concerned inquests. I believe that this matter, too, we can quite easily discuss in the Committee Stage. In fact, there are a few questions which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister here and now in regard to clause 10, which is the clause dealing with inquests. I believe that if he answers these questions satisfactorily, we may well accept this clause in its entirety, although I do not wish to bind myself to that in any way whatsoever. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to that part of the clause where reference is made to “death … caused by an act referred to in subsection (2).” Subsection (2) of section 103ter deals with the question of certain acts which are described as acts “done for the purposes of or in connection with the prevention or suppression of terrorism in any operational area”. My question to the hon. the Minister is: Does this mean that this inquests clause will not operate in respect of any acts committed during operations in defence of the Republic or for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Republic? Does it mean that the provisions of the Inquests Act will, in fact, apply under those circumstances? As I said previously, subsection (2) refers only to the prevention or suppression of terrorism in any operational area.

I now come to the second question I want to put to the hon. the Minister before we come to the Committee Stage. The proposed new subsection (8)(c) states that—

Could the hon. the Minister explain to us to whom he intends to deliver the certificate? Apparently, in terms of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, that person has an obligation to perform certain acts. We should like to know to whom the hon. the Minister expects to deliver the certificate.

Let me say that, after analysing the points made by the hon. member for Yeoville, we feel it is not necessary for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. However, we should like to emphasize our stand on the fact that there should be notification in the event of censorship being applied. Finally, to put a little icing on the cake, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the heading to chapter 10 in the principal Act because I believe that, in view of the amendments contained in clause 1 of the Bill, that heading will be incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the hon. member for East London City said, particularly in regard to his criticism of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. It is almost as if the PRP wants to handle the whole question of internal security with kid gloves, and it appears that they are not so earnestly intent on rooting out internal disorder, which is the principal aim of this Bill. The most important amendments which are being proposed in this Defence Amendment Bill are geared precisely at making our Defence Force machine more streamlined and more effective, particularly in the light of the altered strategy of the communists and their desire for world domination, for the red communist bear is standing firmly astride Africa today, with one foot in Mozambique and the other in Angola, and is looking southwards, towards the heartland of the Republic of South Africa, which, with 90% of the world’s platinum, 75% of its manganese, 80% of its gold and so on, makes for really enticing booty, with only Rhodesia and the population of the Republic of South Africa separating it from this booty. I specifically said the population of the Republic of South Africa, every population sector of South Africa—White, Brown and Black—and let us have no illusions about this. It is attempting, by way of its diabolical plan, to use the liberty cry of Black Power for the sole purpose of overthrowing orderly Government in South Africa, creating polarization between White and Black, so that its task may be made easier and so that when disorder, chaos and anarchy are rampant in South Africa, it will be able to walk in and take over without hindrance.

These are the aims of the communists. Our Black peoples in this country must take cognizance of this fact. There is a great responsibility on their shoulders, too, to prevent polarization, no matter where it originates, from taking place between White and Black in South Africa. No matter how tragic it may be, there are White people, too, who must be warned against continuing to present the White Government to the Black people and to the outside world, as the oppressor, as the villain which arrogates rights to itself vis-à-vis the Black man which do not belong to it.

There were people, there were newspapers last year, after the beginning of the riots in Soweto, who wrote—

In this case, it was directed specifically against the Afrikaner, who was portrayed as the oppressor, the ruler, the White tyrant that exploited and oppressed the Black peoples. During those riots, this was illustrated very clearly when an English-speaking woman had to cry out in the heat of the riots “I am English; I am English”. It was to no avail because language differences, ethnic differences, made no difference, at that stage, to the incitement of internal disorder. Recently, we also had the case, as reported in Die Transvaler of 11 February, of a journalist who reported as follows—

That is completely untrue.

I quote further—

Now read the hon. member’s denial the next day. [Interjections.]

And then her party, and that hon. member who is making so much noise now, are prepared to allow the Communist Party to function here in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Oh please, that is nonsense!

The hon. member says that it is nonsense, but during the no-confidence debate at the beginning of this session, the hon. member for Houghton stated unequivocally, and I quote (Hansard, 1977, col. 95)—

[Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Labour replied to her as follows—

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, a party in South Africa which lauds this standpoint in regard to an ideology which carries within it the germ of revolution and rebellion, an ideology such as the Marxist ideology, a party which wants to handle that ideology with kid gloves, and which will allow it to enter the political arena legally … It will be an evil day for South Africa, because that party is in collusion with other elements in this country, element which are endangering internal security. I want to refer you to people in this country who are sowing the seeds of revolution and violence under the cloak of Christianity. I quote a single paragraph from the chapter “The ethics of violence”, from the Sprocas Report—

Mr. Speaker, when we consider such matters, we are glad that the hon. the Minister of Defence has his finger firmly on the pulse of South Africa, as he did last year, chiefly in regard to terrorism, and as he is issuing the unambiguous warnings to the instigators of riots, by way of this legislation, that the Government will not hesitate to bring to bear the full might of the South African Defence Force, if necessary, to protect the lives and the property of law-abiding South Africans. If anyone still has any doubt as to the full might of the South African Defence Force, he need only go and read the latest newspaper reports on the war in Angola. The valour, intrepidity and the traditional military strategy of our young soldiers, qualities which compare favourably with those of their famous forefathers, radiate from those reports. The apprehension of some people that our young children, as they put it, would not be equal to the task, was wonderfully dispelled by a colonel who participated in that war. The following account is given of that colonel—

It is the same men about whom the colonel is speaking here, who will also be able to stifle any internal unrest at its source. The hon. the Minister of Defence is enhancing the quality of South Africa’s security by amending the powers of the State President in section 101 of the principal Act by means of clause 7, and section 102 of the principal Act by means of clause 8 of the Bill, in such a way that his powers will be extended even further in time of war, in order to suppress internal unrest even more effectively. Things such as buildings, premises vehicles, aircraft, fuel, oil and any other materials which are necessary for the mobilization and the maintenance of the Defence Force, may now be commandeered, just as in wartime. These things are necessary in order to guarantee law and order at all times in this country.

The country is being defended by all its inhabitants, by the wide spectrum, from the highly specialized, professional and technical services to the menial work in the kitchen, and consequently the Defence Force needs everyone. Everyone, man and woman, may have a place in the Defence Force and render a service. The Defence Force even takes great pains and incurs high costs in order to train professional people in the Defence Force. People who are trained as medical practitioners at university, cost the State thousands of rand and it is certainly only fair to the State for it to be able to reap some of the benefits of such a great investment. The provision in clause 4, whereby section 67 of the principal Act is amended in such a way that, after a trained person has bought himself out of the Permanent Force, he may be assigned to the Citizen Force, for such service as the Minister may decide, is very necessary because all available manpower, in every conceivable walk of life, must be used to defend our country. I want to quote what the Chief of the Army, General Viljoen, said recently when he delivered a personal message after his appointment. He said—

Here, Gen. Viljoen emphasizes the involvement of the entire population in defence action. It is a defence effort which we last saw in the Anglo-Boer War. This emerges clearly from the report of the South African correspondent of the New York Journal at the time—

This is the difference. The South African soldier is fighting for his native land because he has a devotion to it and because he knows no other. He is fighting for this nation because it is dear to him and he is fighting against an enemy who is fighting for a shilling a day. This difference also emerged clearly in the clash in Angola between our forces and the mercenaries of Moscow. The world, and anyone who is thinking of violating our borders, will do well to take note of this difference. The paid subverter and agitator within the country, could also keep this in mind. The Bill testifies to the firm determination of this Government to maintain law and order in the country and to assure and guarantee the safety of every inhabitant. Consequently, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin with the question asked by the hon. member for East London City in regard to the post-mortem examination. He wanted to know whether it applied only to terrorism. The answer is that section 103 ter deals only with terrorism. It may be terrorism in the operational area, but it may also be internal terrorism, for which the Defence Act makes provision.

Not internal disorder.

Not ordinary internal disorder, but terrorism as defined in the Defence Act, and this may be internal terrorism as well. The hon. member also asked me to whom I issue the certificate. The person to whom the certificate is issued is indicated in this Bill. Such a person has to comply with the provisions of section 13 of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act. It must therefore be a person who is competent in terms of that Act.

The hon. member for Durban Point raised a few matters. For example he asked me about the language question. I am not a language expert, but if the hon. member can suggest any improvements in this regard, I shall consider them during the Committee Stage. The hon. member’s opinion as far as clause 2 is concerned is correct. I do not think there can be any danger of it being interpreted in a different way. I give the hon. member the assurance that I agree with him on that point.

If hon. members think that this is the end of changes in respect of national service, they are making a very big mistake. If circumstances change drastically, South Africa will have to reconsider its national service system when the time is ripe. It is not advisable to discuss this matter at this stage, because the Defence Force itself is still engaged in an intensive investigation. As soon as that intensive investigation has been completed, a report will be submitted to me, and then I shall, at a suitable stage, return to hon. members with proposals, i.e. after the Government has considered the matter. These minor changes are not the end of the changes, and I think that if hon. members are under the impression that we are now entering Paradise as far as national service is concerned, they must disillusion themselves today.

Then Harry can make his speech!

Quite right. Then the hon. member for Yeoville will have a point to make a speech about. As for the hon. member’s reference to Sunday training, I just want to say that it is a question of policy which has to be determined under stress of circumstances. Circumstances may arise in which people have to be utilized.

In regard to clause 3 the hon. member for Durban Point asked what we had in mind, whether it was for technical reasons, or what kind of training. I shall give him a few practical examples. It may be service in an undertaking such as Atlas, which is absolutely essential and is most closely associated with our defence capacity. It may be service with the National Institute for Defence Research, or service in other defence forces which have to be recognized. There are three examples, but there may be others as well. I think these three are sufficient to make what we have in mind apparent.

The hon. member objected a little to information to the Press. A few of our newspapers did go off the deep end; we do not find that strange. But we have a liaison service which provides the newspapers with information. I cannot make a Second Reading speech before I come to Parliament, but some newspapers seem to expect that I should make my Second Reading speeches before the legislation comes up for discussion in Parliament. There are certain people who do make their Second Reading speeches outside Parliament, but I am not one of them. Therefore the newspapers simply have to wait until the Bill comes up for discussion in Parliament. That is after all the prerogative of Parliament. But if they want information on the meaning of a Bill, they are free to liaise with our Press Liaison Service, which holds weekly meetings with the Press. This service also has regular meetings with the Press Union. In this case the existing legislation was explained to the Press Union at my request. The representatives of some newspapers also telephoned my house to find out what it meant, and I gave them a reassuring statement. In other words, there was no reason for anyone to go off the deep end about this matter.

The hon. member referred to the announcement of the actions of the State President when he uses the powers in specific cases—power which he has in any event in a time of war—and takes action. I cannot see how the State President can act in any other way than by means of a proclamation. I know of no other way. Surely it is sound common sense that if the State President takes action, he issues a proclamation. That is what I have always understood it to mean. He can do so by way of a notice in the Gazette. There is no other way in which he can do so. The State President will not issue a statement to some newspaper; he does so by way of an official announcement in the Gazette, or by way of a proclamation. This is the customary method of making his actions public. Hon. members raised the question of whether it now means that the State President may issue instructions for listening in to telephone conversations. If it is in accordance with the provisions of the Defence Act, the answer is “yes”, i.e. as laid down in the legislation which we amended last year. When it is necessary, the State President may order certain activities, as long as they are for the purposes of the Defence Act, in other words to protect South Africa in time of war, to protect South Africa against terrorism and to protect it against internal disorder if the assistance of the Defence Force should be called. The Defence Force is most certainly not going to request the State President to apply the powers for the sake of another Government department. For that purpose the existing legislation is there, for example the security legislation, which may be applied in such a case.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised the question of the Select Committee, and I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, the hon. member for East London City and other members of this side of the House replied to him very effectively. After all, the hon. member for Yeoville is not an uninformed person, as far as this legislation is concerned, for he was informed about it last year already.

Was it not promised then that there would be a Select Committee?

No, no promise of such a nature was made. The hon. member must not start with his tricks again. There was one occasion when I took the hon. member into my confidence, after which he then made all kinds of statements here in this House. If the hon. member acts in such a way again in future and makes statements of that kind about confidential negotiations, he must not be angry.

I did not mention a word of it. That gentleman in the comer did.

The fact remains that when the legislation was approved by the Cabinet last year, all the representatives of the various parties were invited to Pretoria, where they were properly informed on the legislation. Then we decided that we would refer the drastic legislation on civil protection to a Select Committee, because it is drastic legislation. On the other legislation the hon. members commented in such a way that I did not deem it worthwhile referring it to a Select Committee. The hon. member did not create the impression that he had any serious objections.

If you will permit me, I shall say what happened there …

Order!

The hon. member finds himself under great pressure from one-half of his party. The hon. member is in two minds.

The better half is giving him a hard time.

His worst half is giving him a hard time!

*The fact remains that we went out of our way to obtain the hon. member’s co-operation in regard to the legislation. I was under the impression that there were only a few minor points on which we differed, and I think this is still how the hon. member for Durban Point feels. How is it then that he and I both feel this way, but that the hon. member for Yeoville is always right?

I put my question and I was told that I must not carry on because the matter was being referred to a Select Committee …

No. No one told the hon. member that it was going to a Select Committee.

It was said.

No, that is not correct, and if the hon. member tries this kind of game on me, I am not going to consult him in future. That is all. He need not think that I am dependent on him. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, let us now consider the hon. member’s objections and why he wants to go to a Select Committee with this legislation. He wants a “larger Permanent Force”. What has this to do with the Bill? He may raise this matter under my Vote and I shall then furnish him with the reply. Secondly the hon. member said: “The Minister must apply his mind to a bigger sharing of the burden.” However this has nothing to do with the Bill either; it can be raised at another opportunity. These are not reasons why one should go to a Select Committee.

Look at your own legislation.

Thirdly, the hon. member tossed up a theory here that people may be called up ad infinitum, until their beards are so grey that we will subsequently not be able to make them walk any more. However it is stated explicitly in the Bill that the maximum period may not be increased. For these reasons now the hon. member wants to go to a Select Committee. The words which I used, i.e. when I said that the Western World was already engaged in the third world war, are being misused, for example in certain pamphlets of that party. These words are now being used against me as being contradictory to what an hon. colleague of mine supposedly said about South Africa’s stability. This is the kind of cheap propaganda we are getting in Durbanville.

It comes from the HNP.

No, it does not come from the HNP, but from the party of that hon. member. He ought to be ashamed of it. I say that the Western World is embroiled in a third world war, but the war will not be declared. It is a world war which is being waged in virtually every sphere against the Western way of life. It is a struggle in which not only South Africa is engaged, and therefore our legislation must be of such a nature that it is flexible and may be applied for various circumstances. The hon. member knows this because he is not ignorant of these things. All that is being done with this measure is to take practical steps, in implementation of what was decided by this Parliament last year, to give the State President powers and to adjust the Minister’s powers accordingly. That is all, and over this, according to the hon. member, we must now go to a Select Committee. Surely this is absurd. A person goes to a Select Committee when one comes forward with drastic, far-reaching, new developments. Then one goes to a Select Committee on Defence. That has always been my policy. The hon. member for Durban Point will support me in this, namely that every time I have proposed drastic legislation in respect of defence of this country, I have requested that it be referred to a Select Committee.

If you are against me, he will always support you.

The hon. member must not think that the hon. member for Durban Point will endorse everything I say. However, when the hon. member for Durban Point tells me that he thinks that a matter is not important and that no substantial and drastic differences in regard to it exist between us, then he stands by it.

I did not say that. If you say it, it is untrue.

I am saying that the hon. member for Durban Point sticks to his word.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

Why should I be ashamed of myself if I say that the hon. member for Durban Point sticks to his word? Surely I do not have to be ashamed of that. I consulted all the parties; all the parties were consulted last year. In fact, they were consulted again this year. The impression I got was that this legislation would go through this House with only a little discussion. However, the legislation which I myself considered to be drastic, viz. the legislation on Civil Protection, I caused to be referred to a Select Committee. That is my reply to the hon. member. Now he can do whatever he likes. I should like to have his co-operation, but if I cannot get it, we shall carry on without him. It is as simple as that.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As the result of developments on our national borders which have brought the South African soldier and the task he fulfils into specific prominence, the opinion is held in various quarters that existing legislation should be amended or extended in order to afford soldiers better protection in respect of contractual obligations. Members of this House came forward with proposals and the matter was also discussed in the course of last session. However, because organized commerce had objections to the proposals, nothing was done about the matter and attention was given instead to the establishment of a consolidated fund to which members of the public were able to contribute and with the moneys of which assistance could be rendered to soldiers and their dependants.

It affords me great pleasure to be able to inform hon. members that, since last session, all objections which existed up to that stage to any extension of protection have disappeared. In a most commendable manner organized commerce not only withdrew their objections but also, through constructive suggestions and comment, gave their wholehearted support to amendments which will afford the soldier the protection in respect of his contractual debt to which he is entitled during his national service. The proposed amendments are aimed at achieving this object.

The opportunity is also being used to rectify deficiencies, which have existed in the Act up till now, by means of consequential amendments.

Clauses 1 and 5:

Since 1972 service in the commandos has been placed on an equal footing with service in the Citizen Force, and in terms of a further amendment during 1975 provision has been made for service in the South African Police on a similar basis as in the Citizen Force and commandos. The concept of “service” in the Moratorium Act comprises only service in the Citizen Force and commandos while the long title refers only to service in the Citizen Force. The amendments in the two clauses serve as rectifications and make provision in all cases for service in the Citizen Force, the commandos as well as in the South African Police.

Clause 2:

This clause contemplates better protection by means of moratorium in respect of contractual obligations to citizens rendering military service. The proposed new section 2(1 )(a) suspends the obligation of a citizen to render service for a period equal to the period during which he is rendering service in respect of contractual debts which become payable while he is rendering service. The result of this is that in the case of term contracts, the term is extended by the period of service. By means of paragraph (b) all civil legal remedies with regard to contractual debts are suspended for the duration of the service.

The proposed section 2(2)(a) contains a new provision in terms of which citizens who have received their full salary or wages while rendering service, are excluded from the moratorium. The remaining provisions are adjustments or consequential amendments.

Clause 4:

The rate of interest which may be levied on arrear commitments is being increased from 6% to a more realistic 10%.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this measure. One of the aspects of the moratorium protection which concerned us when it was amended last year was that within three months after completing service a person would be required to pay double instalments in order to bring himself up to date. We raised the matter at the time. The hon. the Minister said there was opposition to that by organized commerce. Now that has happily fallen away. Therefore this measure has our full support. We welcome it.

Some doubts have been expressed in regard to the legal terminology used. I want to say immediately that the doubts were raised first by the hon. member for Yeoville when this Bill was discussed in Pretoria. I am not a lawyer. I am merely a sea-lawyer, and I must say that it sounds all right to me. It appears that, of every two lawyers who discuss whether this wording achieves the object, one says it does and the other says it does not. I understand that the Government law advisers and the department itself believe that the wording clearly meets the intention. Therefore I shall not debate the issue at Second Reading. I shall leave it to the lawyers here to raise any queries they may have. Let me simply state that we accept the principle as put by the hon. the Minister, that the intention is that an obligation should be extended for the period of a person’s service, and not that it should be duplicated thereafter. In other words, if a man is paying off a debt over 12 months and he is called up in the fourth month and serves until the sixth month, he would pay his fourth month’s instalment in the seventh month and the contract would become a 15-month contract. If that is the intention, as I understand the hon. the Minister has indicated, we are one hundred per cent behind him.

I wish to refer to one matter arising from this, and that is the interest payable. If a person has a contract carrying interest at, say, 11%—let us assume, for instance, that he has a mortgage bond on a house on which the interest is 11%—I assume he would not have to pay the 11% under his contract plus the 10% provided under the Moratorium Act. In other words, his obligation would be extended in respect of both capital and interest on that capital and would be replaced by interest of 10% for the period. Otherwise the position would arise that the man who suspends payments whilst in service, pays a contractual interest which, under some hire-purchase contracts when all the bits and pieces of the small print have been added, becomes anything up to 18% interest and in addition to this there would be the 10% payable in terms of this Bill. I ask the hon. the Minister to make it clear that the suspension in terms of clause 2 applies equally to the contractual interest payable, referred to in clause 4.

While I am on the question of mortgage bonds, I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm that mortgage bonds on houses are in fact covered by this. I know of a case where a person who has bought a house and has been paying off on it for three years, has been called up to do his 12 months’ service and has been told that within the first three months after he has completed his service he will be expected to pay the full 12 months’ instalments that have been suspended in terms of the Moratorium Act. If this Bill becomes law and it is promulgated, I assume too, that it will cover people who are presently serving and who are in that position. Under the existing legislation a person was covered for a period of only three months after the completion of his service. I should like it to be clarified that if a person completes his service in June and has a mortgage to pay off, he will not be liable to civil action as a result of his having been called up before this measure came into force, but will in fact be covered by the new provisions being introduced.

There is a last point I wish to raise. In line 65, on page 4 of the Bill, reference is made to “a writ of civil imprisonment”. I suggest that this be brought up to date since Parliament has abolished civil imprisonment this session. I think we should stay up to date and not provide in the Moratorium Act for something that Parliament has already abolished. For the rest, we give our full and wholehearted support to this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we are glad to learn that the official Opposition supports the legislation, and consequently I shall be brief. It is interesting to note that, this session, we have already dealt with, or at least referred to a Select Committee, the Civil Protection Bill, the Armaments Development and Production Amendment Bill, the Defence Amendment Bill and now the Moratorium Amendment Bill. To me this indicates a growing military awareness among our people, the upgrading of our priorities, and to my mind this is the right time for our priorities to be upgraded. The problem here is to afford the soldier the necessary protection without infringing upon our economic system. For that reason some balance will have to be achieved here in order to ensure that one person is not penalized or prejudiced against at the expense of another. It is clear that the thought embodied in this legislation, is to suspend, under certain circumstances, the contractual debts incurred by a serving citizen, as set out in clause 2. It protects the soldier. On the other hand the creditor is also being protected. Although he is not paid during this period, the period of prescription is extended. He can get his money immediately in respect of certain categories of debts. For example, I have in mind subsection (2) on page 4 of the Bill. The idea is also that when someone acts dishonestly, particularly in respect of leases, he will not be afforded any protection. In this manner a certain measure of balance is achieved, and there will be no need for a person doing border duty to suffer inconvenience owing to a civil action, or to sacrifice his income. Neither will his family be held liable for such a claim against him as long as he is absent.

This is only fair, viewed in the circumstances at issue here, that the businessman who offers his merchandise for sale is able also to contribute his share to facilitate matters. He is not expected to suffer any loss, financially or otherwise, but simply to grant extension. After all, he will receive payment at a later stage, and this is certainly not asking too much. I believe that our soldiers do not expect anything more than that. For that reason I believe that they will be soundly covered by this, while still having the feeling of a man wanting to meet his commitments.

As regards the 10% interest which is being levied, I believe that this is fair, because after all the creditor has to incur commitments to compensate for his unpaid debts and has to pay the normal interest thereon, and to my mind 10% is not excessive under the circumstances, but quite fair. I notice that the proposed new section 4 lays down that—

I trust this will answer the question of the hon. member for Durban Point, because all we are concerned with here, is the money he is unable to collect, the money which is in arrear. He is entitled to levy 10% on that.

In conclusion I want to say that I think that this Bill fits in with our whole pattern of an increasing awareness of our military objects and obligations, and for that reason I am glad to support it.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches shall vote for the Second Reading of this piece of legislation. At the outset I want to say, so that there should be no misunderstanding, that during the discussions concerning this Bill I have received nothing but the greatest of co-operation from the people concerned with its drafting. The same applies to the other legislation. So, there should be no misunderstanding, and whatever quarrel I have the the hon. the Minister, does not pertain to relationships with officials, whom I have found at all times to show the utmost courtesy.

That is axiomatic.

I also want to say that I do not refer to discussions I have had with officials unless other people refer to them first and give incorrect information to the House. I just want the hon. the Minister to note that.

When we deal with this particular Bill, it is obviously not in its final form, as originally contemplated. I think many changes have been made to it, which are, in fact, improvements to it. If I may deal individually with them, I should in the first place like to deal with the issue as to whether the obligations which are suspended should only be an obligation to pay a contractual debt or whether it should also be extended to delicts or quasi-delicts and to quasi-contracts. Exactly the same thing applies under clause 2, to the new section 2(1 )(b) where it states—

The matter which I would like the hon. the Minister to think about until we carry on with this legislation tomorrow, is whether a serviceman who is serving on the border should have any civil proceedings instituted against him at all, whether they be for contract, whether they be for delict, or whether they be for quasi-contract or quasi-delict. There are means of instituting proceedings, even when one is away. It can be served at one’s place of business, one’s place of residence—in fact, at all sorts of places. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not think of the question whether it is not desirable that when a soldier is on the border and is fighting in the operational area, he should not be relieved of this possible burden, that people might be seeing him while he is away or might be proceeding with other litigation while he is away. It is perfectly true that in respect of businesses there should be a different situation. Where partners are concerned, there is a different situation. That is sought to be covered in paragraph (c). But in regard to the question of the relief of a serviceman from the worry of having litigation imposed upon him, I would ask that the hon. the Minister should give this further attention.