Mr. Chairman, clause 1 of the Bill now before us seeks to amend certain definitions contained in section 1 (1) of the Broadcasting Act, 1976. In doing so reference to “sound radio set” and “listener’s licences” is being deleted. This deletion found its way into the draft legislation persuant to the announced attention not to levy licence fees on radio receiving sets in the future. By deleting the very reference to listener’s licences, it is made clear that radio listener’s licence fees will not be levied at all.

We wish to welcome this measure. Once this measure is introduced and enforced, as from 1 October this year, it will assist the less privileged of our community who are by far the greatest audience of radio broadcasts. It will also be of great assistance to old aged pensioners. It is to be welcomed also because as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the collecting of radio licence fees has virtually become an impossible task. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister referred to the answer given by him to a question I had put to him earlier here in the House. I think it will be of interest to quote that question and the reply given to it again now. The question was—

The answer to that question was—

The estimated loss of revenue a year seems to be in the region of R11 million. Now, with the introduction of the new licence system, with the strengthening of the inspectorate and with the abolition of radio licenses as such the management of the SABC, and obviously the hon. the Minister too, hope that this vast uncollected sum will dwindle. Accordingly we support this provision for all the reasons I have just stated.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, regrettably I was not present in the House during the Second Reading debate. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I have read the speeches, that were made and have taken notice of the various points mentioned by the hon. the Minister.

There are two points of interest contained in this clause. The one relates to the extension of the Board of Governors from an existing maximum of nine to an envisaged maximum of 15 members. We will support this. We are happy that the board is to be enlarged, particularly because we realize that the work of the SABC is of an ever-expanding nature. For instance, it is diversifying both on radio and on television to several new language groups and it is therefore necessary for the board to have the expert advice available to it, which until now has not been the case. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us why the magical number is 15 at the present time. I believe there have been discussions over this. In discussions with people involved in the media it does appear that 15 is a number which could possibly be too large. We welcome the undertaking which the hon. the Minister gave to include on the board representatives of other communities in South Africa, namely Coloureds, Asians and Blacks.

This inclusion is especially necessary when we take into account the extension of programmes to include the Black language population groups, and also in view of the vast developments that are taking place in regard to TV 1 and TV 2.

While we support the extension of the number of members, we would still like to know why that number is 15. I do think that I must warn the hon. the Minister that we will monitor his appointments to this board and I wish to caution the hon. the Minister—in a humble way, of course—to avoid political appointments to the board. One of the problems of the Government over the last 34 years is that so many boards, so many commissions, so many statutory bodies have been pratically packed with supporters of the Government. Even on the SABC board this has happened from time to time.

I do realize that this is perhaps a diminishing trend because the Government has fewer people to choose from. [Interjections.] That is certainly the case as a result of what happened in the most recent past. I do believe, however, that it is very important that the Government, in appointing this board, maintain an even-handed approach, particularly with a view to representing all the various communities of this country.

I think one particular gap which does exist on the board of the SABC at present, and of which I have heard people speak, is that the Board of Governors of the SABC has no person on it who for instance is a media expert, a communications expert, a person with professional expertise in communications and in handling the media. While it is important to have people with cultural backgrounds on the boards, educationists and perhaps even some of the hon. the Minister’s political friends, he should give due cognizance to the fact that what that board needs is professional expertise also in the field of communications, and I hope that he will take this into consideration when he makes his appointments. I might add that I have looked at the composition of the board over the years and while there are some very learned people on it, I have never yet found a single, solitary person amongst them who could be accused, even remotely, of supporting the PFP. I therefore think that the time has come, if the hon. the Minister wishes to be as even-handed as I am sure he is going to explain to the House that he will be, for him to look at people who are not just dyed-in-the-wool Nationalists, whether they be of the conservative sort or of the traditional sort.

There is a second aspect to this clause to which I should like to refer, and that is the section of the clause which opens up the possibility of there being in control of the SABC a person who is both the chairman of the board and the Director-general of the corporation. There have been problems in the past. Some of those problems flared out into the open during May or June of last year when the hon. the Minister was not too friendly at that time—if I remember correctly—with certain members of the Board of Governors. I am very glad to see that he has sorted out his differences amicably to the pleasure of both sides. However, in agreeing to this I think we should ask whether the chairman of the board will be a full-time member of the corporation. This also ties in with what is happening. I have changed my mind on this. Some months ago I believed that it was correct and proper that the chairman of the board should be a full-time member, but when one looks at the composition of the tasks of the chairman and then of the Director-general, I believe one can come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to have a full-time chairman of the board. After all, it is the chairman of the board who guides broad policy, who looks at matters which affect the broad philosophy of the Corporation, its broad programme content philosophy and the overriding principles of management. From time to time, he chairs the meetings of the board and, as we shall see later, the meetings of the various advisory boards that are going to be created. But it is not the task, and it has never really been the task, of the chairman of the Board of Governors to be the executive head of the corporation, the man responsible for the day-to-day running and, if I may put it more clearly, for the hiring and firing of staff, the supervision of staff and for the day-to-day management of the machinery of the broadcasting corporation. This should be the job of a full-time professional, a person who is employed by the board. I believe that this intention is now being reflected for the first time in the legislation.

The most important consideration which influence the PFP not to oppose this measure is the fact that the decision as to whether the chairman of the board shall become a Director-general as well, is the decision of the SABC and not of the Government. Whereas the chairman of the board is appointed by the Minister or the State President and is a Government appointee, it is the board that appoints the Director-general. At the present time that is the way it has worked and I think it has worked reasonably well. I think that over the past few years, certainly over the past year and a half, we have had a happy situation where the board has appointed a person who has spent many years in the SABC, a person who has worked his way to the top and who can be considered nothing else but a professional broadcaster and communicator himself.

Therefore, in the light of the fact of the decision to combine the two posts when expedient, when in the interests of the corporation, is a decision of the Board of Governors of the SABC and not of the Minister, and in the light of the fact that we assess that this does not mean any further Government control or grip on the SABC, we feel that it is perhaps a correct provision to place on the Statute Book to be utilized when the board itself feels that it is in the interest of the corporation. If it had been the other way round, I think it is clear that we would have opposed this provision. As it is, however, we shall support the two aspects of this clause as they stand.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton asked why the number of councillors is 15. At the moment there are nine members and there are various periods or terms of service for which their appointments are in effect. Therefore, in the year or two that lie ahead, if we wish to appoint additional skill to the council then one would not like to be restricted by having to appoint three or four additional members only. Therefore it is simply a restriction that we have built in for safety’s sake. It may in fact happen in practice that we could reach the figure of 15, and then it would not be necessary to come back to this House each time in order to make those appointments. If we do not have this provision we might be saddled with 12 or 14 members for two or three years, whereas we actually needed 15. I hope this answers the hon. member’s question and I thank him for his remarks in support of the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this clause has two effects. Firstly, it abolishes the Black Advisory Board. That is the first effect because it is a substitution of an existing provision. I shall deal with this point at greater length in discussing the following clause. However, it also formalizes the situation of the Director-General. It is interesting to note that in the existing Broadcasting Act, the position of the Director-General had in fact not been formalized at all. I do not think he is mentioned in the Broadcasting Act except in so far as he is an officer of the Corporation as defined in the definitions. The provision here performs fulfils this purpose and sets out the functions, obligations and certain privileges of the Director General. The key to the whole question is contained in the provisions of the proposed new section 9(4) which reads as follows—

1. (a) shall exercise control and supervision over the staff of the corporation; and
2. (b) shall perform the functions and exercise the powers assigned to him by the board.

Therefore, we now have the situation where the Director-General has parameters set within which to operate. I believe this is going to be of great advantage because it will serve to avoid any possible friction in the future between the working executive of the Corporation and the polilcy-making body, the Board of Governors as such. I believe it should be supported and that is what we will do.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Clause 5 also has two effects. We have already seen the abolition of the Black Advisory Board and this clause has the effect of abolishing the Television Advisory Board and instituting in its place a situation where various other unspecified boards can be appointed. The hon. the Minister has given us the motivation of this so we will not in any way dispute it or deal with it at length. The amending provision creates a much more flexible situation for the SABC. I should, however, like to ask one question. This is not anything that we dispute; it is simply that we are interested to know. I want to know why it is necessary that the chairman of the Board of Govenors be the chairman at each meeting of every advisory board so appointed. Is this something which should be delegated, as is provided for in the Bill, to the chairman of the board at the present time? I am not sure that it is practical, and therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with it if he can.

Mr. Chairman, the main reason for this is to effect synchronization and co-ordination, otherwise once again one would be faced with the complaint that the advisory boards are meeting in a vacuum, because the chairman of the board is not present to give a hearing to the opinions and pass them on to the Director-General. Therefore, the main reason is in fact simply to ensure that the advice coming from people serving on the advisory boards, will be brought to the attention of the control board effectively, and should the control board decide accordingly, will be passed on to the staff and the Director-General of the SABC.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would explain the intentions of the SABC particularly in so far as the proposed new paragraphs (e) and (h) are concerned. The proposed paragraph (e) reads—

We support this provision, if it is what we think it is, but we should like to have an explanation of what is intended.

The proposed paragraph (h) seeks to insert the words “produce cinematograph films” relating to broadcasting. I should like to know what the intention of the SABC is in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, apparently it was not clear to the SABC whether it could recruit advertisements for the purpose of publishing in its own publications as well. It has always been able to broadcast advertisements, and that is why we have had advertisements on radio and television over the years. The SABC was not quite sure whether it could publish advertisements in publications that it might print. The SABC felt that it was entitled to do so, but the provision is being introduced in order to eliminate any uncertainty in this regard. It will then state beyond any doubt that the SABC may publish advertisements in its publications.

With regard to films, we are faced with a similar case. Some lawyers allege that the concept “film” is incorporated in the concept “recording”, but others say that, in order to make quite certain that films and recordings may be manufactured by the SABC, it is advisable to state this clearly and beyond any doubt in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, may I crave the indulgence of the hon. the Minister and ask him for a further explanation in regard to the word “distribute” in the proposed paragraph (e)? I referred to this during the Second Reading debate because it disturbs me that the word “distribute” is used here in the sense that there may be the intention to distribute advertising material on a direct mailing list. This is the type of thing we had in the past and which, as I said in the Second Reading debate, was not a popular way of advertising on behalf of others by use of the services offered by SABC-TV. I should like to get the assurance from the hon. the Minister that by the word “distribute” he means the distribution of such advertisement or advertising through the printed medium to magazines other than those—I believe there are two at the moment—controlled by the SABC itself. I should like to get the hon. the Minister’s comment on this.

I am not in a position to give the assurance that the SABC will not, in its own right, publish and distribute published material containing advertisements. They feel that they should have that right, of course taking into account the interests of other media. That they will always do. However, the specific practice the hon. member referred to previously, namely, the mail-shot advertisements, the SABC assured me that they would discontinue that practice. As a matter of fact, they already had discontinued that practice. However, I do not think it will be possible to forbid the SABC from canvassing and publishing advertisements in their own publications.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In reading the principal Act and the amendment proposed thereto, it becomes quite clear that what we are talking about here are loans raised by the corporation and not funds lent by the corporation to an outside organization. The use of the word “by” in line 36 is therefore not correct, in that it now reads—

In that sense it means money lent by the corporation to an outside party, whereas what is clearly intended is money which is lent to the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I therefore have proposed the omission of “by” and to substitute “to”.

I am also informed that the Afrikaans text, on page 10, line 35 also needs to be amended.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s amendment is acceptable. However, I also want to move an amendment to the same clause, as follows—

This amendment is merely bringing the wording in the sentence in question into line with the amendment moved by the hon. member. I am sure that the hon. member is in agreement with it, because it will mean that we will not have two different wordings in the same clause.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The motivation for my amendment is that in the original Bill it was never intended that an offence should be punishable by a term of imprisonment. We are happy to see the fine being increased from R200 to R500. It is obviously due to the inflationary tendencies in the country. A fine of R500 today is approximately equivalent to a fine of R200 in 1976. Although it is, relatively speaking, not quite as much, it is indeed in the same sort of ballpark, and we can find no objection to that. There are, however, some regulations whose contravention might just possibly, though barely, justify a prison sentence, and in the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister referred, in particular, to pirate radio stations. I am inclined to agree with him that one does need to control pirate radio stations. One certainly does not want unlicensed broadcasting within the Republic of South Africa, and the unlicensed broadcasting could be terrible stuff. It could, for example, be broadcasting that might further terrorism. It could, in fact, be anything. One can therefore understand the reason behind the hon. the Minister’s idea.

I think I would like to say in passing, however, that I certainly believe that there is room for additional licensed radio stations within South Africa. I certainly think that one could perhaps have a system of licensed radio stations with limited broadcasting areas to serve specific local communities. I think this could be a proposition worth thinking about. They would obviously exist on advertising funds which they would hopefully generate. I appreciate the fact that these funds might take something away from advertising funds paid to say Springbok Radio or the television services, but on the other hand they could also take away advertising revenue from the Press to a certain extent, which is something the hon. the Minister might be more in favour of. I do, however, commend that thought to the hon. the Minister’s attention.

Let us look, however, at the actual clause being amended. This relates to section 28 of the principal Act in terms of which a person can be imprisoned for an offence. For example, section 28(b) reads as follows—

I do not think it is actually reasonable to suggest that a person should be capable of being imprisoned for such a reason. This is the reasoning behind the amendment I have on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has motivated his case very well. I merely rise to indicate that we shall be supporting his amendment. I do not think there is any place in this Bill for a term of imprisonment. I think it is only right to think in terms of an increase in the fine to cater for present-day inflation, but a term of imprisonment would be completely uncalled for within the scope of the Broadcasting Act. We therefore agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has had to say about this.

Mr. Chairman, there is a schedule to this Bill. On page 21 of the Bill reference is made to the Acts that are being amended. The Act which is being referred to on page 21, is the Radio Act, Act No. 3 of 1952. When one pilots similar legislation through this House, one tries as far as possible to lay down similar penal provisions. Therefore, since provision is being made in the Radio Act for similar offences, one would like it to be introduced to this legislation as well. Therefore I think one can recommend to the hon. the Minister that the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central be accepted, because the offences for which provision is being made in this legislation, are not as serious as those for which provision is made in the Radio Act. I do not simply want to agree with the hon. member without further ado that it is quite unnecessary to introduce such penal provisions and measures. One must introduce deterrents as far as possible. I think all of us agree that whereas we are now putting forward a fairly comprehensive amending measure, it is not necessary for us to have to include imprisonment as a deterrent at this stage, too, whilst we are increasing the fine. I think the hon. Minister can come back to the House in any event should he find that this is being abused in the future because this penal provision and the one in the Radio Act are not the same. That is why I think we can recommend that this amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I think that there is merit in the views and arguments of the hon. members for Port Elizabeth Central, Umhlanga and Roodeplaat. I merely wish to say that the amendment is acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This will in fact bring us back to the laws that are being repealed. I refer to the Chiropractors Act of 1971, the Chiropractors Amendment Act of 1972, the Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Herbalists Act of 1974 and the Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Herbalists Amendment Act of 1980.

It is interesting that in a debate in the past the former hon. Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions said that the words “homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths, and herbalists” reminded him of the story of the parson who had to baptize a young boy who had a very long name. When it came to about the fifth or sixth name, the parson said: “Give me a little more water”. I realize that the proposed name is rather clumsy, but I believe that it will remove a few of the reservations and objections of the Medical Association. I believe that this group of people have nothing to be ashamed of at being called by their names. However, when they are called the “associated health services” they are given a certain recognition that they are now part of the primary health care services of South Africa. I think that the Medical Association has great reservations about their being part of the primary health services of South Africa. In other words, they will be recognized as being part of the medical profession, and will be in a position to examine and treat patients. I know that the hon. the Minister has repeatedly said that by law these people are allowed to perform these duties, but I believe he will also accept the fact that the medical profession is not opposed to these people being covered by law, but against the fact that this Bill will afford them a new recognition. In fact, we have already had an example of that. The hon. member for Pietersburg referred to headlines in a newspaper, which I also saw. It stated: “Medici kry nuwe wet”.

Who said that? A newspaperman!

That is exactly what I am trying to point out. I have respect for reporters, I think they are intelligent and good people, but I believe that even they have misread this legislation. I do not want to cross swords with the hon. the Minister about this newspaper report, but in my view this gives an indication that chiropractors, homeopaths, etc., are regarded as part of the primary health care in South Africa. This is very important, and I believe that we should therefore change the title.

This side of the House and the Government do agree on most points in regard to this legislation, but the question remains whether these people are scientifically acceptable by the medical profession. That is the basic question that led to the amendment I have moved. Hon. members on the Government side have put forward many arguments to prove that these people are acceptable on a scientific basis, but they have not persuaded me that this has been proved beyond doubt. I want to repeat that hon. members on these benches have not stated their own views but those of the Medical Association and of the Medical and Dental Council, and I feel that one cannot take their views lightly and simply write them off.

What is the point you are trying to make?

I will come to that. The hon. member must just be patient and try to understand what I am talking about. He should not be difficult. I know what I am talking about. The hon. member, on the other hand, hardly knows what I am talking about, and it is therefore better for him to keep quiet. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister asked me and also the hon. member for Pietersburg, to give a guarantee that we can cure an ulcer. The hon. the Minister is a medical man, and I should like him to listen very carefully. I am medically trained in the aetiology, the morbid anatomy and in the physiology of the stomach. Does the hon. the Minister believe that I know a great deal about gastric motility and about the secretion of enzymes and hydrochloric acid? Does he believe that I understand the x-ray appearances of a barium meal and that I know where the curvatures are, which ulcers are pre-malignant and which not, and which are acute and which chronic? Does he believe that I know the best treatment related to all developments in the medical science for diagnosing this ulcer? I can assure the hon. the Minister that I, representing the medical profession, cannot cure all ulcers, but I think I can treat most ulcers. Moreover, if an ulcer cannot be cured, one can always operate and remove it. Basically therefore, my answer is that I can guarantee that I can cure most ulcers.

Does the hon. the Minister believe, however, that the chiropractor or the homeopath has the same scientific knowledge, backed by the history of research work, in this field? The hon. the Minister is well aware of all the requirements. Does he believe that these people possess this scientific knowledge as well? The question is not, however, whether I can cure an ulcer, but whether I can treat it. Do I have the scientific background to treat a man suffering from an ulcer? And has the chiropractor or the homeopath the scientific knowledge to do it? The hon. the Minister did not put a fair question to me. I believe that he should have asked me whether I have the scientific background to treat a man suffering from an ulcer.

The hon. the Minister also spoke about the heart in an effort to counter the Medical Association’s argument in this regard.

I believe the hon. the Minister should not cross-question me about the heart. In trying to do that he would, I believe, find himself on very thin ice. In replying to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister referred to ancient beliefs in connection with the human heart, among others that the heart was hurt by sorrow or that love was actually situated in the heart. Does the hon. the Minister really want to tell us that medical scientists believed that? As far as I am concerned, those beliefs were only held by laymen. During the last 50 or 60 years, however, even the broad public have not held such beliefs any longer. The hon. the Minister also referred to heart transplants. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that heart transplants became a real possibility once the process of blood circulation in the human body was discovered. The development of processes such as the cardio-pulmonary bypass and the theory of rejection were all stages in the process towards the final and successful heart transplant operation. The ultimate heart transplant was only the scientific end result of a step by step process that had been followed in order to achieve this goal. That is what the medical science is all about. These developments are beyond dispute.

Hon. members opposite seem to be of the opinion that members of the so-called associated health service professions are scientific people. I should say that they have not advanced one single argument to convince me. Much has also been said about their training and about universities they can attend. Every single university referred to during this debate, however, seemed to me to be a chiropractic university, if I heard it correctly. No mention was made, however, of universities such as Yale, Texas or any other reputable institution of higher learning. The only references I have heard made by hon. members opposite have been to chiropractic universities. Even that, however, is not a great argument. I do not believe that these people render an inferior service. I believe their training is good and that they can assist patients with certain complaints. That their training has any scientific basis, however, I do not accept.

*It is interesting to note that throughout the debate very little was said about homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists by hon. members on the Government side. In fact, I have not heard a single reference to one of these practices from hon. members on the Government side. It seems to me that the chiropractors have done their job very well indeed. In fact, the strongest arguments in defence of the chiropractors were advanced by hon. members on the Government side.

I should like to quote the views of the Medical Association of South Africa on this issue. I quote—

This is what the MASA themselves say. They go on to say—

Thirdly, the MASA says—

†I should like to challenge the hon. member for South Coast, the hon. member for Swellendam, the hon. member for Brits and the hon. member for Stilfontein to tell me what scientific training people in these professions undergo, what experience they have, how they diagnose diseases and how they treat those diseases. I want them to convince me because we have to vote on this clause soon. They had better convince me or else I shall not be able to vote in favour of this clause.

How must anyone convince you? You are too stupid to be convinced!

You obviously did not understand my argument. You are too stupid to understand what I am trying to say.

Mr. Chairman, whilst this House has now accepted in principle that this Bill should be agreed to, it therefore means that a chasm is now finally being created between the medical profession and these other practitioners that can never be breached again in the future. During the course of the debate I also discovered that our standpoints are not so far removed from one another, after all. It is our standpoint that the practices under discussion should fall under the jurisdiction of the Medical and Dental Council of South Africa, as a statutory body.

Therefore I am really sorry that this could not be done. I am convinced that should a Select Committee be able to gather evidence on this matter and give thorough consideration to the matter, a body like the Medical and Dental Council could be convinced that it is in the best interest of medical health care in South Africa that health care should fall under one statutory body, as a supervisory body.

In clause 1 of the Bill—the clause that we are dealing with now—mention is made of the associated health service professions. It is our duty, and probably that of the legislator too, to tell the patient exactly what he is dealing with when he is dealing with a certain profession. When we call it an associated health service profession, we give that patient the impression that he is dealing with primary medical care here and that he is going to consult a professional man with this name, who in his opinion has had primary health service care training, whilst in fact this is not the case. For this reason I cannot but, in this case too, support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown himself put a spoke in the wheel of the first section of the argument he raised about what appeared in the newspapers, and he did this by way of a reply to an interjection later on when he said that it was the reporter’s idea of the matter and that we were not dealing with a new law in the true sense of the word here. This is what is happening here. If one looks at the reaction of the hon. member for Parktown, it is very clear to me that this hon. member was hurt somewhat at some stage here in the House. The hon. the Minister gave him to understand that if one wants to talk here, one must know what one is talking about.

The hon. member for Parktown also spoke about healing ulcers, the evidence that has been asked for over and over and the guarantees that must be laid down. He dragged up an argument that someone mentioned in 1966. On that occasion the person in question apparently said that he could cure whooping cough through chiropractic treatment. However, those days have passed. It is no longer put like that today. They have passed that point completely. There is no question of that any longer and we are not going to argue about it any more. Since chiropractors only are being discussed in this debate, it must be assumed that they probably did their work well. They have indeed done their work well. They used their spokesman par excellence and good work was done in this regard. The hon. member for Park-town said that we should vote here now, but that we should first convince him that the training would be correct. In this Bill it is not the training that is at issue and this has been said repeatedly. We shall have an opportunity later on of explaining this to the hon. member for Parktown and to give him new insight.

The hon. member for Pietersburg was concerned about the fact that the council that is to be established, should not actually be established, but that these professions should fall under the control of the Medical Council. I think this is what he said. We asked for this on this side of the House. In an interview that was conducted with Mr. Guy De Klerk on Monitor last week, prior to the Second Reading, he also admitted in the first place that there should be control. There is no doubt about it. Secondly he said that a council is now being created, a law is being made, time is being spent and an administration is being envisaged—all of this, as he put it, a mallet to kill a gnat. We did in fact ask for the Medical Council to deliberate on this once again, in the sense that the various professions under discussion could fall under the Medical and Dental Council.

The hon. member also referred to the training of these people. The following was said in Monitor once again by Dr. Guy De Klerk—

It was Dr. Guy de Klerk who said this. We want to emphasize the fact once again here that we already decided on the principle, viz. that the council should be established and that these professions should ultimately fall under one council.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious to me that the hon. member for Parktown has accepted the Bill before us. If that had not been the case, I am sure that the amendments that he proposes would have been very much more significant. The only problem that we experience here is in regard to the phraseology. There is reference to the S.A. Associated Health Service Professions Board and clause 3(a) provides that the objects of the board shall be—

The hon. member for Parktown appears to be indignant because in his opinion chiropractors have no scientific foundation. My reply to his challenge is that moral indignation is nothing more or less than jealousy with a halo. During the Second Reading debate he admitted quite openly when questioned that medical doctors do in fact send their patients to chiropractors notwithstanding the fact that this is contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Council. He has said that once again here this afternoon. On that statement alone he must be foolish not to accept that chiropractors are in fact part and parcel of the health care of our population. I submit, therefore, that notwithstanding his long, tedious and laborious tirade during the Second Reading debate …

Very tedious!

… he was playing to the gallery. [Interjections.] I agree that in so far as his amendment to clause 32 is concerned, there are certain contentious items that need comprehensive and urgent review but to do this on an ad hoc basis as suggested by the hon. member for Parktown is not in the interests of precisely what he himself is trying to achieve and that is effective control. Therefore, we on this side of the House cannot support any of the proposed amendments by the hon. member. We support the principle of the Bill and that is to leave the proposed board to do its own comprehensive review of control and submit it to the Minister for his consideration.

Why are you making a Third Reading speech?

You know, Sir, the hon. member for Parktown likes a quiet audience and I would suggest that he does unto others what he would like done unto himself. After all, the hon. the Minister is a medical man, as is his Director-General, and they are going to vet the regulations that are submitted to them. We believe that this is the correct approach. We want to emphasize once again that it is a great pity that the Medical Council by only one vote missed a golden opportunity to enter into an agreement with these practitioners and resolve their differences. This would have precluded the necessity for these unsavoury insinuations to be bandied about in a public debate.

In closing, may I once again respectfully suggest to the hon. member for Parktown that he who begrudges freedom to others is himself not worthy of it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the ideas expressed by the hon. member for South Coast. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about the contribution of the hon. member for Parktown. If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Parktown is opposing clause 1 on the basis of the fact that he believes that the name of this Bill would give chiropractors a false image. He called it a new image in his speech but I think the conclusion that we can draw is that the designation will give chiropractors a false image because he believes that this profession does not form part of what he calls the “primary health care of the people in South Africa”. Since they are not “scientific enough” they cannot be included in a health plan in South Africa to the benefit of the citizens of South Africa. He therefore challenges myself and other speakers on this side to give him evidence of what he called “their training, experience, diagnosis and treatment” and in order to justify the description “joint assistance in the health campaign in South Africa”.

I therefore conclude that the hon. member feels that chiropractors definitely do not have the standard or the status to be included in a health plan in South Africa. Perhaps I should refer the hon. member to the standards of training required of these people. Perhaps I should tell him that the Council of Chiropractic Education has basic standards that have been laid down for the training of chiropractors. In this regard I quote from a memorandum that the S.A. Chiropractic Association sent to the hon. the Minister—

What does that mean?

The hon. member asks me what all this means. It is so scientific, I do not know. [Interjections.]

A Std. 10 child knows that.

Well, it is still so scientific, I do not know. I read further—

I challenge the hon. member to say that the subjects I have now mentioned, are not scientific subjects. As far as scientific subjects are concerned, 46,08% of the course is devoted to them and this entails 1 840 lecture hours. This is a requirement that must be complied with before a chiropractor can obtain his degree in America.

I must also draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that in spite of the fact that there are no training centres in South Africa, the local Chiropractors Association also lays down basic standards before they accept their practitioners and register them on the South African register. I quote to him from their curriculum—

1. (a) Matriculation university exemption.
2. (b) A minimum of two years’ pre-professional university study or its equivalent with specified subject content to include the following: Three courses, totalling not less than nine semester hours, in chemistry and with laboratory, one course of each shall be in organic chemistry, one course of at least three semester hours in physiology, one course of at least three semester hours in social science, two courses of a minimum of six semester hours of biological sciences, with laboratory. The successful completion of a course in chiropractic at a college approved of by the proposed South African Board of Chiropractic Standards.

Therefore it is clear that the basic training of chiropractors is scientific. Indeed, there are bodies in America that require the first four years of a chiropractor’s course to be equal to that of a medical doctor. One can compare this with the situation in what I want to call our other higher professions. With regard to the medical profession itself, the course in the first year consists of basic scientific subjects too, after which the student spends four years specializing in the medical direction.

That is not true.

The position with regard to dentistry is the same. The same principle is followed with regard to the LL.B. degree and for study in the veterinary sciences. During the first two years of study, basic scientific subjects are studied, after which a student begins to specialize in the direction in which he wants to qualify himself.

I think it is unfair and unjustified to create an image here that the chiropractors are so poorly equipped and unscientific that they cannot view themselves as an integral part of the health team—the team that looks after the health of the South African citizens. And the hon. member is saying these things in spite of the information in the report. If the hon. member were at all interested in the legislation and in the case of the chiropractor, he would have read this report. The hon. member must cease creating this image. I have a great deal of respect for the medical profession. Indeed, I think there is no more noble profession in the world when it comes to the promotion of health. However, we do not want the medical profession to look down on another profession that is also rendering a health task in South Africa. Therefore I cannot support the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Swellendam stated the standpoint of the chiropractor in full once again, particularly with regard to his training. I am not saying that what the hon. member read out, is not true, but that a B.Sc. degree in physiology or other scientific subjects also includes the basic training such as the training required for chiropractors. However, it is the principle of chiropractic that is at issue here.

But the medical profession also lays down these basic requirements.

Yes, that is correct. However, the difference lies in the fact that the medical profession goes further. All medical practitioners receive basic scientific training. However, what is actually at issue, is the way in which someone practises.

The hon. member for Swellendam failed to answer my question, viz. to give us the same scientific evidence with regard to homeopaths as that which is being held up with regard to the chiropractor. The hon. member also failed to reply to me with regard to the position of naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists. Apparently someone has failed to give the hon. member the correct documents from which he could read. Consequently, I want to turn to the hon. the Minister. I do not want to become involved in a fight here in the House. I am trying once again to state the case of this side of the House clearly. The attacks on me by the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for South Coast are in fact attacks on the Medical Association of South Africa, the Medical Council … [Interjections.] I have clearly said that I quoted what has been said by them. It is being said so piously: I am so impressed by the medical profession and I have the greatest respect for them. Therefore, if there is “respect” for their view of this matter, why am I attacked when I convey their ideas? [Interjections.] I was simply quoting what they said. That hon. member may go ahead and read my Second Reading speech and see on what grounds he attacked me. This is what the Medical Association of South Africa and the Medical Council said. A great deal of “evidence” was brought forward to indicate why their professions had a scientific basis. The hon. member for Brits, who unfortunately cannot be here now, tried to indicate that their training takes place on a sound basis. He said that he had even heard from a friend of mine that my son recently applied for admission to chiropractic training in the USA. I should like to ask him who that “friend” of mine is and where he obtained that news. I do not know whether he read it in Nat ’80s. However, I want to warn him that he is going to encounter problems if he tries to talk about “healthy” things in this regard. However, he went on to say that my son was told that a Std. 10 certificate was not adequate.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that this is a matter that he can discuss during the Third Reading.

I am just trying to point out that statements were made in an attempt to indicate that the training of those people is scientific and adequate. [Interjections.]

Order! I have pointed out to the hon. member that that aspect does not belong in the Committee Stage and that it should be raised during the Third Reading.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] I want the hon. the Minister please to help me. Can a chiropractor treat a peptic ulcer, for instance, or can he not? [Interjections.] For instance, if someone feels tired, can he treat him by manipulation of the vertebrae? The person may be suffering from something much more serious. This is a possibility that I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister.

Could the hon. the Minister possibly also give me more information about the homeopaths, naturopaths and osteopaths, because the legislation has just as much of a bearing on them as on the chiropractors. We cannot escape this. Everyone put forward a great deal of evidence here with regard to the chiropractors. I put questions to the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for Durban South about the other groups, but they refused to go into the positions of those people. I also know why they refuse to do so. They do not know anything about those people. They have no idea of what is going on. I think the hon. the Minister should tell us how he views their professions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown is naïve. He takes it amiss of us for not telling him anything about homeopaths, naturopaths and osteopaths. But what did he say about them?

I said what the Medical Association said. Did you not listen?

I listened to what that hon. member had to say in his Second Reading speech, and he had very little to say about those people. We must not try to make petty politics out of this matter. We must not shy away from our attitude towards chiropractors by suddenly speaking about homeopaths and other “paths” (“pate”). [Interjections.]

What about “skil-pate”?

Yes, there are such things as “skilpate”. [Interjections.] Is the hon. member for Parktown now convinced that chiropractors are trained scientifically enough? Apparently we have satisfied him about the training of chiropractors, but now he is still worried about the homeopaths and the other people. Is he now satisfied that chiropractors are trained scientifically enough, because that is what he actually implied. He said we were only talking about chiropractors and not the other groups. I take it that we have convinced him that chiropractors are trained scientifically enough. The hon. member is not listening to me. He is receiving instructions from his Whip. I want to ask him: Is he now agreed that chiropractors are trained scientifically enough? [Interjections.] I am afraid we must continue to differ. It does not seem to me as if we are going to convince each other.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the various arguments raised here. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Parktown is still dealing with the Second Reading. He is still discussing the principle of the Bill, whereas we have already accepted it.

The hon. member for Pietersburg, who also opposes it, came with the old story of whether it is scientific or not. However, he said he should like to see it controlled by the Medical Council. Does he want to allow a disreputable institution, something which is not worth while, to fall under the Medical Council? Surely it is a admission when he says he thinks it ought to fall under the Medical Council. This is what he advocated. If this institution is so unscientific, how can he want to burden the Medical Council with something it should not be burdened with at all?

As the hon. member for South Coast stated categorically, there was a majority of one at the poll. If one member of the Medical Council had been ill that day, it would have been passed and the hon. member would have had to accept that control over these groups was something which could fall under the Medical Council.

I want to make the point that we are not concerned with how well these people are trained. I, as Minister, am faced by the fact that since 1971 chiropractors and since 1974 homeopaths and the other groups have been allowed to operate on the basis of their being able to treat people. The hon. member says I know a great deal about chiropractors, but all I know about them is what I have learned from interviews. I have never been to one for treatment. I also know that homeopaths, herbalists and osteopaths treat people who consult them in a certain way. People are entitled to consult these people, just as they are entitled to consult a doctor. The hon. members of the PFP and the Conservative Party must not come and tell me that none of them have ever consulted a chiropractor or a homeopath.

I have never consulted one.

That is why you are the way you are.

The hon. member for Jeppe says he has never consulted one. Perhaps that was the mistake he made. If he had been manipulated a little, perhaps he would not be where he is today. Perhaps he would then have been able to see things more clearly. [Interjections.]

What is at issue here is professions. That is how it is defined in the legislation. Homeopaths are referred to as “a profession”. These words appear in the 1974 Act. What is at issue here is that these people may treat other people. They manipulate them or they give them tablets, herbs or whatever, depending on the profession they are engaged in. This is legal.

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

Yes, I shall give the hon. member a chance. I am not like him. I allow hon. members to ask questions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister referred to the 1974 legislation. It is not true that the medical profession was strenuously opposed to its being placed on the Statute Book, for precisely the same reasons as those that apply in respect of this Bill?

I indicated the other day that the medical profession was not as opposed to this Bill as the hon. member was trying to suggest. I quoted from a letter I received from Prof. Guy de Klerk. Perhaps I should quote it again. I had an interview with the executive body of the Medical Association. This matter has been under consideration for more than a year. It is about 18 months since the draft Bill was published and we have been having talks with one another. Prof. De Klerk wrote to me—

I had summarized what he had been discussing and sent it to him—

My interview, therefore, eliminated the concern they had been feeling. He went on to say—

The Federal Council therefore agreed that discipline should be maintained and that we must do something.

Yes, the Medical Council.

No, it was the Federal Council of the Medical Association. At that stage there was as yet no suggestion that these professions should fall under the Medical Council. Only after legislation had been published which was virtually identical to this legislation, was it decided to proceed with legislation in connection with associated health service professions. He went on to say—

The executive body of the Medical Association acknowledges and agrees with the fact that I must try to find a solution. Although I have other correspondence in this connection as well, I shall not pursue the matter any further at the moment.

We are faced here with a basic fact. When I took over the portfolio of Health and Welfare, I was given a group of laws that now have to be consolidated, and on page 30 of the Bill hon. members can see what laws are going to be abolished. It is also a fact that the Medical Council voted with a majority of one vote not to allow these groups to fall under the medical profession. However, I cannot allow the Medical Council to prescribe to Parliament what it must do, although I have great respect for this council. However, we are saddled here with a number of professions to which have been granted recognition by means of legislation, but no disciplinary measures apply to them, if they were to make a blunder or commit an offence. However, these people are rendering health services and we have to accept this, even though the hon. member for Pine-town and the hon. member for Pietersburg do not wish to admit this. Homeopaths and chiropractors employ manipulative techniques and they discuss patients’ ailments with them. They had this right before, and therefore it is not a right which is now being given to them with this legislation. There is nothing in this legislation that is not covered by other laws. The respective laws are simply being consolidated now. In terms of existing legislation chiropractors and homeopaths can examine patients; they can even take blood samples and administer subcutaneous and intramuscular injections. No further rights are given to these groups in terms of this legislation, and even a person who has not the vaguest idea what is going on, would consider homeopathy or chiropractic to be health professions because the health of people is involved. If a person is indisposed and a homeopath prescribes tablets or pills for him, the homeopath is rendering a health service, and it depends on the patient whether he considers it to be good or poor service. When we refer to health service professions, we are referring to the professions referred to in this legislation, namely the health professions as defined and practised by chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists. When we refer to associated health professions, we are referring to the above-mentioned five professions. This does not mean that they will now be associated with medical doctors. If some or other fool refers to them as medical practitioners in a newspaper, hon. members must not blame me for that. They must talk to the reporter concerned, the man responsible for the headline. Homeopaths, chiropractors and the other professions referred to in the legislation, are not medical practitioners, and no one has ever suggested that they are. They are not recognized as medical practitioners and will not be termed medical practitioners. In fact, there is legislation in terms of which any of these people may be prosecuted if they pose as medical practitioners, and there are various penalties that may be imposed. These people are no more medical practitioners than are many of the other groups falling under the Medical Council. We must approach this matter in a reasonable way.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to my reply to the Second Reading and asked what people knew about chiropractors prior to the Anglo-Boer War. I then asked what they knew about heart problems. The hon. member for Pretoria East indicated how health services, sometimes by accident, had had positive results in the past and subsequently became part of our treatment process. In this way, penicillin was discovered by accident, and the “tubercle bacillus” was also discovered by chance.

And then it was scientifically proved.

Of course. Then it was scientifically proved. Tomorrow or the next day something completely new may be discovered. Certain practices which medical doctors employ today, may tomorrow turnout to be not as scientific as we may think they are.

I am not here to make a plea for chiropractors. Neither am I here to be a champion of the excellent quality of their training either. When this legislation comes into effect, though, a very clear policy will have to be formulated, which will have to include the standard of training of people who are practising at the moment. The policy will also have to define the accepted standard of training clearly, as well as the practices in which they can participate. This is already determined in all the laws in this connection. All we are now doing is to consolidate all those laws into one piece of legislation.

The hon. member for Rustenburg summarized the matter briefly and succinctly. He referred to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Pietersburg, and rightly pointed out that this legislation had nothing to do with training. In this Bill there is no provision in regard to training. Practitioners whose names already appear in the register, are transferred directly to the new register. Whether or not the legislation under discussion is accepted, will make no difference to it at all. All we are doing is to regulate the matter. This matter cannot affect medical practitioners either, because these people are already practising. They are already practising under the same conditions as those contained in the Bill. The allegation that the term “associated health service professions” is so hurtful, does not hold good either. How can it be hurtful to anyone? What is involved here are practices that are already recognized, and people who are already practising. People in the medical profession are already complaining because these practitioners are allegedly performing medical tasks, because they already render services in connection with human health. Surely no one will consult one of these practitioners if he does not have some ailment or other.

The hon. member for Pietersburg said that a gulf had now been brought into existence which could never again be bridged. Surely that is an over-dramatization of a simple matter. This allegation by the hon. member reminds me of what Prof. De Klerk said about people who want to use a mallet to swat a fly. In reality, that is what the hon. member for Pietersburg is doing now. How did he come by the idea that there was a gulf now? Are the medical practitioners more angry now with these people than they were in 1971 or in 1974? Why should they be angry with these people? Why should they be angry if the practices of these people are regulated by Parliament in a proper profession, with its own system of training and discipline.

Parliament recognized the services supplied by these people many years ago by means of legislation that was introduced.

†The hon. member for South Coast also made a few very interesting points. He conveyed his point of view very crisply and in a well balanced fashion. His approach was also very realistic. The hon. member stated quite correctly that the standard of training of these people was not relevant to this debate, and he made the point that the matter with which we were dealing now should not be seen as a danger to the medical profession or to anybody else in the medical world.

This Government would be neglecting its duty if it allowed people who are legally entitled to perform certain services or actions to do so without any form of control whatsoever. It is also the duty of Parliament to see to it that they do not abuse the legal powers which they have.

*As I have already mentioned, the hon. member for Rustenburg brought a calm tone to the debate. He approached the matter in a realistic way and indicated that he was also keen to see patients being treated fairly and decently from a medical point of view. A great deal was said here about chiropractors and homeopaths. However, the hon. member for Parktown would seem to have forgotten the patient entirely. The hon. member for Parktown forgot that in this legislation—to which he is objecting so strenuously—the patient comes first. In the final analysis it is the patient who is the most important link in the entire chain of activities we are now discussing. In the meantime the hon. member for Parktown is only interested in chiropractors, homeopaths, osteopaths and herbalists. In the process he forgot about the patient himself. The legislation under consideration serves the interests of the patient because its aim is to implement orderly health services in future.

The hon. member for Swellendam made significant contributions in quite a number of respects. In pointing out how these people provide health services, the hon. member already supported the crux of my entire argument. Whether one likes it or not, one must nevertheless concede that these people provide a health service. Their work is involved with the health of the people.

Of course there was the long and ridiculous story the hon. member for Parktown told about stomach ulcers. I have never suggested that a chiropractor could cure a stomach ulcer. I have never said that a chiropractor could treat patients for stomach ulcers. I do not even know if they try to do so. If they do, attention will have to be given to the matter. If a chiropractor tries to treat a stomach ulcer by manipulating the patient’s back, one would of course have to investigate the matter. However, this can take place in terms of the legislation under discussion. If a man alleges that he can cure a patient’s stomach ulcer simply by applying pressure here and there, disciplinary measures may be instituted against him in terms of the legislation under discussion. I do not want to argue about the possibility that a chiropractor may apply treatment that causes pain that the patient thought was caused by a stomach ulcer to disappear. I do not know all the things chiropractors do. The hon. member for Parktown raised another point. He asked whether a chiropractor could treat his ailment or that ailment. There will be provisions specifying what ailments he may and what ailments he may not treat. This is one of the tasks the board will have to perform. That board will have to determine what they can do and what they cannot do, and if this deviates from what is laid down in legislation on this matter at present, we shall have to go into the matter.

The hon. member also asked me to give him further information on the other groups. I do not know what information he wants. What we have here is a perfectly obvious fact, which is that these professions exist. They undertake health services, they prescribe pills and they do manipulations. What else must I tell the hon. member? Surely there is no further information I can give him.

The aim is to combine the associated health service professions into a group. There were no ulterior motives when this name was decided on. They do provide a health service. Whether one wants to define them as primary, secondary, tertiary or whatever, they still provide a health service. They are defined in the Act as professions and they are associated with one another. That is all these two words mean.

I just want to point out that I cannot see my way clear to accepting the amendment. Actually I think the amendment is, to a certain extent, petty and unnecessary and I therefore ask that we accept the clause as printed.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, from this side of the House I would like to assure the hon. the Minister that we have no objection to such a council being introduced. To tell the truth, we welcome it. From the start the hon. the Minister said that this was the principle of the Bill, and we agree with it. Therefore we support the establishment of such a council. I think I should also just say briefly how the Medical Association of South Africa feels about it. I should also like to state clearly once again that the problems that I raised here, were raised by the Medical Association of South Africa. They said—

I now move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Order! I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendment since it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should again like to state very clearly the standpoint of the Medical Association of South Africa. They state—

This is their opinion, not mine. I should like to state quite clearly that in the first instance this refers to the promotion, assisting in promoting the health of the people of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member for South Coast quite clearly accepts this. During the Second Reading he said (Hansard, col. 2978)—

He then quoted the following from Chiropractors: Do they help, by Kelner, Ball and Coulter—

I want to ask hon. members of the NRP who have control of the Administration in Natal: How many members of these health professions do you employ in your health service in Natal? How many do you employ? I say this because if they recognize these people now as part of the primary health system surely they should employ these people in their hospital services. They state quite clearly in their argument that they accept these professions as being part of the health care services. I believe that they have a shortage there. When this Bill becomes law, are they going to appoint chiropractors, osteopaths and naturapaths in the Natal Provincial Hospital Administration? They must tell us this today because if they do not tell us, then obviously they do not believe in what they themselves say. I also want to put this question to the hon. the Minister. I have studied the report of his department for 1981. I see that there are 40 posts for physiotherapists and that of these 13 are vacant.

*The hon. the Minister must remember that he said in 1974 that these people were a health hazard. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister …

Why ask me?

Because you are talking to me. I should like to inquire of the hon. the Minister whether he is going to appoint chiropractors to these vacant posts as soon as this legislation is passed. In terms of the Act, he will be obliged to do so, because they will then form part of the health team.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Park-town that if we could overcome the rank prejudice of the medical profession we might very well consider appointing members of these professions. The hon. member himself accepts—he has admitted twice during the debate on this legislation—that doctors do refer patients to chiropractors. What does he say now? He must tell us.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to clause 3. This clause provides inter alia that it is one of the objectives of this council that is to be established to assist in the promotion of the health of the population of the Republic. It then goes on to provide that these professions will be controlled as health professions. In contrast to this I should like to state the viewpoint of the Medical Council of South Africa, and this is—

I emphasize the words “en om gesag ten opsigte daarvan uit te oefen”. My standpoint here is that the two provisions are contrary to one another. Therefore, a situation where control can be exercised is being taken away from the Medical Council. It can no longer exercise control with regard to the promotion of the health of the people in the Republic in connection with a specific associated medical profession. To me, these are simply two situations that are in conflict with one another, they are not acceptable and therefore I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that these lines should be deleted in the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg put his case very clearly. There is only one question I want to ask: The Medical Council was fully entitled to take these people under their guardianship. The Medical Council itself had to decide whether or not they agree with the attitude of the hon. member for Pietersburg that health services should fall under one controlling body. The Medical Council decided against it. In principle this means that we are now faced with associated health services there are not subject to control. They are not subject to any control at all because the medical council refuses to include them in their ranks. If one is faced with such a situation in South Africa and one has to decide in the interest of the citizens outside, the following comes to mind: Since the Medical Council is refusing to have anything to do with these professions, should one now allow these professions to continue on a completely unregulated basis? As a result of their confusion they could quite possibly present a danger to the public of South Africa.

I therefore want to contend that it is the fault of the Medical Council that we have to pass the legislation as we are doing at the moment. That is why I believe that it is in the interest of the citizens of South Africa that the Bill be piloted through the House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown asks the hon. member for South Coast and myself, whether having passed the Bill, we would intend employing these people. There is nothing in our legislation that prevents the provincial administrations from appointing a chiropractor if they wish to do so. There is nothing that prevents the provincial administrations from appointing a homeopath, an osteopath, a naturopath or a herbalist if they wish to appoint such a person.

That is true.

Why then is the hon. member asking a question like that? He wants to try to make out that the Bill is putting forward a new idea. He wants to try to make a case for the fact that the Bill that I and this side of the House want to have passed, aims at causing a new idea to take hold, because now the provincial administrations will have to give consideration to appointing them. The administrations can appoint those people already, because they have been authorized by the laws of 1971 and 1974 with all their amendments.

Why have the provincial administrations not yet appointed any of them?

But that has nothing to do with this legislation.

In addition, it is the concern of the provincial administrations. Perhaps they do not have posts or do not want to appoint such people. In any event, it has nothing to do with this Bill.

The hon. member is bringing them in line with the physiotherapists. He says we have vacancies for physiotherapists; why do we not appoint them? I have never thought of that before, but now the hon. member has given me an idea. I shall have to look at this. Are they the same as physiotherapists?

How many physiotherapists are resigning?

The hon. member asked me to appoint them in the posts of physiotherapists, and now I want to know whether they are the same as physiotherapists. I do not know whether they are the same as physiotherapists. I do not think so, because they do not have the same training. When a post is advertized for a physiotherapist, certain training and experience is required. These people probably do not have the training and the experience to apply for such posts. Why then does the hon. member ask me such a ridiculous question?

It was a very good question.

He simply wanted to score a point.

I should like to come back to another point. In clause 3 there is a provision “to assist in the promotion of the health of the population of the Republic” and in this regard surely there is no hon. member on that side of the House in the PFP or the CP (KP) …

Does KPP not have something to do with headaches?

… who can say at this moment that these people are not rendering health services. It does not matter whether they carry out manipulation or prescribe pills; the point is that they are dealing with the health of the people. We are now saying in the clause that the council should make very sure that they are assisting in the promotion of the health of the population, but the hon. members are opposed to it. They say I should omit that provision and leave the situation up in the air so that those people can take advantage of our people if they wish. Remember, in the current legislation there is nothing that provides that they should assist in the health service. Of course they should assist. If they want to claim to form part of the health service, surely they must assist.

The hon. member for Pietersburg said once again what the Medical Council does and does not do. I think I should simply state it clearly in this House for once, the Medical Council is a statutory body that has its task to fulfil, but the Medical Council does not run the Department of Health. The Medical Association of South Africa has no more say in the regulations of the department than the Medical Council does. We have very good relations with one another and we co-operate well with one another, but sometimes we differ. We cannot always agree. We differ on some things, and at the moment our biggest point of difference is the tariffs. It is not a task that I would have liked, but I have to carry it out until I receive the Browne Report. We shall differ with regard to certain things, but how many things, are there that we have in fact agreed upon? An entire book could be written about them. A few days ago I had the Medical Association in my office for discussions once again. The hon. the Minister of Justice, as well as a representative of the Deparment of Law and Order, were also present. We conducted lengthy discussions and the Medical Association was quite satisfied, so much so that one of the members of the delegation told me this morning that we should hold more discussions of this type. My door is open and these people may come along whenever they wish. I repeat: When matters are in the interest of the population of the country and when they are contained in legislation that falls under my department, I am responsible for ensuring that all services are properly regulated. I have tried my best to state these matters. I have now been trying for the best part of two days to make the PFP and the CP understand that the profession of the chiropractor is indeed a profession. It is defined as such in the legislation. After all, the chiropractor works with people. The legislation recognizes this. It is well-known that the chiropractor cures people. Therefore surely he is rendering a health service. However, it is not stated in the legislation that a group of persons becomes part of the health services of the country and part of the team. They are part of the health set-up, and therefore we provide that the proposed council should be helpful and should not make decisions that would not promote the achievement of the health of the country, for instance that its educational qualifications should be watered down so that after a while anyone could claim membership. The council will have to ensure that it will assist in keeping our health services on a high level. Therefore I want to thank the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for South Coast for their contributions. We have been given a hint that if the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Pietersburg are not speaking on behalf of one of the councils, they are speaking because they are prejudiced towards these professions. I say once again: These hon. members are not putting the patient first. They should try to speak about the patient for a change and forget about the other people that they like to talk about. Consequently I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that clause 6(b) is not entirely justified. I understand what the hon. the Minister’s intention is and I understand that the chiropractors and homeopaths are satisfied with the provision, but I nevertheless feel that should this body be established and the necessary control be exercised over the professions, trained people with acceptable qualifications should not be excluded. Does the hon. the Minister not think it would be better if everyone who qualifies were allowed?

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand what the hon. member for Parktown is talking about at all. I assume the hon. member is talking about the appointment of the members of the council. These people are people who for other reasons cannot serve on the council, for instance because they might have been declared insolvent or have previously belonged to a certain organization. It has nothing to do with the people who can serve on the council, but with the people who cannot serve on it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I apologise to the hon. the Minister. What I said about clause 6 actually relates to clause 16. [Interjections.] I do not want to make a big issue of this. I am simply suggesting that the hon. the Minister should try to establish legislation that would ensure that good control is exercised by the council, in the sense that it will be established what the qualifications of people are, etc. However, I do not think that this in itself is enough. If the council is competent to do so, it should also be competent to allow new members.

Mr. Chairman, now I really do not understand the hon. member for Parktown at all, and I can explain it in a few words. [Interjections.] He is fighting the fact that there should be such legislation tooth and nail.

No.

He is opposed to the fact that these people treat patients. However, now he asks why I cannot arrange the legislation in such a way that the register can be thrown open and the council can admit anyone as a chiropractor or a homeopath. Have I understood the hon. member incorrectly? Is this what the hon. member meant?

No, those who are competent and who are acceptable to the council.

Any person who is competent and is acceptable to the council. They can now be placed on the register. Therefore I must throw open the register and leave the decision in the hands of the council.

I am not asking for that.

But he is advocating it. I have conveyed my attitude with regard to this matter to the homeopaths, the chiropractors, the Medical Association and the Medical Council. Surely I said at the very outset that this legislation has nothing to do with qualifications. The council is permitted to say that certain qualifications are required, that they should study at certain universities or colleges and that they require a certain number of years of training. Even after the training has been evaluated in this way, I shall not be the one to decide. I shall refer the matter to the Department of National Education, the HSRC or whoever. I shall ask whether the relevant qualifications can in fact be considered as tertiary training. I shall ask whether the training is on an equal footing and will make it possible for those people to practise on practically the same basis as medical practitioners. Then those bodies and persons will have to give their verdict. If they give a satisfactory verdict, I am prepared to look at the matter, but only at that stage. I do not think I am in a position at this stage to say that those peoples’ training is so good that we can throw open the register. I told this to the chiropractors and they were satisfied to accept it as such. However, as soon as it is stated in future what their curriculum is and how good or otherwise they are, this Parliament may decide for itself, and not the Minister alone. It has been asked whether an enabling clause cannot be included in the legislation so that when there is dissatisfaction, I could arrange everything by way of regulation. I refused this too. I said that Parliament will decide for itself with regard to the admission of more chiropractors, but that this would happen only after a proper investigation. That hon. member is talking himself into a stupor about the qualifications. However, qualifications are not at issue now.

Tell him a thing or two, Lapa! Do not be so polite!

I am sorry! I am just trying to help the hon. member. However, I cannot understand how he can advocate that I should give the council the opportunity to throw the register open.

Mr. Chairman, possibly the hon. the Minister did not understand me properly. I just wanted an explanation from him, which he then gave me and with which I am quite satisfied. I did not want to argue for or against the hon. the Minister. I understand the point that he made and I thank him for his explanation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 32:

Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In the Second Reading debate I referred to the problem of injections. I asked the hon. the Minister a few questions, but I think he just forgot to give me the explanation I asked for. I should just like to state quite clearly that he prohibits these professions from giving intravenous injections, yet he is willing to permit them intramuscular and hypodermic injections. I know that they are already allowed to do this, but I should just like to go into the problem of why intravenous injections are excluded, whilst intramuscular and subcutaneous injections are allowed. There is no doubt that intravenous injections might technically be a bit more difficult, though not in all cases.

It can be quite easy to give intravenous injections. I think that the danger in connection with intravenous injections is that the reaction, if there is one, will be far more severe and dramatic and one must be able to deal with that. I should like to submit, however, that as dramatic and serious a reaction can result from intramuscular and hypodermic injections. I believe that the person who gives these injections should be able to deal with the situation that may arise. The hon. the Minister will, for example, know of the occurrence of anaphylactic shock and low blood pressure. Will the chiropractor or the herbalist have the necessary material to inject the patient in order to help him? Will he be able to give artificial respiration and cardiac massage? That is the main problem I have. I should like the hon. the Minister to elaborate on that and tell me how he sees this problem.

I also move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

As I see it—and I look to the hon. the Minister for guidance—in relation to this paragraph it appears to me that the chiropractor or homeopath is not allowed to take blood samples or to analyse blood. However, I think there is nothing to stop him from getting a report via a doctor or a pathologist, to study it and take his cue from it. That is the reason for my amendment. I should like the hon. the Minister to comment on this. As he sees it, will they be allowed to interpret and act on a blood report they may get from a laboratory which does the analysis for them?

Then I should just like to refer to page 25 of the Bill and specifically to subsection (1)(b)(i) which reads—

Only the chiropractor is allowed to do that. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what is meant by “an internal examination”. Is this just a rectal or vaginal examination or does it also include other forms of examination such as endoscopy? What reason would the chiropractor have for carrying out an internal examination on a male or a female? As the hon. the Minister will know, these examinations can be used to diagnose very many other problems. I know it is said that the chiropractor will carry out an internal examination to feel the coccyx. That can be done for males and females by way of a rectal examination. About that there is no doubt. However, he can also carry out a vaginal examination. If he just wants to feel the coccyx, I cannot see why he should have this wider anatomical field open to him. I want to ask whether he will not use this to diagnose menorrhagia, high lumber backaches and such things.

We raise these three specific points because we should like the hon. the Minister to reply to them. In fact, I have drawn up another amendment to stop these people undertaking internal examinations. I shall judge by the hon. the Minister’s reply whether it is necessary for me to move this amendment or not.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this clause, members of all the professions referred to in this Bill are to be allowed to administer intramuscular or hypodermic injections. The argument advanced by the hon. the Minister, in the Second Reading debate as well, has been that this authority existed even in the legislation of the ’seventies. However, I argued during the dicussion on the previous clause that the medical profession was and still is very strongly opposed to this very authority, among others, which is being conferred upon people who do not have proper training in this connection. Perhaps I should ask the hon. member for Swellendam, who has with him the curriculum of the chiropractors, among others, whether these people receive any training whatsoever in pharmacology, the chemistry of medicine, the effect of medicine, i.e. the synergistic and allergic reactions which may result, and the treatment of such reactions. Are they clinically trained to administer injections with all the elementary hygiene and sterilization that are required?

We are talking about the patient of South Africa. Is it right to allow a person whom we call a professional person practising an associated medical profession to engage in these practices if we are not satisfied that he has received the basic training to use them in the best interests of the patient? For this reason, I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that the words “excluding any intramuscular or hypodermic injection” in this clause should be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown in which he proposes that the words “excluding any intramuscular or hypodermic injection” be deleted. The hon. member for Pietersburg has explained this question. These words already occur in the legislation. No one on this side of the House is inserting them into the legislation at this stage. This means that Parliament, the highest authority in this country must have accepted at the time that such injections can be administered by the people concerned. I have been in charge of this portfolio for more than 2½ years and I can assure hon. members that I have not received a single complaint from a patient who said that he became ill after having been injected by a chiropractor or a homeopath. If such complaints exist, they should after all be addressed to me. At this stage, it is not possible to complain to anyone else. However, I am not advocating that chiropractors, for example, should administer such injections. I am only pointing out that provision already exists in legislation for them to do so. If they administered such injections incorrectly in the past, the only remedy was to institute legal proceedings against them and to claim damages. Now disciplinary measures will be laid down by way of regulation after malpractices have been considered by the board, and the guilty person can be struck from the roll. If he has committed a serious offence, he will be barred from practising his profession. Before I was appointed as Minister of Health, there was a case where a homeopath gave a patient a B12 injection, as a result of which the patient became ill. Because of that incident, B12 was placed on the list of injections which may only be administered by medical practitioners.

What is B12?

It is the CX3 of medical treatment.

Does it put a tiger in your tank?

I should prefer not to go into any detail, because the Minister of Transport Affairs may drive me into a corner with all his questions.

I must also point out that this medicine appears in schedule 1 of the Drugs Act, and may only be prescribed or administered by medical practitioners. When cases of this nature occur, therefore, we can handle them.

The hon. member for Parktown also had a great deal to say about intravenous injections, but he knows, after all, that intravenous injections are more dangerous than the other two that are referred to. Surely he has seen the effect that an intravenous injection can have. After all, I have seen it in practice. Whether the chiropractors or homeopaths know how to treat patients after such an injection is not relevant in terms of this legislation. It is already covered by existing legislation. Previous legislators have already deliberated about the matter. However, this legislation will enable us to study more closely the matters which the hon. member has raised. We shall now be able to ascertain whether associated health service professions should be allowed to administer intramuscular or hypodermic injections. The board will not only consist of homeopaths and chiropractors. There are five other members as well. One of them is an official of the department and the other four may be lawyers and even medical practitioners. There are appointments which I shall make specifically in order to ensure that a balance is preserved and that one group does not try to persuade another group to propose certain legislation. As far as that aspect is concerned, I just want to point out that these are practices that are being followed at the moment. I therefore assume that the legal draftsmen investigated this matter at that stage and that they drafted the legislation in a way which satisfied all the interested parties. However, if any problems should occur, or if any complaints should be received by the board or myself, we could very specifically investigate this aspect once again.

The hon. member for Parktown also advanced certain arguments relating to the analysis of human blood. As far as I know, chiropractors claim to be properly trained to withdraw blood samples, to analyse them and to interpret the analyses themselves. Those who practise in the Republic say that they do not withdraw samples or analyse blood for the simple reason—this is what they themselves say—that they do not have time to do so. The reason does not matter. They themselves say that they do not withdraw blood samples or analyse blood.

The withdrawal of a blood sample by a chiropractor is prohibited by regulation. A chiropractor is not allowed to withdraw a blood sample at all. Chiropractors accept and comply with this provision.

As far as homeopaths are concerned, the existing Act only prohibits the drawing of intravenous blood samples. Therefore homeopaths may withdraw a blood sample merely by pricking the finger of the patient. Homeopaths may also analyse the blood obtained in this way. The wording of this Bill goes much further than that of the existing Act. It prohibits the withdrawal of intravenous blood samples as well as the analysis of human blood. The object is to ensure that the person who does the analysis is qualified to discover any possible malignancy in time. The purposes for which chiropractors and other practitioners need blood analysis are limited. If the analysis is done by a properly trained person, there is no reason why the result should not be made available to the practitioner to enable him to practise his profession. The hon. member alleged that the practitioner is in fact trained to do this. However, the practitioner has the right to do it at the moment until this legislation is promulgated. All we want to achieve with this Bill is the consolidation of the existing Acts that are being repealed. Therefore we can discuss the merits and demerits of the matter again in this House or elsewhere at a later stage.

I cannot support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Parktown. Therefore I ask this House to negative them.

The hon. member for Parktown also asked me a question about internal examinations. If the hon. member would like to stroke a person’s back, he is welcome to do so. [Interjections.] I do not believe that any right is being conferred upon him in terms of this legislation which he does not possess under existing legislation. Any practitioner can carry out all those examinations at the moment. In fact, during the entire period of 2½ years I have not received a single complaint from the Medical Association of South Africa, the Medical and Dental Council of the public or even from a single hon. member of the Opposition—relating to indecent or improper conduct by a chiropractor. No one has ever complained to me. Therefore I cannot suddenly remove this provision from the legislation at this stage merely because the hon. member for Parktown does not like it. Nor can I do it because the hon. member for Pietersburg suddenly does not like it either. The very fact that these two hon. members do not like it may be a good reason for retaining this provision in the legislation. [Interjections.]

I am therefore unable to accept the amendments of the hon. member for Park-town.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 41:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

I wish to motivate this amendment briefly by indicating that I do not want any erroneous impression or misrepresentation to the effect that this provision relates specifically to a Black medical practitioner. When one talks about Black medicine men and herbalists, it sounds as though one is talking about Black medical practitioners, but the provision in the Code of Zulu Law is the only provision which has any bearing on the Black medicine man who can perhaps be regarded as a herbalist as well. Therefore I am moving this amendment to provide greater clarity and not as a deviation from the Act itself.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

There is one matter which I should like to raise here. In Die Transvaler of 18 March 1982, certain allegations were made. I just want to make it clear that I was never interviewed by Die Transvaler and that I was not responsible for any reference to the hon. member for Pietersburg. I do not know where that came from. I just want to make this clear. It is said in this report that the hon. member for Pietersburg, Dr. Snyman, said that the Minister had been notified of the meeting. This was a meeting held by the group with Prof. Guy de Klerk. I am also supposed to have given my approval for the meeting and to have apologized for not attending it. It is unfortunate that I have to use this House as a platform for saying that it is not true that I approved of the meeting. Nor is it true that I apologized for not attending it. I was informed of such a meeting on the Monday morning. It had been convened without my knowledge by the hon. member for Pietersburg. This meeting was to be held on the Tuesday, during Cabinet time. It was not necessary for me to apologize for not attending it, because I cannot attend such a meeting in Cabinet time, after all. That I gave my approval for it is completely out of the question. This was information supplied to my private secretary. I personally phoned the secretary of the group to express my dissatisfaction concerning this specific meeting, and on that occasion I just told him that I felt that when someone was invited to discuss matters, it was not correct for me to be absent. That was the opinion which I conveyed to the secretary and I am sure that he knows exactly what happened. I just want to state that I was informed of the meeting after it had already been arranged and after the time and place had been decided upon, that it did not have my approval and that I did not apologize for my absence either. I think it is important that I should do so, for when one compares these two reports, I want to say that what is written in the newspaper is not correct.

I repeat that we should regard this debate as the beginning of a period of co-operation, even though there are differences, between professions such as chiropractic and homeopathy, the other health professions and the medical practitioners. Let them co-operate in such a way that they may differ with one another, but without wanting to cut one another’s throats all the time. If there are any malpractices on the part of chiropractors, these must be brought to light and the board must take steps in that connection. If there are any malpractices on the part of homeopaths, this board must deal with them. Therefore I suggest that we should simply enable these people to proceed with this matter calmly and that we should put a stop to this war that has been waged. I do not believe that they cannot be reconciled and I think that this legislation will cause them to have greater respect for one another.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister has just said about this dispute. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister did not speak to his members earlier. Accusations have been levelled here at the Medical Council of South Africa, at the Chairman of the Medical Council and also at medical practitioners by members of this House, and I do not think this was justified. Those hon. members thought that they were attacking me, but if they were really to think the matter over, they would realize who they have been attacking. Excuses were made continually. Hon. members expressed the highest regard for the medical profession. However, hon. members should reread their speeches. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be prepared to apologize to the Medical Council on behalf of his party. I want to state clearly that I do not include the hon. the Minister in that. He did not do so, but some of the hon. members of his party did, as did hon. members of the NRP.

†Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that there has always been a division between the medical profession and chiropractors and homeopaths. It was because of this reason that we in these benches proposed that this legislation be referred to a Select Committee to investigate the matter to see whether, even at this late stage, we could not heal this rift. We also proposed a few amendments which we felt could be of assistance to help these two groups to get together so as to heal this rift.

I believe that we must ask ourselves two questions this afternoon. The first of these is: Will this legislation bring these two professions closer together and, if not, how could this have been achieved? The hon. the Minister has told us, and we agree with him, that the principle of this Bill is to establish a board for chiropractors and homeopaths. We support that. In fact, the medical profession does not oppose that either because, to quote the hon. the Minister himself, it would be completely unrealistic for a profession like the medical profession of South Africa to oppose the setting up of this board that will exercise strict control. I believe that they will welcome this. The homeopaths and the chiropractors welcome this control and it is to their credit that they do seek this improved control over their professions. We on this side of the House certainly support this principle and therefore we will not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Let us look at the Bill a little more deeply. In clause 3 the objects of the board are defined. I do not think that paragraph (a) is acceptable to the medical profession and I think the hon. the Minister will concede that. It is, however, totally acceptable to the chiropractors and homeopaths. This is one clause on which I think there could have been broad consensus had there been a little bit of talk.

Clauses 14 to 24 are acceptable to the Medical Association in so far as control is concerned, but the prohibition on the registration of new practitioners and students is not what the chiropractors and homeopaths prefer. The hon. the Minister pointed out that they came to him and told him they would like everybody to be registered now. I think, however, that they will accept it as a temporary measure.

Clauses 23 to 30 deal with the disciplinary powers of the board. Again there was almost total agreement between the two groups, and nobody is going to argue about it. Clauses 31 and 32 deal with offences, penalties and other judicial matters. Except for a few difficulties in so far as offences are concerned, there appears to be consensus. It therefore appears that there was nearly agreement between the two sides.

The main point of departure concerns the question whether the professions of homeopaths and chiropractors are scientific. The chiropractors and the homeopaths say that their professions are scientific, but the medical profession disagrees. The medical profession by means of the Medical Council has written to the hon. the Minister in this connection. The medical profession accepts, however, that certain complaints can be treated by this profession, and nobody argues about this.

I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that the medical profession does not really refer patients to chiropractors. If a patient ’phones his doctor to ask him whether he would mind if the patient should visit a chiropractor, the doctor usually says that he would not.

But you admitted that during the Second Reading debate.

Yes, I know that I did admit that the hon. member made a great point there. That, however, will be the only point that he will make this session.

Are you going to vote for or against the Third Reading?

During my Second Reading speech I quoted word by word from the letters and memorandum of the Medical Association.

I do hope the hon. member for Umhlanga will keep quiet. He gets so excited that I think he needs a little bit of treatment.

What was the result of my quoting those documents? A bitter and vicious attack upon me by nearly all the Government spokesmen and the lonely local option boys of the NRP. To attack me might be politically expedient and I do not object to it, but do the hon. members not realize that when they attack me, they attack the Medical Council and the Medical Association? [Interjections.] They also attack the medical profession and every doctor, nurse, physiotherapist and other dedicated people in the medical profession. I am not surprised that they are laughing now.

Are you a member of the Medical Council?

Let me read what the hon. member for Swellendam said. This is what he said on Tuesday (Hansard, 1982, col. 2973)—

*He went on to say—

He continued by insinuating that the Medical Council is doing this to protect itself against these professions.

But he did not refer to you in this regard.

What did the hon. member for South Coast say when he talked about the chairman of the Federal Board of the Medical Association? This is what he said on Tuesday (Hansard, 1982, col. 2977)—

He then quoted further from the chairman’s statement, and in col. 2978 he said—

We also have a report which appeared in Die Vaderland. This report concerns the speech of the hon. member for Stilfontein, and what did he say? I read—

Order! The hon. member may not quote newspaper reports on hon. members’ speeches in this House.

Sir, all he did was to make the same insinuation that the Medical Council was trying to protect itself against these professions.

†If ever there was a chance of the medical profession on the one hand and chiropractors and homeopaths on the other hand to recognize each other, these attacks destroyed it forever. The chiropractors and homeopaths believe that their professions are based on scientific grounds and are therefore related to the practice of medicine. Every Government spokesman submitted evidence on that account. It is amazing, as I have pointed out before, that hon. members on that side of the House spoke only on behalf of the chiropractors. I must admit the chiropractors do their work very well via hon. members of the NP. The next step we heard of was a university degree for chiropractors. It therefore appears as if this Bill is intended only for the chiropractors while the homeopaths are simply tagged on behind.

During the Second Reading debate we asked for the appointment of a Select Committee and we tried to move a few amendments at the Committee Stage but these were refused. Instead we had a vicious smear campaign against the medical profession. [Interjections.] Therefore, the answer to my first question as to whether the introduction of this Bill has brought these professions closer together, must be “no”. In fact, I believe they have been driven further apart. My second question was whether the appointment of a Select Committee or the acceptance of my amendments would have brought these professions closer together. My answer must be “yes”. I blame the Government for not allowing this. The S.A. Medical Association writes in a letter to the Director-General of Health and Welfare—

*The Medical Association of South Africa therefore asks that the Medical and Dental Council exercise the control. In his reply the hon. the Minister says that the Medical and Dental Council conveyed their decision to him, and it was repeatedly said here that the Medical Council decided by a majority of only one vote not to allow it. I think that a majority of one is very small. The hon. the Minister has to agree with me that with a little more work and concessions on both sides, the majority of one vote could have been prevented and the Medical and Dental Council would have accepted that control. If the Medical and Dental Council had indeed accepted that principle, the chiropractors and the Medical Association of South Africa would also have accepted it. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister did not make a further effort to bring the various groups together.

†I believe a Select Committee could easily have resolved outstanding reservations. The S.A. Medical Council would then have accepted control over these professions. In that case this wide gap which the hon. the Minister complained about, would have been a thing of the past. This step would then have been “to the benefit of the patient”, to quote the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown said himself that the Bill could have done much more to bring the two groups closer to each other. In saying that, the hon. member was therefore admitting that this was a good Bill. If I had to be guided by the judgment of the hon. member for Parktown when he refers to groups such as the S.A. Medical Council and others, and when his head gets more and more swollen, I would doubt his ability to form a proper judgment. After all, it is as a result of remarks made by hon. members on that side of the House that doubt has arisen about what the hon. the Minister has tried to do here. I want to ask the hon. member for Parktown whether any Minister could do more to reconcile two groups than the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare has done in this particular case. I believe the board which is to be established will realize one thing quite clearly when they read these debates, and that is that the control which they exercise over the members of their professions will be subjected to the closest scrutiny. In other words, this board is going to act with great responsibility in performing the functions expected of it. I wish to have it placed on record that no reflection has been cast in this House on the medical profession, i.e. on the S.A. Medical and Dental Council and the S.A. Medical Association on the one hand or members of the profession on the other. We have reason to feel very happy about this. However, if the hon. member for Parktown has in fact come to the conclusion that reflections were cast during the debate, I repeat that he is mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, just before I come to the discussion of the Third Reading of this Bill, allow me to make a correction concerning the matter which the hon. the Minister mentioned at the outset. Die Transvaler published certain incorrect reports about the matter, implying, among other things, that I had plotted and schemed before the meeting and had invited people to address the caucus group without the knowledge of the hon. the Minister. This is not true. However, it is true that as far back as December, the president of the Federal Council of the Medical Association requested an opportunity to address and inform the caucus group. The chiropractors and homeopaths were also afforded the opportunity of addressing the caucus group on two occasions. I submit that I personally informed the hon. the Minister of the fact that Prof. De Klerk would be addressing us.

That is not true. The secretary of the group informed me telephonically. You did not talk to me about it.

Then the hon. the Minister has forgotten about it.

No, I do not forget so quickly.

At the group meeting, an apology was made on behalf of the hon. the Minister because he had to attend a Cabinet meeting. Because the hon. the Prime Minister, after I had seen him, had not found any fault with my conduct as chairman of the health group of the governing party, I accepted that there would not be any objection to Prof. De Klerk addressing us. I could not think of any reason why the hon. the Minister would have any objection, since the chiropractors and the other groups had also had an opportunity. [Interjections.]

You should have asked me. I do not have to object. So you broke the rules.

If the hon. the Minister had had any objection, I would not have expected him to phone the secretary to register his objection. The hon. the Minister did not register his objection with me personally. I put the facts straight, Die Transvaler did what it did, and I leave the matter at that.

But Willie, did you ask him?

I informed the hon. the Minister before and after the event and the hon. the Minister gave me no indication …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I object to the fact that the hon. member for Pietersburg is suggesting in this House that he informed me that Prof. De Klerk would attend the caucus meeting on that Tuesday morning. In terms of the caucus rules, he should have done so, but he did not.

Order! That is not a point of order. It concerns matters which took place outside this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: If I have put the matter straight now, should the hon. member not accept my explanation?

Order! No, it concerns things which happened outside this House. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I can only repeat that the hon. the Prime Minister was informed by me personally before and after the caucus meeting. On no occasion was any objection lodged with me personally. However, I shall leave the matter at that. There is no court to decide about this at the moment.

There will be plenty of time for discussing this during the discussion of my Vote.

We come now to the Third Reading of this legislation. I really cannot understand why hon. members on the Government side made such a fuss about my standpoint on this legislation at the Second Reading. Just see what the hon. the Minister said about this matter in his reply to the Second Reading debate (Hansard, 16 March 1982, col. 3014)—

My reply was: “I would.” That is exactly what we are advocating in this legislation, i.e. that these people should receive basic training. Once such a person has qualified as a medical practitioner, we would have no objection if he subsequently specialized in physical medicine so that he could really be active in the front line of health care in South Africa.

Incidentally, the hon. the Minister said in connection with this matter, arising from the fact that I had left the caucus of the other side of the House (Hansard, 16 March 1982, col. 3012)—

With all due respect, Sir, I wish to state as a person of Reformed religious convictions, I am not prepared to swear allegiance to anyone, not to the Prime Minister of South Africa nor to the leader of the Conservative Party of South Africa. It is against my principles. I support a man …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

I shall confine myself to the Bill. I have simply referred to this because it gave rise to the debate that has just taken place.

A second consequence of the Bill—I illustrated this quite clearly in the Committee Stage—is the erroneous impression which is being created among the public that we are dealing here with medical professions. In this connection I want to refer to what the hon. member for Stilfontein said about clause 32(1)(a)(vi). That provision reads as follows—

The hon. member for Stilfontein—I am sorry that he is not in the House at the moment—then said (Hansard, 16 March 1982, col. 2985)—

Of course, there are many doctors in this House, but not many of them are medical practitioners. There is a big difference. I read further—

In all fairness I want to ask our doctors on the other side of the House who are not medical practitioners whether they are satisfied that anyone who has received chiropractic training should be able to lay claim to a doctorate, whether it be in philosophy, science or religion. Surely the training of these people cannot be compared with that. They are called “doctors”, and my objection is precisely that this gives rise to confusion and creates the impression that they are ordinary medical practitioners whom I can consult about any conceivable ailment in order to receive treatment.

The hon. the Minister has correctly pointed out that this legislation does not open the door for new registrations. That is correct. However, a structure is being created here, and all that is necessary now is for the board, consisting of chiropractors, homeopaths, herbalists and naturopaths, together with one member appointed by the Minister, to make certain recommendations. They may tell the Minister, for example: “Here are our recommendations concerning standards and training facilities for practitioners or students.” The hon. the Minister now says that he would have to come to this House before the recommendations could be accepted. In view of the structure which is to be created and the way in which some hon. members on that side of the House argued about this legislation, I cannot imagine that if the hon. the Minister were to submit such a recommendation, they would be able to reject it.

The hon. member for Swellendam asked for the creation of training facilities for these groups. It was in fact in response to that request that the hon. the Minister gave this reply, because I know that the hon. member for Swellendam is very keen to have that register opened up as soon as possible. No matter what the hon. member for Swellendam says, and even though it is alleged that there are 14 training colleges in the USA, we have no evidence concerning the standard of training or the way in which it is conducted. That is why we are afraid that the people in these professions do not have the clinical experience to be active in primary health care. I belive, therefore, that the acceptance of this legislation will mean that the door is being opened, and that we cannot accept.

At this stage, after the Third Reading, the hon. the Minister will disclaim all responsibility and say that this legislation is necessary to regulate and control these professions because they were recognized as far back as 1971. In 1971, I was a member of the Soutpansberg branch of the Medical Association, so I know exactly what the attitude of the Medical Association was at the time. Since the principle of the 1971 legislation was wrong, we cannot now argue that because it was accepted at the time, we can simply continue to build on it, thereby accepting an undesirable situation. When that legislation was published, the Medical Association advanced the following arguments, and I quote from their memorandum—

They conclude that memorandum concerning the proposed legislation by saying—

To me, this is the primary consideration: To protect the public welfare. That is why I say that this was the standpoint of the organized medical profession in 1971. I still advocate that one statutory body should have total control over medical care in South Africa. Therefore I very much regret that in the interests of all medical practitioners in South Africa, and in the interests of their patients, I have to oppose this legislation at its Third Reading as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am entering this Third Reading debate because the hon. member for Parktown alleged that some hon. members on the Government side had launched a smear campaign against the medical profession. Inter alia the hon. member quoted from my speech in Hansard in an effort to support his argument.

At the outset I want to state unequivocally that I have the greatest respect for the medical profession in South Africa and in the world, and that the discussion of this matter was not in any way concerned with the medical profession and the integrity of people in that profession. As far as I am concerned, they are above suspicion. The hon. member must please accept this now. If he cannot understand what my argument means, he must please not try to get out of his predicament by pretending that hon. members on this side of the House—and he mentioned me by name—are waging a smear campaign against the medical profession. This is absolutely untrue.

I find it very difficult to understand the hon. member for Parktown.

He finds it very difficult to understand himself.

As far as this legislation is concerned, the hon. member for Parktown did his level best during the Second Reading debate to prevent its being accepted. As a matter of fact, he even moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee and that that stage of the measure should not be considered by this House. Now, however, during the Third Reading debate, he has announced that his party will not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. [Interjections.] Apparently the hon. member’s arguments are so scientific that I cannot follow them; I do not know. However, I find it extremely strange that he initially argued that a Bill should not be passed, and that he advanced arguments during the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage by means of which he tried to prevent the passage of the legislation, only to state during the Third Reading debate that he and his party would not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. Perhaps one can deduce from this that the hon. member does not have an opinion of his own.

As a matter of fact, the hon. member confessed that he said nothing in the debate on this Bill, and that if we criticized him, we were criticizing the Medical Association of South Africa. The only deduction I can make from this is that the hon. member for Parktown has no personal standpoint or opinion on this matter, and that he was merely presenting the case of the Medical and Dental Council here.

The results of this legislation will undoubtedly be to the advantage of the promotion of the health of the population of the Republic of South Africa. I do not doubt this for a moment. I cannot accept that if one tries by means of legislation to set a disorderly facet of our health set-up in order, you are not behaving to the advantage of the health of the population of the country as a whole. I have no doubt about this. If the uncontrolled situation which is prevailing at present when it comes to the services rendered by chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists, is replaced by full control over these professions, it will naturally have to lead to a general improvement in the ethical and training standards. It is significant, for example, that at present there are no training facilities for chiropractors in South Africa. This argument was used by the hon. member for Pietersburg as a reason why these people should not be accepted in South Africa as a scientific profession. I have not yet been able to make out where the argument of the hon. member for Pietersburg is leading. It is being taken amiss of me for having asked the question—and my Hansard is even quoted—whether it is not perhaps the aim of the S.A. Medical Association to use delaying tactics in order to phase out the profession of chiropractor completely. I am posing this question again today. The hon. member for Pietersburg alleged that because chiropractors do not have training facilities in South Africa as proof of their permanence in South Africa and of their right to practise in South Africa, chiropractors cannot be accepted as part of the health group in South Africa. Surely this could lead to nothing else but a situation in which the chiropractic profession would eventually be phased out. We would then reach a dead end and we would not be able to take the chiropractic profession any further in this country. I am asking the hon. member for Pietersburg again—without trying in any way to offend the medical profession—how he sees their position in the future, or has he no interest at all in the profession of chiropractor in South Africa? Does it not matter to him whether or not this profession continues to exist in South Africa, regardless of whether it is scientific or not? Does he believe that the profession as such should not be recognized in South Africa? That is the crucial question.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the hon. member does not think that if the S.A. Medical Council had had an opportunity to state its case to a Select Committee, and all the other interested parties had also had that opportunity, after there had also been a Select Committee 20 years ago, the S.A. Medical Council would not have accepted it?

I am of the opinion that the sands of time are running out for chiropractors. I have mentioned figures to prove that if we do not do something soon to give them the opportunity to try to prove their profession, their profession will die out. They will definitely be phased out. I pointed out that there has already been a commission of inquiry which was of no avail at all. I also want to ask, if this board is appointed in co-operation with the hon. the Minister, whether a Select Committee would not be redundant and would not merely delay the advancement of the chiropractors’ profession. The hon. member’s question leaves me wondering why the hon. member for Pietersburg and the hon. member for Parktown do not want to afford the chiropractors an opportunity of proving themselves through their own board. It is quite obvious that one of the first tasks of the board will be to draw up a curriculum and to approach the hon. the Minister to open the register on the basis of their provisions. The hon. the Minister has already told us that this House will then be able to decide whether the register should be opened or not. The hon. member for Pietersburg says that this House, the governing side of this House, does not have the power to decide on this. This is the highest authority in South Africa.

I did not say that.

The hon. member gave me the impression that he believed that hon. members on this side would decide in favour of the opening of the register if this matter was brought before this House. This House has the power to do this. If this House may not or cannot do so, what board may do so? Does the hon. member for Pietersburg set another body above the authority of this House? That is another reason why I honestly wonder whether the hon. member for Pietersburg is not trying to curtail the future existence of the chiropractic profession. He is already telling us that he is afraid that we shall decide that the register may be opened. Why, then, does he want a Select Committee? Are these delaying tactics or what? What are those hon. members doing? In contrast, I feel I am on the right track when I say: Give every profession in South Africa a legitimate chance to prove himself. I am in favour of this board being appointed. I am also in favour of this board compiling a curriculum for the training of chiropractors and of the board also drawing up rules to control itself so that if this Parliament approves of this in future, there can be a chiropractic profession in South Africa, an orderly and strong profession which is better equipped to carry out its task in connection with the health of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Swellendam in so far as the Medical Council is concerned. We on this side of the House believe that the effect of this Bill will be to give a measure of control to these professions which has not been the case previously and which is now urgently required. The point is that that control is in the interests of the public of South Africa. That is the most important point. I want to repeat that with a majority of only one in the Medical Council was agreement not reached. Therefore there is recognition of and sympathy for these practitioners whether one wishes to accept that fact or not. I also want to say that nobody attacked the medical profession per se. However, I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Parktown that he has an inflated opinion of himself if he puts himself on the same plane as the Medical Council.

Just another wind-mill!

If he thinks that because we attack him in debate we are attacking the Medical Council then I would suggest that he remind himself of the fact that he is here as a politician and not as a member of the medical profession. That is something he must get used to. I also want to say that I find it rather surprising that they made such a hullabaloo about the Second Reading and now in the Third Reading they agree with it. I want to ask the hon. member for Parktown whether he saw a deputation from the chiropractors last year.

He is so inconsistent and so dumb …

Yes, and he never answers a question.

He is so stupid.

Did he or did he not tell that deputation that they were getting a rough deal from the Medical Council? There is absolutely no answer from the hon. member.

Put it in Zulu; he might understand that.

You do not understand anything; how can I answer you?

We support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate on this Bill. I think we have already said all that needed to be said. I do not want to pursue the matter any further with the hon. member for Pietersburg either. I shall have more to say on this when my Vote is being dealt with. I think the hon. member said something dreadful this afternoon, when he said that he had informed me personally about the meeting. I want to repeat that he was nowhere near me to inform me about the meeting.

In the lobby.

No, the hon. member said in this House that he informed me himself, and that is not true. However, we can discuss that further when my Vote is being dealt with.

There are far more important things than that to discuss when the Vote comes up for discussion.

From the contributions on this Bill it is clear that this matter should for the time being be left alone until the dust has settled. In the interim we must appoint the board and afford people an opportunity to get together and try to put their affairs in order. In my opinion speakers on this side of the House made it quite clear that these people should be afforded an opportunity to put their affairs in order.

The idea that these people are just a bunch of quacks died a long time ago. It died a natural death when the former legislation was introduced. I think we must afford them an opportunity to prove themselves. I am not implying that we shall allow them to open the register. The hon. member for Pietersburg voiced a strange sentiment. He said it seemed as though this side of the House is going to allow it. Look, this side of the House is in the majority and if they want to allow it, it will only be in line with what previous Houses of Assembly also did in 1971 when they allowed it in legislation that was introduced at the time and to which I later cause amendments to be effected. The hon. member also agreed to those amendments. In this country there is parliamentary government and the majority governs. The fact that certain hon. members formed a party a few days ago, does not mean by a long talk that they govern in the House of Assembly. It is also inappropriate for him to say that if our side votes for something, the proposal is nonsensical. Until recently the hon. member was also on this side.

Lapa, you can do better than that.

I did not quite hear what the leader of the Conservative Party said.

I merely said you could do better than that.

I thought the hon. member said something about tortoises. [Interjections.]

I suggest that the Bill be now read a Third Time, and that the board to be appointed, be afforded an opportunity of functioning properly.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches do not intend delaying the passage of the Bill very long. I think it is trite but none the less very true to say that South Africa is embarking upon difficult times. Many changes in our existing order will in the months that lie ahead transform our society. Changes will occur that are urgent and necessary. I have noted that there is a pattern of change and reaction which is slowly emerging. Where laws and practices are not adapted to take cognizance of the multi-racial composition of our population, the conflict potential within our country continues to escalate. Just so does the level of hostility towards our country continue to rise. However, on the other hand every positive adjustment of Government philosophy, of policy or of laws seems to be attracting a growing resistance and opposition from those who would rather face conflict than contemplate any alteration to the status quo. The voices from the right generated from within the electorate are not to be under estimated.

A foretaste of what is to come in the months that lie ahead has been experienced during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. In this new scenario the attitude of the PFP assumes a higher importance. As we demonstrated in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, when the Government offers positive change and decides to bring about changes to its policy which will affect the country to the good, when racial provisions are abolished from laws affecting human beings, when moves are made by the Government to normalize our society, no matter how small those moves are and no matter how hesitant those steps may be, the PFP will be the allies of the Government in the changes which they seek to bring about. We will stand with the Government against the reactionary attitudes of those from the right.

This is also our stand on this Bill. The Bill has gone through two stages. There were some disagreements in regard to the first aspects of the changes envisaged by the Government. It was felt by the PFP that the changes relating to the Small Business Development Corporation did not go far enough and had certain deleterious outcomes. Nonetheless, hon. members will have noticed that the PFP supported the Government in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage when the changes were voted upon.

Shoulder to shoulder.

In this, the dying stage of the debate, I want to repeat that whereas some will argue that the changes to the Group Areas Act relating to the amendments brought about to facilitate the normalization of sport are too timid, whereas some will argue that they do not go far enough, we on this side say that they are a change which has significance and which will make it easier for sportsmen to get together and to seek reentry into world sport. For those reasons and for the reason that when change is offered the PFP will be there to back the Government, particularly where that change is positive, we support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton who has just sat down has given us his grudging support for this measure. Having listened to the hon. member one cannot help thinking that with friends such as the hon. member for Sandton, who needs enemies? The way in which the hon. member gave his support was so grudging that one wonders whether he supports this measure at all.

I want to ask the hon. member a question: Given the fact that all forms of racialism have been removed from the sporting arena, will he give sport in general his unqualified support and agree that South Africa should participate in international sport?

Yes.

One is grateful for that. We will listen with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Sandton in the weeks and months ahead. Let us see what this Bill is all about. The Small Business Development Corporation is a partnership between the State on the one hand and private enterprise on the other, a partnership that is also helping people of colour, and I say “also” because there is nothing barring them from helping Whites. We know, however, that basically the people who are not in the mainstream of the economy at the moment are usually the people of colour. This Bill has been introduced to enable this partnership to succeed, because this partnership is the successor to the Coloured Development Corporation and the Indian Development Corporation. What this legislation is not, however, is a back-door by which the provisions of the Riekert Commission can be brought in by stealth. That suggestion was made by the hon. member for Yeoville when he introduced an amendment in this House. It is not, however, a measure by which the recommendations of the Riekert Commission can be introduced in South Africa by stealth.

The importance of small business is very clear. We live in a country with an exploding population. In this country there is a massive exponential growth in population. We know, for example, that 60% of all the people employed in the USA are employed by small businesses. If we also look at the countries of South-East Asia, the Far East, parts of the Carribean and even parts of Africa, we see that those Second and Third-World societies that have opted for the private enterprise solution have been the societies that have succeeded best in uplifting the greatest numbers of their people and introducing the highest quality of life most quickly into their societies. We also know that private enterprise societies are not only the most successful societies, but also the societies that are most conducive to promoting the highest measure of human freedom by virtue of the number of choices offered to individuals. So much for the one leg of the legislation.

The other leg of this Bill before us reflects the intention of the State to normalize sport. I should like to state quite clearly that our policy is that sportsmen should regulate their own affairs. If we did not introduce this measure, it would simply mean that the present permit system would have to continue. The permit system has, in fact, demonstrated the reality than when permits have been applied for, and have been issued, there have been no problems. In fact, my information is that permits have been routinely granted because there are no problems. If one has a permit system, therefore, and there are no problems and it works well, the next step is naturally to do away with that system. The State is, of course, always in a position, at any future date, to re-evaluate the situation. So what we have is a perfectly normal step in the evolution of this country. Sports administrators are, in fact, running their affairs very well. The world has not come to an end. They have proved that they can run their own affairs. Individuals or clubs that do not wish to compete against other individuals or clubs if people of colour are participating, do not have to. I think that if one were to conduct a poll on this issue amongst the sportsmen and sportswomen of South Africa, one would find them voting overwhelmingly for this measure. We are placing the control and regulation of sport squarely in the hands of the sports administrators, and I am quite confident that they will be able to run their affairs very well.

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

In a moment. There is something I should like to say about the newly-born Conservative Party. On Saturday they made great play, amongst other things, of attracting English-speaking people into their party. I have no argument with that, but if their attitude is going to be the kind of attitude they have displayed towards this measure, I do not think they are going to attract very much English-speaking support, or any other kind of support for that matter. I shall tell you why. The reason is simple. I do not think that English-speaking South Africans, or any other South Africans for that matter, want a policeman on every tennis court, at every cricket ground and at every sports venue in South Africa.

Are you speaking for yourself?

I do not think one has to prove one’s conservatism by trampling on or negating the rights of other people. I do not think that that is a reasonable way of proving one’s conservatism. I do not think that people in South Africa want to make our country look ridiculous either in the eyes of South Africans or in the eyes of the world. Protecting one’s own is one thing—that is very laudable—but denying others their rightful place in the society of their own country, particularly in a heterogeneous society such as ours, is quite another thing. Particularly in a heterogeneous society sport is a complex matter. Conditions vary from region to region, town to town and sport to sport, whether it is local, provincial or international. In a complex heterogeneous society and complex circumstances such as one finds in sport in South Africa it is far better that the sports administrators should make the arrangements themselves.

One of the greatest attributes of South Africans has always been their tolerance, and this kind of Grundyism as advocated by the Conservative Party, I think South Africans frankly find repulsive. I do not think South Africa wants to go back to 1977, neither do I think South Africa wants to go back to 1966.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? He has said that the stated policy is the normalization of sport. He said, too, that he does not wish to deny others rights of access, etc. Does that policy of normalization of sport extend to the stopping of the interference which is brought about by the Separate Amenities Act?

This is not a debate or sports policy as such. Our sports policy is well known. I just want to say to the hon. member for Sandton that there are three things in this country which we on this side of the House will maintain whenever necessary and possible. The first is community privacy. We will maintain that as far as it is possible in a society such as ours. The second thing we will maintain is, as I mentioned to the hon. member the other day, our own educational arrangements within the communities, because we believe in cultural security. The third thing we stand for, and will continue to stand for, is that we wish to remain, politically, the masters of our own destiny. We do not wish to practise “baas-skap” over other people, but we do wish to, and will, remain masters of our own political destiny. I do not think we have the time now, or that this is the right opportunity for, a debate on our sports policy. There will be time for that later this session when we discuss the budget.

There is plenty of time. I just want to know about the Separate Amenities Act. That is all.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton intimated here today that when the Government wishes to introduce positive changes by removing measures based on race and colour, the PFP will be their allies. The hon. member says that when the Government takes positive steps, they will be their allies, but when the PFP wishes to support the Government, this means the destruction of separate development and of the measures which were instituted to develop and maintain it. This is the standpoint of the hon. member.

Do you believe him?

It is very difficult for me to cross swords with the hon. the Minister of Community Development in this debate, as I have the highest regard for him

Speak your mind.

I will speak my mind. The hon. member for Maitland stated very clearly here today that the policy of the NP was that sportsmen should organize their own affairs, i.e. that the organization of sports should be left entirely in the hands of the sportsmen of South Africa. Although NP policy states very clearly that its objective is for sport to take place on an ethnic basis at club level and even at provincial and at national level, the NP has renounced that policy.

Nothing is being imposed on anyone. [Interjections.]

The hon. member says that the NP stopped allowing sport to take place at club, provincial and national level on an ethnic basis as far back as 1970.

I speak today on behalf of the CP. Last year the leader of the CP set out the policy we subscribe to as follows, and as far as I know, no one repudiated him.

Who is “we” may I ask?

The NP’s policy at that stage. He said—

Who has problems with that?

The measures now being introduced in terms of this legislation, deprive certain communities of the right to decide on what is theirs. [Interjections.] However, I shall deal with that in the course of my speech.

[Inaudible.]

That is the talkative Minister.

While the NP was established in 1914 as a result of a struggle between nationalism and imperialism, and was used over the years as an instrument to realize and achieve great ideals for South Africa, the struggle in 1982 is one between conservatism and liberalism. This means that the preservation of values is being threatened by liberal subversion …

You are causing racial friction.

… under the pretence that it is a reformative, positive movement and a logical consequence of NP policy, and this change in the Group Areas Act is a clear example of this.

Last week, a great fuss was made in this House, as well as in the Press, when CP members voted with the official Opposition on a proposal that the Associated Health Service Professions Bill be referred to a Select Committee. There was also a great fuss when we in these benches, the official Opposition and members of the NRP agreed on the implications of this Bill. Because the Opposition parties agreed that this Bill would open doors that would be destructive to the policy of separate development, there was once again a great fuss. However, what happened when a vote had to be taken on this Bill? What happened when a standpoint had to be adopted and a vote taken on this Bill and its consequences? Then hon. members on the Government side voted with the leftist Opposition parties. [Interjections.] Then they all sang in the same chorus. [Interjections.] This is the truth that must be told. Until such time as this Bill is accepted, people of colour have to have a permit to visit a sports club or to attend a sporting event. By removing this measure, the Government is giving people of colour an equal right to that which is ours, or that which should be ours.

That is not true.

Of course it is true.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

Let him be, André! He does not know what it is all about!

Until 1965, there were no measures prohibiting the mixed attendance of or participation in sports meetings. Public opinion prevented such mixing. In 1965 a proclamation was issued imposing the prohibition on mixed sport. This alone is very clear proof of the direction in which the NP was moving at that time. At that time the NP was on the path of separate development. It was necessary that that path be taken. All the hon. members of the NP agreed with that at that time, except of course the hon. member for De Kuilen, who, as a member of the old United Party, was still fighting the NP tooth and nail.

And that Fourie fellow on that side as well.

Yes, little old Fourie as well. [Interjections.]

You cannot deny that each one of you personally welcomed me into the NP. [Interjections.]

We ourselves know how the attendance by non-Whites at sports club activities has decreased, and how the imposition of the prohibition in 1965 reduced the numbers at mixed sports meetings. We can mention innumerable examples of this.

However, we now come to the repeal of this legislation. Surely this attests to the unqualified renouncement of the principals on which separate development was based.

Where on earth do you get that from? [Interjections.]

The repeal of the existing legal provisions by the present Bill indicates an unqualified renouncement of the principal of separate development. By repealing the restrictions on mixed club meetings, the Government is stating positively that it has changed its standpoint in this respect. By doing away with the restrictions on mixed sports meetings and mixed sports clubs, as well as other clubs, the Government is now positively stating …

Where do you get that from?

Mr. Chairman, I have not heard a single hon. member of the NP saying in this debate today that he supports the view that clubs in White areas ought to be reserved for Whites.

Did you read the Bill? Ask Andries Treumicht what is in the Bill. He helped draft it. [Interjections.]

The smear campaign is beginning again.

If you are too lazy to read the Bill, ask Andries Treurnicht what is in it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I concede that there are many things which I did agree with. The hon. the Minister of Community Development and I stated clearly at a public meeting at Postmasburg, when people asked about the sport policy of the Government, that it was the NP’s policy that sport be practised separately at club level, provincial and national level, but that there could indeed by competition among the different race groups.

Well then. [Interjections.]

However, what happened afterwards? When we arrived in Cape Town the following morning, we read in the newspaper that the Defence Force’s team included a number of people of colour. I then put it to the Minister of Sport, now the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs—and this is in writing—that we had said at an NP meeting at Postmasburg the previous evening that the NP followed a policy of separate sport at club level, provincial level and national level, but that I now had to read that the Defence Force had included a number of people of colour in its team. Surely this is a clear indication that the NP has changed its policy in order to adapt to such practices. [Interjections.] My objection to these things is in black and white. [Interjections.]

Order!

It will not be long before all the NP members are with the Progs. [Interjections.]

Whereas in the past the Government prohibited practices of this nature by legislation, or placed restrictions on them, the Government is now making it positively clear, by repealing these provisions, that it gives its blessing to open sports clubs and other clubs as well as mixed attendance at sport. I have not heard one member on the Government side objecting to this.

Did you say anything against it in the caucus?

What the argument of the hon. members on the Government side will amount to, of course, is that the Government is not opening sports clubs to all races. The hon. member for Maitland said in his speech that sport should be organized by sportsmen themselves.

But of course.

But you yourself said so as well.

We all know what has happened already. We know that a number of sports clubs are already mixed. For instance Villagers, a White club situated in a White group area, appointed a Coloured as a model to represent the club at the Toyota Club Tournament in Durban.

Did the Act, which we are now amending here, prohibit them from doing that? Don’t be stupid.

The Government is now saying that every club has to decide for itself. By removing the restrictions which the Group Areas Act imposes, the Government is facilitating the task of those clubs that wish to be mixed, or helping people who would like to found mixed clubs. This is one of the consequences of this Bill. [Interjections.] I now wish to put a question to the hon. the Minister. In terms of this Bill, a mixed club could be established in a White area. Does the hon. the Minister deny this?

It is possible at present, too. You have just said that this could happen.

Let me complete my argument. If a mixed club is established, there could be people who live near to that club who could have serious objections to such a mixed club and to mixed meetings at such a club. Surely this is true.

This could happen in terms of the Act as well.

There could be people who have serious objections to that.

Then it remains as it is.

They may have objections to this, but this Bill is depriving them of the right to object.

No. Where do you see that in the Bill? [Interjections.]

They are being deprived of the right to object, as the requirement of a permit for such meetings is now being done away with.

Over the past two years, I have never issued permits for such things.

This amendment to the Group Areas Act will mean that sports clubs which were previously meant for Whites, can now become public property. The NP is apparently not concerned about the fact that a distinction must be made between Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks at sports club level. For the NP, there is no danger that opening sports clubs without the accompanying measures to prevent crowding out, may present problems.

They are now blindly shutting their minds to the domination and even exploitation and crowding out of certain people in open sports clubs, be they White, Black or Brown. It is the NP’s policy that there should be separate clubs, but what is the position going to be in new towns developing around mines? I should like the hon. the Minister to give us clarity on this. The existing Act imposes legal restrictions on the mine management with regard to the establishment of a club in a White group area to which every one may belong.

Who is forming a club?

The mine management can form the club. And who are the people who control the money and the mines today? They are the PFP’s people. [Interjections.] That is correct. The hon. member for Pinelands agrees with me. They are the people who support such development at the mines. In the past, the mining magnates built sports club buildings for White, Brown and Black. I agree with the PFP that it costs millions of rands. [Interjections.] I find it very odd that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs can sit and laugh when I say that I agree with the mining people that it costs a lot of money. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs that when we vote on this Bill just now, he is going to vote with the PFP. [Interjections.]

I wish to complete my argument. In the past, mining magnates built sports clubs for White, Brown and Black which cost millions of rands. The removal of the restrictions imposed in terms of this legislation means that mining companies can now establish one sports club for all its employees. Is that right or wrong?

That is wrong.

I should like the hon. the Minister to prove that to me.

You are quite wrong.

I should like those hon. members to prove this to me. [Interjections.] If the mine management were to come and say that it was going to establish one club, which could be in a White group area, for all its employees, what would the hon. the Minister do about it? [Interjections.] I want to say today that for this party, separate residential areas, separate schools and a separate community life are not negotiable. The CP says that sports and other clubs are part of the White community life and part of the community life of the other groups as well, and that this legislation opens doors which infringe upon the community life of the various race groups.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I will deal with the hon. member for Bellville just now. The hon. member for Maitland said that this policy of the NP has been accepted in order to make international sport possible. I wish to repeat that what the rest of the world wants from South Africa is not concessions with regard to sports clubs. They want to mix South Africa up and cast us all into a crucible. The Government is happily helping this process along, as is clearly proved by this legislation before this House.

The official Opposition, who want to see all measures of separation abolished in South Africa, are rejoicing about the amendment of this Act. They describe it as the last trace of apartheid which is now being removed from sport. Interracial contact at sports level should take place in such a way that separate structures and community life are not undermined. I am afraid that in the new circumstances which this amendment of the Act is going to create, this is exactly what is going to happen. Therefore it is not acceptable to me and those who sit with me in these benches.

The reasoning of the hon. member for Bellville with regard to this amending Bill, is laughable, to say the least. [Interjections.] And he is the man who accused the hon. member for Langlaagte of reprehensible conduct, the other day. What is more reprehensible than admitting at this juncture, after the Group Areas Act has been in the Statute Book for years, that the Government is only rectifying the character of the Act now? [Interjections.] In his argument during the Second Reading debate the hon. member intimated that the Group Areas Act had lacked character for years, as he says that this legislation which we are debating at the moment …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Kuruman read his speech. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if one reacts in such a manner, it is proof that one is being badly hurt. Those hon. members cannot come up with sound arguments; they can only come up with things like that. [Interjections.] As I was saying, in the argument which the hon. member for Maitland put forward during the Second Reading debate, he intimated that the Group Areas Act had lacked character for years, as he says that this legislation which we are now debating restores the true character of the Act. Therefore, for years it was an abnormal and characterless Act, as the hon. member puts it, which has been implemented in the country. If this Act was abnormal and characterless, I do not want to see what misery this normal Act is going to bring about.

For these reasons this side of the House will oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Kuruman, particularly if one bore in mind that we were members of the same party from 1965 up to the beginning of 1982, did things together and experienced, accepted and supported evolutionary legislation together. However, if the hon. member will pardon me, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Sandton for a moment and then return to his speech.

What interested me with regard to the hon. member for Sandton was not his speech as such, but the admission he made in consequence of what passed between him and the hon. member for Maitland by way of a question and an interjection. The hon. member was asked whether, now that he supported the legislation and agreed that the legislation was a way to promote international sport for our sportsmen, he would propagandize it. If I understood the hon. member correctly, the answer was an unequivocal yes. The propagandization of this matter by the PFP has been conspicious by its absence, and we have never heard the hon. member for Sandton make a good contribution outside this House and make propaganda by saying that he supported South Africa’s sportsmen. Nor has he ever said that he was asking overseas countries to accept South African sportsmen whatever restrictions there might be. Now that the restrictions have been removed, I am asking him and any other hon. members of the PFP whether they will do so. I should like to invite him to do so, because I think this is a golden opportunity for him to make a name for himself in South Africa.

You come very late in the day.

Yes, it may be rather late in the day, but it is never too late for anyone to do a good deed and that is why I have invited the hon. member to do so.

It was he who said the Springboks should not tour New Zealand. [Interjections.]

I have already mentioned that it was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Kuruman. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member in the sense that we are friends, but when it comes to logic, I must tell him that this afternoon he was as unable to understand the situation as he was three weeks ago. He completely misunderstood the situation and this is quite clear from his reasoning. I am not saying this in a nasty way, but in a nice way. I am really trying to bring this home to the hon. member in a friendly manner. I believe the hon. the Minister will himself react to many of the points the hon. member touched on, but perhaps it is as well for us to try to clear up a few matters.

When a debate such as this takes place in this House, it is time to ask whether we should not reconsider matters and get our priorities straight. A few weeks ago we were all agreed that there was a total onslaught on South Africa.

Who is denying it?

Good, we are not denying it; we are all agreed on this. Wonderful! The question is so much clearer then: Is it in any way a priority that we should differ on this type of thing? Let us return to the days when we argued about a matter like lifts in a Sanlam building. Let us return to the days when we argued about matters such as notice boards above lifts.

Those were the good old days.

They were the good old days, when the hon. member for Langlaagte agreed with us. Since he has differed from us they have become the good old days. Let us discuss those good old days.

The legislation we are now dealing with, did not come as a surprise to the hon. members opposite. Surely it was nothing new to them. Surely it resulted from the evolution of this party’s policy over the years. The hon. member for Kuruman specifically referred to the sports policy since 1965. He said up to 1965 the situation had been such and such. Since 1965 and up to the beginning of 1982 the hon. member went along with us in this party as regards the evolutionary things that it was necessary to accept, in order to meet the changed circumstances. Now in 1982 we are introducing legislation which results from and is the same as the Liquor Amendment Act that we placed on the Statute Book in 1981 and that was accepted by the hon. member and every hon. member of the Conservative Party.

At that stage you and I were in agreement. Now you and the Progs are in agreement.

If the hon. member could just control his emotions for a while, we could try to reason things out logically. We need not scream and shout at each other. We should rather put reasonable and honest questions to each other. I feel I am entitled to ask the hon. member this: What difference or altered implications did the Liquor Amendment Bill supported by the hon. member last year introduce that the Bill now before us does not introduce? Surely there is no difference, except that the hon. member now belongs to another party. If the only difference lies in the fact that the hon. member’s principles have changed, I accept that since 1981 he has undergone certain changes in principle.

I rejected power-sharing, just as you did; but now you accept it.

It is true that recently hon. members of the Conservative Party have undergone fundamental changes in policy in respect of matters they supported in the past. I therefore want to put a question to the hon. member for Germiston District, or to the hon. member for Langlaagte—he can reply to it later in the debate—or to the hon. the leader of the Conservative Party: Are they going to avail themselves of the opportunity to nominate a candidate in the by-election which is going to take place in Germiston District within the next few months, and state their policy as it has just been formulated?

Yes.

Thank you very much. When one begins to debate matters of this kind, one should ask oneself a few more questions.

I now want to turn to the hon. member for Langlaagte, who I believe will react later in the debate. Is the change in the legislation under discussion really so substantial that the hon. member cannot agree with it? If the hon. member cannot agree with this, does he stand by his statement that it is his policy that he believes that Coloureds should sit with Whites in this Parliament?

Finish your speech first.

Very well, then, I assume that the hon. member for Langlaagte will react to this later.

I now want to return to the legislation before this House. Surely coercion is not an integral part of the legislation. The hon. member for Kuruman argued that the legislation would mean the destruction of White clubs and institutions, and by this he was implying that the Goverment was in some or other way forcing people to accept it. If this legislation incorporates the destruction of White clubs, an element of coercion must exist to compel people to accept the legislation. But I cannot find any coercion in this legislation. On the contrary. It allows for a free choice, and as such it is still the same policy as the Government has been propagating since 1965. The policy is that autonomy is granted to the relevant persons and institutions, and this is a policy that all the hon. members of the Conservative Party supported in the past. Only during the past three weeks, and particularly the past few days, have they undergone a change of opinion. Nothing is preventing anyone from establishing a club, or if the club is already established, to decide who may be a member, who may be admitted as a guest, how long guests may be present and whether they may be there 24 hours a day. Surely there is therefore no problem. That is why, in reply to the statements made by the hon. member for Kuruman, the hon. the Minister immediately reacted by saying that the hon. member did not understand the legislation. I am not quarrelling with the hon. member. I am sorry for him and I am trying to set him straight. That is why I am trying to convince him that he should not vote against this legislation. He should vote with us, as he did in the past.

With you and the Progs. [Interjections.]

Let us consider that point for a moment. [Interjections.]

Order!

Today I want to make something quite clear. I do not care who votes with me, as long as I know I am right. That is why I do not mind and I do not feel bad if the Progs vote with us, as long as I know our principle and our decisions are correct. Then I invite them to vote with us. To tell the truth, I shall go even further and invite those hon. members to vote with us as well. The question is not who will vote with me, the question is whether I am right or wrong. As long as I am right, anyone can vote with me. If I am wrong, however, and do not want to vote with someone else, I remain in the wrong. That is the difference between us. I agree with the policy of the Government, and I am glad that the Progs may vote with us, but I am sorry that those hon. members are going to do the wrong thing and vote against this measure. That is my reply to that aspect.

The hon. member for Kuruman raised the point that the element of objection will be removed by this legislation as far as individuals are concerned. The hon. the Minister said by way of interjection that this was not true. If the hon. member can point out where in this legislation this element is taken away or is in any way being jeopardized threatened, I shall be prepared to vote with him, but I cannot find it anywhere. One can read this piece of legislation word for word. This element is not affected positively or negatively. I therefore think the misfortune of the hon. member for Kuruman is that he does not fully understand the implications of the legislation. I think he must reconsider it. I am saying this in a good spirit. I think, with all due respect, that I have already pointed out to the hon. member for Kuruman several times where he went wrong. If any of his party associates are going to speak after me, I should like to hear whether they can point out any incorrect arguments I have used here.

I now want to put a question, and I should be glad if an hon. member of that party would subsequently react to it. I am saying this under correction now, because I do not have the exact words in front of me, but I think the hon. member for Kuruman said the question of mixed clubs, of integrated clubs, the question of reciprocal visits between clubs of various population groups is fundamentally unacceptable to him and his party. Is that correct?

Mixed clubs.

Very well then, mixed clubs. And visitors? Are they also unacceptable? [Interjections.] If this is a principle that is so fundamental that those hon. members are going to vote against this legislation, surely we must have clarity on the different facets of the functioning of this legislation. What do we mean by mixed clubs? Is it merely a question of membership or …. [Interjection.] Yes, those hon. members can react in a moment. Is it a question of membership, of visits, of participation in sport or the fact that people have a few drinks together? After all, the hon. member for Langlaagte is opposed to drinking of any kind. [Interjections.] Which of those facets are included here? I should also be glad if those hon. members would give a further answer to a fundamental question. If they had the opportunity, which Acts of this nature would they repeal? Would they repeal this Act, and would they also repeal the Liquor Amendment Act, which they voted for last year?

Mr. Speaker, to put the hon. the Minister’s mind at rest by letting him know that he will get the majority vote, let me say at the outset that we in these benches are going to support the Bill. [Interjections.] We are going to support the Bill because it is an improvement on the Act as it stands at present. Quite obviously, as has been indicated as the debate on this Bill progressed, we would have liked certain additional modifications, but they do not find favour in the eyes of the hon. the Minister at the moment. We do, however, anticipate that at some stage in the future, in so far as the first part of the clause is concerned, the amendment will be introduced so that it will not necessarily apply to the majority of shares being held but only to some shares being held by the Small Business Development Corporation. We believe this amendment will come in due course.

At this stage I should like to just make a comment to the effect that, although the hon. member for Maitland made the point that the hon. member for Sandton very grudgingly gave his support, we in these benches do not give in grudgingly. We are very happy to give this our support.

Well done.

We would, however, like to be assured that the reasons for this amendment are sound reasons. By that I mean that they should not be based on fear of what would happen if one did not introduce this amendment. We would like to feel that the reasons are good, sound evolutionary reasons …

I gave that as the reason.

… and that it is because it is right and just that this being done, and not because we are frightened that there would otherwise be insurrection in the country, as are the hon. members of the PFP, and not because it is feared that the people overseas would ostracize us in sport. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has brought these amendments with those background fears in mind. I believe he has put them forward because he realizes that this is part of the evolutionary process. We have different ideas as to the speed of the evolutionary process, but we believe that if this is approached with the right idea, we can only proceed from strength to strength, because once one gets a proper appreciation of the justice of what is happening, quite obviously further improvements will be made.

I do not wish to get involved in the argument between the hon. members of the Conservative Party and the hon. members of the NP, but I would gently point out that a conservative is a rather unusual sort of beast, because conservatism seems to have so many faces. I like to consider myself as a conservative. I have been a conservative turn of mind for pretty well my whole political-thinking life.

Then you must join us.

I think one must get the right appreciation of the meaning of the word “conservative”. If one stops to have a look at the situation, one finds that politics is an evolutionary process. Let me put it another way. The PFP today is more liberal than it was when it came into being originally. They talked about a qualified franchise and said that anyone who did not come up to certain standards should not have the vote. That was the position in 1959. Let me go one step further and say that the NP of today is more liberal than the United Party was in 1959. [Interjections.] Yes, let me be quite honest about it. The United Party in those days used to talk about White leadership with justice. That was part of their political scheme. However, the politics in which we are all living and working is an evolutionary business, and evolution seems to take the form of political parties progressing in the direction of more freedoms and more rights—possibly less privileges, but more rights. This is what is happening in the NP today. The NP is evolving and is wanting to give greater rights. This is where I find it a little regrettable that such a charming group of people as the hon. members of the Conservative Party—they really are very pleasant people—seem to have mistaken conservatism for reaction. This is what I am a little worried about, because conservatism will always take the best from the past and proceed into the future …

Of course. That is exactly what we are doing.

… but true conservatism does not look back with nostalgia at the past. This is what worries me about certain attitudes that seem to be manifesting themselves in this House at the present moment.

As far as the NRP is concerned, this particular improvement seems to indicate that political evolution is taking place within the governing party, which is natural. It would be unnatural if it were not taking place. We on these benches are very happy to see this taking place, and this is why I said right at the outset that we can support this Bill. Not only can we support it but we can support it with unalloyed pleasure, except that we feel that it could have gone a little further.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to hon. members’ speeches this afternoon. The more one studies this Bill, the more one realizes that separate development is quite dead. [Interjections.] I can no longer call hon. members in the Government side the NP, but rather the governing party, because they do not express the principles of the NP; they follow PFP policy. [Interjections.]

You might as well sit down; I do not feel like wearying myself by listening to you any longer.

That hon. Minister would do well to remain calm. He can go and create law and order elsewhere; not here.

He must go back to Lichtenburg. [Interjections.]

Why were you not there? Where were you then?

You did not want me there! [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us consider what has happened. The Government is afraid to abandon or repeal the Group Areas Act. What are they doing now? They are emasculating this Act by inserting a further provision. They are merely inserting a provision because they do not have the courage of their convictions to say that they no longer believe in the Group Areas Act. They are now inserting one provision and thereby doing everything necessary to throw the Group Areas Act overboard. [Interjections.] We in this House are faced with a situation in which people are trapped in a situation in which people of the left-wing, right-wing and moderate groups have remained in the NP. Those people are now unable to reach a decision and now, under the leadership of the hon. member for Piketberg, they are trying to achieve integration step by step. That hon. Minister is a clever little man. [Interjections.] For example, he is gradually introducing integration, step by step.

Healthy integration. [Interjections.]

I just wish to point out the implications of this legislation to hon. members. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs can help me in this regard. I see that from January to December, 558 Coloureds were declared White. Was this done to permit them to continue to live in White areas?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the legislation under discussion.

In terms of the legislation before us, all group areas are now being thrown open for the exercise of sport.

Order! That matter is not at issue now. It affects the principle of the Act itself. [Interjections.]

Since influx control is now being abolished entirely …

Where? Where is this being done? [Interjections.]

I know that many hon. members do not understand this. [Interjections.] Because non-Whites may now be in any White area 24 hours of the day, while sport is practised there, and no one has the right to remove them from there, for that reason I contend that this tampers with influx control. [Interjections.] The other day the hon. member did me a considerable injustice. I am not one to complain about injustices, but I do just want us to decide on the truth of matters in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister told me, and I quote (Hansard, 17 March 1982)—

It is an article of my faith not to attend any sports meeting of whatever nature on a Sunday. I never attend sports meetings on a Sunday and I challenge anyone inside or outside this House to tell me that he saw me at any time at an organized or unorganized sports meeting on a Sunday. I want to take the matter further and ask that the hon. the Minister withdraw that statement of his. I want to go even further and ask that we appoint a Select Committee to test the truth of this statement by the hon. Minister. [Interjections.] Let us test the truth of this statement. We can discuss this matter in the time at our disposal, and I want to point out that hon. members on the Government side have ascribed certain things to me. Hon. members sitting with me in the group heard the hon. the Minister tell me that I had a share in the drafting of this Bill specifically the wording of clause 6. He alleged that I sat there together with him. I put it to the hon. the Minister that that is an untruth.

Where was your leader sitting?

I say it is an untruth. It is not true. [Interjections.]

Your leader was sitting sleeping; and you?

If hon. members who were in the group with me want to be honest, they will confess that this legislation was never discussed there.

What about your leader?

What does it matter?

The hon. member for Turffontein keeps on asking me questions about my leader.

Yes; after all, he was in the Cabinet, was he not?

Just listen to that. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why those old “Sappe” are being so pugnacious towards us now. [Interjections.] They must please just give us the opportunity to fight our own fights.

Oh! That means, of course, that you are still fighting!

The fact is that the hon. the Minister put it to us very clearly in this House that he was going to introduce certain legislation. However, he added, and I quote (Hansard, Volume 96, col. 845)—

We discussed that envisaged legislation here, and the hon. the Minister said that he intended introducing it this year. The aim was to place the onus on the offender himself and no longer on the owner or lessor of the property.

What has that to do with this legislation?

I still want to know whether the hon. the Minister intends introducing that legislation.

But tell me what that has to do with the legislation?

No, the hon. the Minister should just be patient.

No, the hon. the Minister must reply now.

I maintain that the hon. the Minister is going to drop that legislation that was envisaged. In terms of the Bill at present under discussion he is now throwing everything open so that people of colour may use sports facilities everywhere, so that they may now establish sports clubs in White communities, sports clubs which they can then use in such a way that they can stay there 24 hours of every day whenever they like, without anyone being able to touch them. This is what is going to happen, because the legislation we are dealing with now makes the Group Areas Act totally powerless.

The hon. member for Maitland wanted to know from me whether I had said the Indians and Coloureds should have representation in this Parliament. The subject did come up for discussion. That is true.

What did you say then?

I said that the Government should state its standpoint and state clearly whether it wanted them in this Parliament. I said that the Government should just make its standpoint clear on the question whether Indians and Coloureds ought to be on a common voters’ roll together with the Whites. [Interjections.]

And what did you say then?

I shall say what I said. The point is that the Government has been in power for almost 34 years now, and there is still not a single solution for the Coloured question.

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

No, the hon. member should sit down now. He has already had his opportunity to speak. I have found that that hon. member and many of the other hon. members make the statement that someone or other said that something or other was going to happen. However, there is no point in that. Hon. members must confine themselves to the provisions of this Bill and show me where that appears in the Bill. According to a newspaper report the hon. the Minister of Law and Order said the other day that he could no longer maintain order in Hillbrow.

You are shooting a line now.

The report appears in the newspaper. The hon. the Minister may not have read it, but I accept it.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

The issue is law and order in those areas where there is an influx. This influx causes the people who are lawfully at those places to be crowded out. For example, let us take the Rand stadium. In terms of the Act the Rand stadium is closed, because thousands of non-Whites came to play soccer on Saturdays and Sundays and because a great deal of damage was done to houses and fences. The Swallows or any other club may now, together with their guests, come and re-apply, and they may come and play in the Rand Stadium again. In other words, whereas previously they were prevented from doing so in terms of the Act, they will be able to apply in future and play in that stadium again. Do those hon. members maintain that they are not going to discriminate now?

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

The hon. the Minister should just give me a chance. My time has almost expired. I just wish to put one question to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] When one is in control, one must remain in control. The hon. the Minister of Community Development knows jackals.

Yes.

He says that certain types of jackal have two holes.

Yes.

I, too, am acquainted with this type of jackal. Does the hon. the Minister know when a jackal has two holes? It is when he has been with dogs in the veld for a long time. It is when they have chased him around for a long time. He then uses two holes. But not when a jackal is a clean little jackal.

This Bill destroys the Group Areas Act. What I ask from the Government is honesty. What did the hon. member for Sea Point say in this regard? He said (Hansard, 19 March 1982)—

†The hon. member is a person who, in my opinion, knows something about the Group Areas Act. Although we differ completely on other matters, I agree with him that the Group Areas Act is being scrapped here.