Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on page 91 of the Order Paper, as follows—

As hon. members will know, nine years ago almost to the day I introduced a Private Member’s Bill in this House to repeal section 16 of Act No. 23 of 1957. Section 16 is of course the section that governs interracial sex relations, i.e. sex relations across the colour-line, and makes it an offence which on conviction is punishable by a maximum sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment. I want to say that in most cases this heavy sentence is not imposed. Generally a sentence of six months’ imprisonment is imposed and even this is often suspended. I make no excuse for re-introducing a motion nine years later, a motion which is very much the same as the one I introduced before. A great deal has happened in the world since 1962. Man has reached the moon, for instance. It is just possible that hon. members in this House may have changed their views on this particular question. It is possible that they might have advanced sufficiently in their thinking to re-assess the value of a law which more than almost any other law, just because it is a highly charged emotional issue concerning colour and involving the most intimate of human relations, has brought notoriety and ridicule upon South Africa. Hon. members will have noticed that together with the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act I have included in the motion the repeal forthwith the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (Act 55 of 1949). I believe it is consequential to do this. This Act is the one which prohibits marriage between Whites and Non-Whites. I said this in 1962 when I introduced my Private Member’s Bill and the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, agreed with this proposition. He argued that if he had accepted my Bill to repeal section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act remained on the Statute Book, and I quote him now “the result would be that this House would be placing its stamp of approval on the conduct of unmarried people who give free rein to their carnal pleasures …” he meant across the Colour-line of course … “while denying the right to people to live together in decency as married couples”. The original Minister who introduced the Immorality Act in 1950 also agreed with this when he introduced that as a corollary to the Mixed Marriages Act of 1949. He summed it up very neatly by saying that we would otherwise “be placing a premium on immorality”. That is right and I agree with it. When I introduced my Bill in 1962 I said: “I must obviously advocate the repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 because it is quite wrong to make it legally impossible for people to sanctify in marriage, relations which are legally admissible in extra-marital relations.” In other words, it should obviously not be illegal for people to marry when it is legal for them to live together illicitly. Just as section 16 of the Immorality Act was a natural corollary of the Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 so I believe is the repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act a corollary of the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act.

I want to say at once that I am not panic-stricken at the thought of a South Africa without the Mixed Marriages Act. Strangely enough, we got along very well indeed before it was passed and I am pretty sure that racial purity would not be endangered after it is repealed. It is not the Mixed Marriages Act that saved White South Africa, as figures show. Less than one per cent of Whites contracted marriages across the Colour-line in 1935. Less than 3 per 1,000 of all races contracted mixed marriages in 1936, according to the report of the Mixed Marriages Commission. In the year before the Act was passed, i.e. in 1948, only seventy mixed marriages were contracted in the whole of South Africa. Sir, does anybody in this House believe that if the Mixed Marriages Act were repealed there would be hundreds of people rushing to the altar to enter into mixed marriages? When one thinks of the consequences of crossing the colour line in South Africa, a White person who enters into a mixed marriage must indeed be utterly committed, I believe, to the non-White partner to contemplate such a step. Apart from the social penalties, which are very great indeed, the laws which have been put on the Statute Book with monotonous regularity ever since the Mixed Marriage Act was passed, bear very heavily indeed on anyone who crosses the colour line from White to Coloured, and even more if he or she crosses the colour line from White to African. The Separate Amenities Act and the Group Areas Act immediately lower their status and privileges. They cannot live in or own property in a White area. They cannot enjoy White amenities together with their spouses. But, Sir, the future implications are much worse—the implications to their children—for the Population Registration Act classifies them forever as second class citizens. It means that they lose their franchise in this House; they get no free and compulsory education; and the disadvantages of job reservation and racial discrimination immediately descend upon them.

I say therefore that by the very nature of things in South Africa, it is highly unlikely that there will be a wild rush to the altar of couples wishing to contract mixed marriages if the House accepts this motion today. I also say that those few couples who are prepared to accept all the grim implications of marriage across the colour line in South Africa must want very much indeed to have an enduring relationship and I say that then it is their business and their business alone. This vicious Act—for it is vicious in many ways—makes absolutely no allowance whatever for enduring relationships across the colour line; I am talking now about the Immorality Act. We have had case after case; we had one case where a White man and a Chinese woman have been living together for 18 years. They have four children, the eldest of whom is 14, and they were charged under the Immorality Act. Then there is the case of the White man and the Coloured girl aged 20 who were married in England in 1967. They had two children and they were convicted in the magistrate’s court in 1969 under the Immorality Act. The conviction was set aside on appeal because the wife was obviously White in appearance. We have this strange definition in this Act. We have many definitions to suit different Acts; we have a chameleon-like quality in South Africa on colour definitions. The wife was classified as Coloured because her birth certificate showed that the parents were mixed. We had the notorious Jacqueson case which resulted in tremendous adverse overseas publicity for South Africa. All of us in this House remember it, Sir. There were columns and columns in the overseas newspapers about the English girl who had married an Indian South African. They came back here and were charged under the Immorality Act.

I anticipate that at some stage during this debate somebody is going to say to me, “Are you in favour of miscegenation?” I am quite sure that this thought has already crossed the minds of many sitting in this House. Sir. my reply to that is that I am no more in favour of miscegenation than members of the Nationalist Party are in favour of immorality that has nothing to do with the mixture of races. Sexual intercourse between unmarried persons of the same race constitutes immorality; adultery constitutes immorality but there are no laws on our Statute Book which make these forms of immorality a crime. Indeed, Sir, until 1927 when the Tielman Roos Act, as it was known, was passed, there was no Union-wide law against sexual relations across the colour line between Whites and Blacks, and until 1950 there was no law at all against sexual relations between White and Coloured persons. That was when the Immorality Act was extended to include all non-White persons and not just sexual relations between White and Black. It might astonish hon. members to know that until 1949 there was no law against mixed marriages in South Africa. There was no machinery for mixed marriages in the Transvaal, but there was no law against the contraction of mixed marriages until 1949. Does one assume that until those dates South Africa was in favour of miscegenation? The old Roman-Dutch law which made adultery a criminal offence was abrogated by disuse long ago in South Africa. The last adultery trial took place in South Africa nearly 60 years ago, in 1914, the case of Green v. Fitzgerald. Prior to that, it was remarked, there had been no criminal prosecutions for adultery in South Africa since 1828. Does this mean, Sir, that for the last 60 to 150 years South Africa has approved of adultery? There is no law against adultery. Illicit sexual relations not across the colour line carry no criminal sanctions either, unless, of course, the girl is under age or mentally retarded. Does this mean that members opposite are in favour of such illicit sexual relations? Of course not.

That is not the aim of the legislation.

Well, then you should call it the Miscegenation Act but in fact it is section 16 of the Immorality Act and it is known as the Immorality Act throughout this country. Sir, what it does mean is that even members opposite realize that there are certain actions which, even though disapproved of and even though they may be an affront to society, ought not to carry criminal sanctions. It is not possible to make every immoral or even undesirable act such as miscegenation a crime. One has to draw the line somewhere and in a case of extra-marital sexual relations and immorality not affecting colour, the line has been drawn in such a way that if the conduct of two people does not really affect society as a whole, their actions are not subject to criminal sanctions. Judge Rose-Innes, in giving judgment in that last adultery case, said—

The case that I am trying to make out now is exactly the same: it applies to immorality across the colour line.

Sir, in the nearly 21 years that the Immorality Act has been on the Statute Book more than 8,485 people have been convicted under section 16; more than twice that number have been charged under section 16. That makes an average of four per working day, every single day. That was the situation last year in particular. Less than half the people charged have been found guilty in almost every year. I might say that there has been a sharp increase in the number of people who have been prosecuted and found guilty since 1957, and that is because in 1957 amendments were introduced into this House that brought attempts or incitement to commit any indecent or immoral act across the colour line within the purview of section 16. That meant that it was considerably broadened in its scope and there were many more prosecutions and many more people were found guilty.

Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has referred to the Immorality Act as “die kleinste van klein apartheid”, and in the sense in which he used that expression I will not quarrel with it. But to my mind it is one of the cruellest Acts on our Statute Book. Hardly a week goes by without one’s reading sickening reports of the misery and degradation that it has brought to family after family—broken marriages and suicides. The ravages of this measure on human lives can be gauged by a most cursory glance at the newspapers. Hardly a day goes by that one does not pick up a newspaper without coming across some sickening headline. I might say that even acquittal under the Immorality Act means a lasting stigma on the accused. A retired police officer who was acquitted of a charge under the Immorality Act some years ago said, “I would rather be charged with murder”. Sir, will those involved in the Excelsior fiasco ever forget what happened to them? Will they ever be allowed to forget what happened to them? Judge Schreiner remarked some years ago that miscegenation has been elevated into a crime so atrocious as to make all other crimes relatively venial. Let me give the House a few examples of what this Act has done to people. Between 1958 and 1968 at least ten cases of suicide of White men who had been prosecuted under section 16 were reported. One, a 65-year old man, killed himself by pouring petrol over himself and setting himself alight. One man killed not only himself but his two children also. Between October, 1970, and February, 1971, at least five men have committed suicide after being charged under section 16. One of them of course was in the Excelsior case. We see headline after headline, like “Father of four hangs himself in police cell”, “Man of 63 gases himself”, “Wife slams evil morals law. ‘I stand by my husband’.” So the headlines read. Sir, when all the heated words have been said, what exactly does this law do? It punishes, and that is sufficient reason for its retention for many of the hon. members opposite, because many of them are very vengeful people. The punishment that society will inflict on transgressors of the social code is not enough for them. The whole ugly drama has to be enacted right to the last scene, the court scene, where the public disgrace may be translated into a prison sentence. And of course there are the crowds of sadistic and sensation-craving people who pack the courts, and the world press prints all the salacious details to South Africa’s detriment. I am told that something like 31 newspapermen and television men converged on Excelsior in order to report this case.

Now we are told solemnly and sanctimoniously that the law is there to preserve the White man’s identity. I ask whether the White man needs a law to preserve his identity. If the answer is yes, then I say the White man’s identity will not be preserved. It is true, of course, that when the original Act was introduced and when the 1957 amendments were introduced, the then Minister of Justice denied hotly that this law was necessary for South Africans. It is true, he said, that there are some weaklings who need some protection from their baser instincts. This was Mr. Swart, when he was Minister of Justice. He said the only reason for the legislation was not that “we as South Africans could not behave ourselves, but we needed legislation for the foreigners who came here and who did not have the same sentiments that we had”. Well, I am glad to say that we do not hear this argument any more. That is gone. What we hear, of course, are thunderings against the permissive society. Well, that is at least a little more honest because the facts would certainly not bear out the contention that mainly foreigners are involved in immorality cases. Good old South African names are for the most part involved.

Now there was one argument in favour of section 16 which was used by the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, when I introduced my Bill in 1962. I call it the “protection” argument. He said that the Immorality Act protected Bantu and Coloured girls against unscrupulous people who had money and influence and position, and he said that Coloured and Bantu parents are grateful to the Government for protecting their daughters. Well, that may be true of the African people. I do not know. I doubt it myself, but I cannot say that I know for certain. But as recently as 28th January this year spokesmen of both the major Coloured political parties bitterly attacked and demanded the repeal of the Immorality Act. The Coloured Representative Council demanded the repeal of the Immorality Act. Now I would say, too, that there are other laws to protect the daughters of Africans and Coloureds. There are laws against rape, including sexual intercourse under duress. Indeed, only a little while ago we had a case where a traffic officer abused his position and took advantage of his position of authority in order to have sexual intercourse with an African woman. The Judge was extremely strict about this and sentenced the man to eight years’ imprisonment for raping this woman. Although she had suffered no harm, the evidence was that she had submitted to the man because of his uniform and his position of authority. There are laws against it. There are laws against prostitution, and as for non-White women who agree to sexual intercourse across the colour line, the law does not protect them; the law punishes them. They go to gaol, and sometimes they go to gaol while the White male gets off scotfree because he is defended and the woman is not. There have been cases where six African women were convicted while the White co-accused were discharged, and we have had other cases where African women have gone to gaol and the sentences of the White men were in fact suspended, in one case because of the man’s age.

In the end the argument comes down to the law as a deterrent, and here I do not think anybody can speak with any great certainty. Is it the penalty that the law will impose which is the deterrent, or is it the fear of being found out that is the deterrent? Is the urge to have sexual relations across the colour line so strong that miscegenation will increase greatly throughout the length and breadth of the country if this motion is accepted despite all the social taboos and the strong adverse emotions? Is it not rather ironic to be trying to stop miscegenation in this way in a country where 2 million people are already of mixed blood?

It has been suggested that the law should not be repealed, but that there should rather be a full-scale commission of inquiry appointed to go into the administration of the Act. I know that in 1962 the United Party asked for a select committee of this House to be appointed. I gather from what the United Party has been saying that it would now like a judicial commission. I have no doubt that one of its spokesmen will tell me why they have altered their request. I assume, however, that neither the hon. member for Durban North nor the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is going to provide this answer, since both of them are on record as saying that this is a vicious law which should be scrapped. Unless they have been misquoted in the Sunday Times, both of them have said that the Immorality Law must be scrapped. I quote: “Immorality Law must be scrapped, says Mr. Basson.” According to this newspaper, the hon. member for Durban North said: “The Immorality Act is an unnecessary Act and the White race has maintained its identity by its own inherent strength and its own moral code. One does not need laws to do it.” However, no doubt somebody from the U.P. will tell us why they now want an inquiry.

Sir, can section 16 be improved by better administration? I very much doubt it. For one thing, this repulsive law can only be enforced by the most degrading means. Both parties in terms of this section are guilty of a crime and in the vast majority of cases such an offence can only be detected by informers spying on their neighbours, as apparently happened in Excelsior, by policemen acting as peeping toms, peering into parked cars or climbing trees, or looking into bedrooms. I maintain that they could be better employed tracking down the perpetrators of violent crimes. The Police can only track these offenders down by the more degrading methods of feeling the sheets of beds to see if they are still warm, not to mention making suspects submit to medical examination to determine whether or not intercourse has taken place. I am glad to say that recently we have had no further cases of Black women being used as traps in immorality cases. I am very glad that that practice has been discontinued. I do not believe that a law like this can be “nicely” administered.

Exercising great care before prosecution is another method that has been suggested. Sir, this instruction was given years ago. I remember that the Minister in 1962 assured the House that Attorneys-General and the prosecutors “exercise the greatest care in deciding in connection with these cases whether they should prosecute or whether they should not prosecute”. So, despite Excelsior, which I believe was the finest example of official bungling since the Immorality Act was passed in 1950, I do not think we need an inquiry to establish the fact that there are people who are charged under the Immorality Act who should not have been, despite the special care that is supposed to be exercised. I do not know how you go further than instructing people to exercise the greatest possible care. While I am mentioning Excelsior, I wonder if the hon. the Minister would like to take the opportunity of commenting upon a report which appeared in the London Observer. I have no doubt that he has seen it. The Observer is a very widely read newspaper. The article gives the following reason for the withdrawal of proceedings at Excelsior and reads as follows—

In other words, this means that these forced confessions were the main reason why these women could not be brought to court. I think the hon. the Minister ought to take this opportunity of refuting this report if it is not true. I think at the same time he ought to tell us why the other 30 witnesses who were willing to testify and who were not accomplices were not called. Perhaps he would also like to tell us why it is that the women accused at Excelsior were held in jail awaiting trial if in fact there was no evidence against them.

A third suggestion has been made for a way in which to offset the public degradation that follows charges in the courts of law, and that is to hold trials in camera This is another suggestion that has been made over the years. I want to say at once that I am against this form of evasion of the consequences of the law. Every person who is charged with a crime, must endure the odium of publicity. It is, of course, our excessive preoccupation with colour which makes this crime a particularly heinous one, one which brings in its wake a particularly lurid form of sensationalism and social ostracism. I do not believe that closing the courts and holding trials in camera will help. I think that rumour and speculation as to the identity of the people charged will be rife. I say that either section 16 of the Immorality Act is a good law and should remain on the Statute Book, in which case it ought to stand the test of open trial in the court, which I think is a corner-stone of justice, or it is a law which ought not to be on our Statute Book, in which case it ought to be repealed. I do not think that secret trials to cover the ugliness of the Immorality Act or anonymity to protect those prosecuted is a good suggestion. I believe that that is tinkering with normal criminal procedures and with the administration of justice in a most dangerous way.

Sir, I do not think we need an inquiry or select committee, as we know all the facts and misery which the Immorality Act has caused over the years. I have newspaper cutting after newspaper cutting written by highly qualified people, who all call for the repeal of the Act. There are those who ask for an inquiry. For every one asking for an inquiry, I can match it with an equally reputable person who calls for a repeal of that Act. We know that for the Immorality Act to be implemented, requires use of the most unpleasant methods. There is no nice way to implement this crude law. We know that, with exercise of the greatest care, bungling takes place. We know too that the law, as an instrument of social control, is at best a clumsy instrument. As long as society frowns on miscegenation in South Africa, there will not be a great deal of miscegenation. There will inevitably be some on the fringes but there will not be a great deal of it. I believe that if social conventions and its moral and religious strictures cannot control social behaviour regarding sex across the colour line no law will be able to do it. We know that this law has brought in its wake nothing but misery and degradation. It is a blackmailer’s delight. We know that thousands of people have been affected and had their lives ruined and their families wrecked by being dragged into court for an act which is only a crime because colour is involved. We know too that this measure and its corollary, the Mixed Marriages Act, have brought shame and notoriety on South Africa at home and abroad.

It is my contention, Sir, that political leaders should lead and not lag behind public opinion. I am sure that, as far as section 16 of the Immorality Act is concerned, this House lags far behind public opinion. I believe that it lags behind the English as well as the Afrikaans Press. It lags behind a broad section of the public which has grown increasingly disgusted with this law. I believe further that there is only one course of action we should follow, namely to repeal section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. I want to conclude by saying that I think a matter such as this one should not be a matter of party politics. I believe that this should be discussed across the floor of this House with the utmost freedom and without any of the shackles of the party whip. I ask that both major parties, the Nationalist Party and the United Party, allow this motion to come to a vote and that a free vote be allowed on this motion in the House.

It was with interest that I listened to the hon. member for Houghton’s speech in regard to this Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. If I followed her argument correctly, it seems to me that the hon. member’s standpoint is based exclusively on the argument that we should not have this Act on the Statute Book, but that there should exclusively be an ethical and moral sanction against this deed. The hon. member went on to furnish us with a lot of, one can almost say bloody, details of certain incidents arising out of this Act. She again made the statement that opinion overseas is mounting tremendously against South Africa in regard to this Immorality Act. She also said that the suffering and sorrow which such crime could cause, was quite sufficient to have this Act scrapped from the Statute Book. Every law which is contravened and every serious crime which is committed brings suffering and sorrow to the criminal his family and to all those dependent on him. This applies to every aspect of his life, and it brings about a complete change in his life. This does not apply only to the Immorality Act. That is why that argument of the hon. member is not a valid one. It is a general statement that everyone who is found guilty of committing a serious crime causes a measure of sorrow, and that they commit their crime as a calculated risk.

As far as overseas opinion is concerned, I am afraid that the hon. member for Houghton makes the mistake of emphasizing this entire position and of basing her standpoint on the standpoint of a European. I want to put it to hon. members in this way, i.e. that in Europe there are no sanctions against miscegenation as such. The hon. member adopts that same premise, i.e. that there is nothing wrong with miscegenation. This is an un-South African standpoint. It is a European norm which is only valid in Europe. I must concede to the hon. member that I am a person who gives very serious thought to the matter when it comes to overseas opinion. I am very eager to have people overseas understand the situation in South Africa correctly. It need not, as far as we are concerned, necessarily be favourable, they must simply understand it correctly. I am a great stickler for this, but in this specific case the hon. member must not forget that there are two different norms. The hon. member makes the mistake of adopting a premise here which maintains that there is nothing wrong with miscegenation as such. That is a mistake, because in South Africa there is a different social norm. In South Africa there is a norm, established in the course of our history, which maintains that no immoral acts may be committed between Whites and non-Whites. When a country feels strongly about a social offence, this offence must through legislation be construed as a crime in order to give expression to the feeling of its people. If I may formulate it like this, a crime is a deed which is committed in contravention of the social and moral norms of a people. In this case one can say without fear of contradiction that in South Africa there is a deeply-rooted aversion to miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites. No matter what we did, the criticism abroad would continue. We would have to abolish the entire Act if we wanted to avoid all that criticism, because the norms are different. Here in South Africa we feel that we must act in this way, and people from overseas view us from a different standpoint, because in their country the same social circumstances which justify such a norm do not exist. When those people come to South Africa from abroad, one can observe that within a month they tell us that they understand why we do not want a miscegenation between White and non-White. They can see that the background, the people and the historical development is different. They can appreciate why we have built up such a norm which lays down that miscegenation is an evil.

The hon. member told us about the suicides. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who have suffered under this Act, and who committed an offence under the Act. My attitude towards people is not a callous one, but the fact that people commit suicide means in actual fact that they realize that they have contravened a code of social behaviour. That means that that code of social behaviour is so strong that it can move a man to commit suicide. That is once again the justification for this Act. It is proof that this Act is rooted in South African social norms. Apart from the Act itself, the mere fact that a stigma attaches to the person is enough to drive him to suicide. If there was ever justification for an Act, it is the incidents mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton. That is why I want to tell her that seen from the point of view of the norms of South Africa there is no possibility of this Act being abolished, because such a move would be completely at variance with the feelings of our people.

I should like to say a few words about the application of this Act. This Act is of course, as with all acts, applied by our Police and by our courts. I want to say at once that we must never forget that in a Police Force of 30,000 members, those men whom we have put into uniform will not in every possible case act as if they were parade ground soldiers who have never made a mistake in their lives. We have here a Force of 35,000 people, among whom there must be people who are sometimes guilty of dereliction of duty, sometimes of negligence and sometimes even of deliberate ill-intent. But this does not mean that our Police Force in these specific cases acts in the manner the hon. member for Houghton wants to impute to them, that they act brutally, feel the temperature of the blankets, etc.

They have to do it.

They do it, yes, because the hon. member does not do it. The hon. member must not forget that we are the public. We place a policeman there. Why do we do so? To do that work for us. He must go and do that dirty work, and then we want to be ungrateful in the House of Assembly and criticize him for doing his duty. Surely that is not fair.

The law, not the police.

These people must do it. They have no choice. They find it as unpleasant as I would. I can affirm that most of the time this unenviable and ungrateful task is carried out by our Police with very great tact and efficiency. One must not forget that in the case of this crime it is extremely difficult to arrest the criminal. While there may be other crimes which are also committed in the dark, this crime is, in addition, kept as quiet as possible.

I think it is our duty in this Assembly here this afternoon to say that the Police do after all apply many safety measures when working with this Act, because they realize that they are not dealing with an ordinary abnormal deed of a person. They realize that the basis of this deed is a sexual drive which all people have. That is why they are extremely careful. Let me just furnish hon. members with a true example of these safety measures which are applied by our Police. Except in cases where people are caught red-handed, the arrests, where possible, are made under the supervision of an officer. I am saying “where possible”—it is not always possible. But in most cases a policeman acts under the guidance of his officer. These officers are people who are fully equipped to deal with the various kinds of crimes. Here, arrests only take place when the officer is satisfied that it is time to act. I want to inform the hon. member for Houghton that often, when an immoral relationship develops between a White man and a non-White woman or a non-White man and a White woman, the Police warn these people that that immoral association must be terminated. Action is taken with great discretion. I also want to inform the hon. member that it is customary to delay arrest as far as possible until such time as the investigation has reached an advanced stage and there has been an opportunity of discussing the case with the Attorney-General or his representative. In other words, it is standing practice that the Department of Police and Justice officials should together decide when an arrest is to be made. I can inform the hon. member that the hon. the Minister of Police has assured me that this last precaution, if this should appear to be necessary, will in future be emphasized again, so that steps can be taken against these people in all justice and fairness. Hon. members will of course realize that these precautions are not always possible, because every investigation differs from every other investigation. It is not always possible to act precisely as prescribed in the regulations, the circular or whatever it is. But I want to inform the public that we will in point of fact have to think twice when we accuse the Police of having acted in such and such a manner. This does not apply to the entire Police Force. I am going to concede again that problems quite probably often arise with our Police. I do not think that we should generalize on the basis of the agitation which is set in motion in regard to the isolated cases which receive publicity in the Press, and speak and think in general terms when this only applies to a few isolated cases.

The other criticism one hears against this Act, is that it affords a person who has an intense dislike for another person an opportunity of getting that innocent person into trouble. The same applies to any other crime. When one has an enemy, it is not impossible to get him implicated in theft or something similar.

There is further protection in regard to this specific crime. Perhaps I could just bring it to the attention of hon. members. After the arrest, when a person appears before the court, we have, as far as sexual crimes are concerned and precisely because there is always the danger of malice, the cautionary rule in our law of evidence. The cautionary rule means that a presiding officer such as a judge or a magistrate, must actively concentrate on being overcautious when dealing with evidence in regard to a sex crime case. He must always bear in mind the possibility that the evidence may perhaps be coloured by personal feelings. This is a cautionary rule which has been laid down by our courts.

In addition we also have the corroborative rule. In terms thereof the various facts which all point to the guilt of a person, must be proved. I do not know whether the hon. member has actually read section 16. I have read section 16 very attentively. I have it here with me and if I must, I can quote it to hon. members. In reading this section I was struck by its fair wording. This Act has been drawn up from the point of view of the accused. It is not merely a summary dismissal of all possible defences. The hon. member quite correctly said that the definition of “White” in this legislation is rather flexible. But do hon. members know why this is the case? It is in favour of the accused. That is the fairness of this Act. The definition of a “White” is stated so fairly that if a person is White in appearance, he or she is, as far as the Immorality Act is concerned, a White person. But it goes further. There is an “or” in this Act. For the purposes of this Act a person is a White if he is White in appearance, and if he is not White in appearance, but is accepted as a White and passes for a White, he is also regarded as being a White for the purposes of this Act. Now what does that mean in practice? The position in regard to Blacks and Whites is quite clear. Judging from the appearance, one can immediately see whether there has been a crime. These people must be careful about that. But now one always finds these borderline cases. Let us take the case of a White man who has a relationship with a Coloured woman. If that person is White in appearance she is deemed to be White for the purposes of this Act. Then there can be no conviction. Or even if she should show signs of being a Coloured Woman, but has been associated with Whites and entered into a bona fide relationship with the White man, they are not guilty. But the Act goes even further. Subsection (3) of this Act introduces a defence, which reads as follows—

That was a United Party amendment of Dr. Smit.

Oh please, I find it a terrible pity now that that hon. member suddenly wants to make a little political propaganda for his party. Perhaps he should wait for a United Party rally before doing so.

Whether it was a United Party amendment or not, this is an Act which was laid down by the National Party Government. And this Act reads that if a person has reasonable cause to believe that the other person is a White person, then that person is accepted as a White person. Can one, in actual fact, have a fairer Act than this one?

I want to sum up by saying that it is clear that we cannot abolish the Act. To do so would be in absolute conflict with the deeply-rooted principles of our people. As far as our police are concerned, we have taken precautions, and the same applies to our courts. As far as the Act itself is concerned, it has been drawn up as fairly as one is able to do. We on this side of the House want to state unequivocally that as far as we are concerned—and all of us stand under the Act—it is a principle among us that there must be no sexual relations across the colour line; this is not for the reasons given by the hon. member for Houghton, because her approach is entirely different, but because it is a South African more, a deeply-rooted more which cannot be changed. It is for that reason that we say that this Act will continue to exist, and we will ensure that it remains on the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Prinshof was indeed remarkable, perhaps even more remarkable when one remembers that he is also a lawyer. He was not prepared to budge one inch about any one part of section 16 of the Immorality Act, not even in its implementation. When one considers what happened at Excelsior, one would have thought that the hon. member would have appealed to the hon. the Minister to do something about the implementation of the Act. He, as a lawyer, should have been horrified by what happened at Excelsior. I am amazed to hear from the hon. member that everyone who committed suicide after having been charged under the Immorality Act, did so because they knew that they had transgressed the Act.

I did not say that.

That is the effect of what the hon. member said. Why did he mention it?

I was talking about the strength of the stigma.

The strength of the stigma is one thing. Those people committed suicide because of the strength of the stigma which attached to them whether or not they were guilty. Once one has in fact been charged, and this is a matter of public knowledge, the stigma is there and apparently it is sufficient to cause people to commit suicide, so strong is the feeling in this regard.

I want to say that the introduction of this motion by the hon. member for Houghton is, if I may say so, grand standing in the very highest tradition of this art of which the hon. member is somewhat of an expert. The operation of section 16 of the Immorality Act is the concern of every single man in this House and its implementation is often an affront to us all and to our country. But the motion comes at a singularly mistimed and politically unfortunate moment in its present form. At the beginning of this session, in the very first debate, the No-confidence Debate, this whole issue—because of the Excelsior non-trial—was brought before the House and was raised at the very first parliamentary opportunity by the very first speaker in that debate, namely the hon. Leader of the Opposition. After we had received from the hon. the Minister of Justice an explanation about what had happened at Excelsior, he then told us in a way to which we are now becoming used to, that so long as he is the Minister of Justice and as long as this Government is in power, section 16 of the Immorality Act will remain. Furthermore, this was repeated by the hon. the Prime Minister when he took part in that debate at a later stage. The attitude of the Government to this motion was known at that time. But the hon. member still felt that it was necessary thereafter to put this motion on the Order Paper. I want to say that by doing so she has deliberately made this a party political issue.

What have you done?

Let the hon. member wait; he will hear what I have to say.

We read your thoughts well in advance.

The hon. member also says that this should not be a party political issue and she asks for a free vote. Sir, she knows what the answer is. She knows that that party has been committed by the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice, but she nevertheless comes with this motion, with the inevitable result that it is going to have to rest just there. The motion before the House means that the whole issue of the Immorality Act is going to remain just where it is. That is precisely what this motion does. The only conceivable affect of introducing the motion in this form is to freeze even more solidly the attitude which exists in this regard because it is a party political issue and because it has been made one by this motion. Surely the hon. member realizes that this motion will not be resolving this matter. Sir, we have tried to make this a non-party matter. [Laughter.] Sir, hon. members laugh. I tried to fall over backwards the last time I spoke in the no-confidence debate not to make my speech an offensive party-political one.

But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout called it “die kleinste van klein apartheid”.

That is not the point, Sir; the point is that when this matter was raised it was replied to immediately by the hon. the Minister of Justice before the hon. member for Bezuidenhout talked at all. It has got nothing to do with it in any event. Sir, we tried to make it a non-party matter.

What did you say to the Sunday Times?

Why does the hon. Minister not crawl back under his stone and keep quiet? [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, if the hon. the Minister had read my speech in the Sunday Times he would have been able to follow my speech a little more clearly than he is able to do at the moment. Sir, may I say that the Government is also responsible in this regard; they have also reacted in a party-political way, as they are doing with everything—“as long as we are the Government we are not going to move, no matter how wrong we are, no matter how long we have been wrong, no matter what the urgency, no matter what the protests are, we are going to stay just there”. There will be no solution to this problem at all —and this is an offensive problem—unless we can take it out of the political arena. Sir, we have to try to open people’s minds to it, not to close them as we are doing here. The matter is not so simple, as the motion suggests, that you can just scrap both these Acts forthwith. Has the hon. the mover of the motion ever considered, if this motion were accepted and acted upon immediately, all the other difficulties that would arise? Where would people who enter into mixed marriages go and live, without an investigation into that matter as well? What happens to the children as far as their classification is concerned? The hon. member herself has already spoken of the degradation of being classified as a Coloured. I also wonder whether the hon. member has considered that there might well be some people who will feel that this is now a matter of licence?

The hon. member did not answer the basic question when she spoke about this: Is she or is she not in favour of miscegenation? Is she against it or is she not against it? She did not answer that question. She answered it with some sort of parable. But. Sir, I think that is a question to which we are entitled to have an answer when a motion of this sort is moved. Let us remember also that since even the last time this Act was dealt with, completely different social circumstances have arisen in the urban areas, circumstances which must be investigated before you can pass a motion such as this, Moreover, there is a great difference between repealing an Act and passing an Act. This party is on record, as is well known as being against the passing of both the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in 1949 and the Immorality Act in 1950. We opposed them because we did not think it was necessary or desirable, and not because we were not against miscegenation. But now you have the situation where this has been the law all these years, since 1950. The Immorality Act was passed in 1950. The circumstances attending the Excelsior case have been the law since 1937. I sincerely ask the mover whether she really wanted some relief to the situation, which offends all of us, as I said, or whether she just wanted a grandstand opportunity to express the more obvious horrors of the operation of section 16 of the Immorality Act. Because we would like to take this out of the political arena and avoid the obvious anomalies, and let me say, even further hardships and dangers which could result from the adoption of this motion, I want to move as an amendment to the motion—

1. (1) while opposed to miscegenation, is of the opinion that section 16 of the Immorality Act, 1957, gives rise to serious and pressing legal, law enforcement, sociological, humanitarian and religious problems, causes hardship and smears the good name of the Republic, and calls upon the Government as a matter of urgency to appoint a Commission to examine such problems in the light of this and related legislation, such Commission to consist of—
   1. (a) judicial officers of both the Superior and Inferior Courts faced with the problems of administering the law and the problem of punishment;
   2. (b) members of the Police Force faced with the problems of enforcing the law and investigating alleged offences under the law;
   3. (c) sociologists conversant with the social problems involved; and
   4. (d) representatives of our Churches who have to deal with the relevant problems of religion, conscience and morality which arise,
   5. with a view to determining whether the law is not doing more harm than good to Society and to the State, and whether the problem can be dealt with effectively in any other manner; and
2. (2) in view of the large number of acquittals of persons prosecuted, is further of the opinion that, with immediate effect, prosecutions under section 16 of the Immorality Act, 1957, should not be instituted without the written approval of an Attorney-General”.

This is a matter which has not this year been answered. I have studied very closely the speech of the hon. the Minister of Justice when he replied in the No-confidence Debate, and nowhere there did he answer the question which was then asked by us as to whether he was prepared to appoint a commission of inquiry to examine the effect of this section and the operation of it, nor did I notice anything in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. But it is a delicate issue, a sensitive issue in which are involved moral, religious, humanitarian, police, judicial and family problems; matters, as has been wisely said, not appropriate for legislation are often those matters which are not appropriate for political dissension either.

The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that this motion is not going to resolve the issue. He knows he is committed to his stand in this respect and that there is going to be a deadlock, but there is a need for a commission of inquiry. Surely the hon. the Minister would not deny that. Surely the evidence that is presented by leading members of just about all the churches in the Republic and of all denominations, of recently retired senior police officers and of all the newspapers, including Nationalist newspapers, including Rapport more recently and Die Vaderland very recently, and even Die Transvaler, and even by the academics—and very recently, in fact on Saturday, 20th February, we had from the University of Stellenbosch a number of leading academicians who called for just what we are calling for. One found that their approach was that this matter must be taken out of the field of party politics, as had been done in the past, and that a commission of inquiry should be instituted to have a penetrating investigation outside the arena of party politics. That is what Dr. Vosloo, the Professor of Political Science at that university, said. The Professor of Anthropology had the same views. He also wanted a commission of inquiry. Surely the hon. the Minister cannot tell this House that these people are talking rubbish or that they do not know what they are talking about, or that what they say does not need some attention.

Sir, let us make no mistake about it. This is a problem which is deep-rooted in our society and in our history. The word “miscegenation” which appears in the amendment, is the reason for the legislation which is the subject of the motion. Miscegenation means the production of offspring by persons of different races. It does not mean sexual intercourse by itself or marriage by itself. The history of this country shows just how deep rooted this is. So far as the prohibition of mixed marriages is concerned, there was no legislation in the Cape because the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 prevented this. In Natal there was no specific law in this regard, although it was there by implication. In the Transvaal and the Free State they provided only for valid marriages between White and White and between persons of colour and other persons of colour, although they did recognize marriages if they had been concluded outside the Transvaal. As far as immorality, that is, connection between Whites and non-Whites sexually, is concerned, there were laws in the Cape and the Orange Free State that a White woman could not have sexual contact with an aboriginal Native for gain, whereas in Natal and in the Transvaal, the offence was between a White woman and a Black or Coloured man, not the other way around.

What about the old Milner Law which prescribed 24 lashes.

Then, in 1927, came the first Union legislation in this regard. The hon. member has referred to the old Milner Law, with 24 lashes. He must read the debates on the 1927 Immorality Act, which was the first Union legislation in this regard. That Act made it an offence for intercourse to take place between Black or White, that is to say between Natives and White persons, either way. If this in fact took place, the woman and the man were both considered to have committed an offence. The only real subject of discussion at that time was whether or not there should be 15 lashes. That was one of the arguments. Some hon. members felt that the Minister was wrong, and that he ought to impose 15 lashes, as was originally intended. There was no dissension whatsoever about that Act, except on that point. Another point was that at the time there was no Act prohibiting mixed marriages, and so the persons who took part in that debate complained that one could get away with committing an offence under this Act, by marrying the person who was also guilty of an offence. In 1936 we had the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Bill which was not proceeded with. Then came General Pienaar’s Bill in 1937, which was not completed. That was to apply the law as the 1950 amendment did.

Then, in 1949 came the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. We opposed it because we did not think it was necessary, and there were all sorts of difficulties regarding the definitions of people and how the provisions of the measure would work. It was felt that it was not necessary. In the next year we had the follow-up of that measure, namely section 16 of the Immorality Act. This again was opposed by this side of the House on the basis that we did not think that that was also necessary. There was a debate on the Second Reading and very little happened in the Committee. On the Third Reading of that Bill there was no discussion whatsoever. The division between hon. members on that side of the House and on this side of the House did not concern the undesirability of mixed marriages. It concerned the effectiveness of prohibitory legislation. Surely, that is the position we are now in. We feel that miscegenation mixed marriages and intercourse across the Colour-line are undesirable, because it might produce miscegenation.

You do not want to prohibit it by law.

That is not the question. The question that may have to be decided is whether section 16 must be amended or repealed, or what should be done about it. The point is that this has been the law for 22 years. One cannot suddenly say, as the hon. member for Houghton has, that we must scrap the whole lot.

You said that.

No, I did not say that. That quotation is what was said by Colin Steyn when he, on behalf of the United Party, in 1950 opposed the Immorality Act on the Second Reading. If the hon. member quotes that, she is quoting it out of context, because I have never spoken on the matter without adhering to my party’s attitude, which is the attitude I have just enunciated now. [Interjections.] You will get a chance to reply, Helen. Give me a chance to speak now. Mr. Speaker, I think it very important that this commission should consult with the non-European people of this country and hear their views. I ask myself whether the hon. member for Houghton has done so. It would do hon. members a lot of good if they read the report of the last commission which sat on this matter, namely the De Villiers Commission in 1939. This commission went into this whole question and called for the evidence of the various groups. I will read out what they said as far as the Natives were concerned. It said: “The attitude of the Natives, specially the Bantu races, appears to be decidedly against mixed marriages.” On page 21, concerning the Coloured’s attitude, it said: “They were unanimously opposed to marriage between European and Coloured for two reasons: such a marriage usually introduces dissension into family relationships, especially amongst the children of members of the same families; and the social reasons.” On the same page the Indian community’s attitude is stated: “The South African Indian Congress, claiming to express the views of the Indian community, sent us a memorandum in which it was stated that the Indian community is opposed to mixed marriages as strongly as any other community in South Africa.” I go further than that. Mr. Speaker. The commission of inquiry under the late Judge van den Heever, who sat on the Durban Riot Commission, found as a fact that the grievance of miscegenation was listed very high as one of the causes for the riots between the Indians and the Zulus. Judge van den Heever said: “We have found this grievance to be one of the most powerful motives for anti-Indian feeling on the part of the Bantu.” I wonder whether the hon. member consulted them, before she said that this should be repealed?

I wonder if you are for or against this law.

It must be clear, even to the hon. member for Houghton, that we are as horrified as she is by some of the results of the implementation of section 16, and we have said so. But one does not suddenly, because one doesn’t like something, chuck everything down the drain. What is the evidence about the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act at this stage? I have no evidence of certain great hard hips, but I can tell hon. members, oddly enough, that I found it in the circumstances of the labyrinth of the laws by which we have to live—and by that I am not necessarily condoning it—to be a great help to many people. I want to tell hon. members that I have to deal with a number of population registration cases. This is also a law which must be looked at in relation to this matter. Many couples are living together and they have children. The one is classified as a Coloured and the other as White by the Department of the Interior. When one has exhausted one’s remedies with the Department of the Interior and when nothing else can be done, they refuse to classify the one White despite the circumstances. My advice to them in that case is that they should go to the magistrate, that they should disclose all the facts and that they should ask him to marry them under the terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, because they are White persons in terms of that Act. I want to tell hon. members that not one of them has not been married under the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. There is this anomaly, and this is another reason why an inquiry is needed not only into this legislation but also into all the related legislation. They are now married as White persons under the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, yet their children shall go to Coloured schools because the children go to the schools according to what your population register identity is. Under the Population Registration Act the issue of that marriage must be classified under the Population Registration Act as Coloured. They must go to school in terms of a different definition. This whole question must be investigated, and surely there are enough cases like these. That is in fact one of the things which the De Villiers Commission recommended. They recommended that the issue of persons who are married as White persons should be regarded as White persons.

Let me deal very briefly with another matter. This matter came out very pertinently when the Excelsior trial was discussed, what did the hon. the Minister’s reply disclose? It disclosed that on the allegation of one Bantu woman who said, as the hon. the Minister has stated, when she came before the police: “Yes, I have slept with So-and-So, but I am not the only one; So-and-So and So-and-So slept with So-and-So and So-and-So”. On the strength of that at least 21 people were charged under the Immorality Act. This was disclosed in the hon. the Minister’s speech.

An investigation followed.

Yes, an investigation followed, but on the strength of that one allegation these arrests were made. It is even worse than the usual case, because it is clear from his statement that some of it was on hearsay from one person who herself was an accomplice. Then we come to the reluctant witnesses. The hon. the Minister, although it is not at issue in this debate, is quite wrong in saying that the witnesses could not be called under section 212 because they were accomplices. Under section 254 an accomplice can be compelled to give evidence. The evidence is in Hansard and it was given by the hon. the Prime Minister when we discussed these two clauses. It was given in this House in the Committee Stage. Actually we discussed the two clauses, clauses 17 and 19, together in this House.

That is only in a case where you propose to proceed …

I have had a case where one of the accused has been called out of the dock after the State has led two witnesses.

What was the evidence worth?

Well, the other chap was convicted on it. An accomplice’s evidence is usually very good when they know that they are going to get away with it, and in this case they were charged with murder. What I want to say is that the real problem was that the Minister wanted them all to plead guilty so that he would not be in the position of having to call some Bantu women to give evidence against White people, because they as accomplices would get an indemnity if they did give evidence. He would then have had the position that the society in which the trial was to take place would not have stood for it. The result was that this did not happen. That is the real difficulty. This is one of the things that makes this a different crime from any other crime. When the hon. the Minister says that this is just the same as any other crime, he is wrong. Surely this alone is worth investigating, that a prosecutor can be in this dilemma. If this was a murder trial, I suggest that there would have been ho dilemma; but it was not. It was a trial under section 16, with all the social ramifications and complications. That is why it could not be done. That is why it is different. That is why you must have an inquiry into this matter. It is not as simple as “just” the Immorality Act and “just” the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. It affects the whole social structure and the whole labyrinth of legislation which this Government has introduced. [Time expired.]

I have no intention whatsoever in this debate of trying to agree with the hon. member for Houghton, and even less with the hon. member for Durban North, who has just finished speaking. The difference is in any case that the hon. member for Houghton at least has the courage of her convictions to say where she stands and say that she is opposed to the law and wants it abolished. That is the last thing the hon. member for Durban North can say. A more complicated egg dance and a greater display of lack of courage has probably never been seen in this Parliament. If the hon. member now thinks that we can discuss this matter solely on a scientific basis, he is making a big mistake. If the hon. member now expects us to discuss this matter in this House with the calmness one finds in a classroom, he is also making a very big mistake. As far as I am concerned, this matter also has a political colouring. It also deals with the policy which the National Party advocates. This matter can be approached from that point of view. It was really pitiable to hear today what a lament the hon. member set up because the hon. member for Houghton had jumped the gun on him in getting this matter discussed in the House. What did the hon. member do? Before Parliament had even begun, the hon. member got every single English-language newspaper extremely het up with reports which were nothing but political reports aimed at the National Party. It was intended for nothing else but to be used in the no-confidence debate. What is more, the hon. member went on with it after the no-confidence debate. Now the hon. member adopts a pious attitude here and says he wants to refrain from turning the matter into a political issue. But what did the hon. member do? After the no-confidence debate the hon. member still carried on with his politicking. I shall deal in a moment with a report which appeared in the 14th February edition of the Sunday Times. What was that if it was not making a political issue out of the matter? Now the hon. member wants to blame the hon. member for Houghton for wanting to turn it into a political issue, but what did he do? He was trying to do so all the time. Why did he not in that report, if his intentions were so honest, in which he granted a personal interview to Mr. Stanley Uys, say “My representation to the Government is: Remove the matter from the political arena”? Surely he had every opportunity to do that. The hon. member must not think therefore that we are going to buy those stories of his.

But the hon. member must now tell us something, right at the outset. He said that this Act has been on the Statute Book for 21 years now, and that it cannot simply be scrapped. The hon. member became extremely het up when the hon. member for Houghton said to him, “Here is a report in which you said, This law should be scrapped’.” The hon. member also said here that he represented his party’s standpoint. Now I am asking the hon. member to tell this House what his personal standpoint is; the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does that at least. He will at least say that his personal standpoint is that this Act should be scrapped. Why does he not have the courage of his convictions? Why did he stand here for half an hour talking in circles? The hon. member has by now become a professional talker in circles, to such an extent that the hon. the Minister of Information subsequently had to say to him, “But tell us something to which we can listen now”. Why does the hon. member not state whether or not he supports the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in his representations in respect of this petty apartheid, or the crudest of all crude apartheid, namely that it should be scrapped? But you see, Sir, the United Party has over the years been too lacking in courage to adopt a standpoint in regard to this matter, and to state candidly “This is what we advocate,” or “We do not advocate this”.

Nonsense. We advocate a commission.

No, it is not nonsense. The United Party did not vote on this legislation in 1927. They did not vote on it in 1949, nor in 1957. I shall bring hon. members proof of that. After all, in 1957 they knew very well what the purpose of the Act was. Hon. members knew very well what the purpose of the Act was, and they also knew what the purpose of the expansion of the Act was, namely that it was a consolidation. They also knew that the sentence was being increased from five to seven years, and accepted the Second Reading without any division. Where does the nonsense come in now? Let us consider section 16 of this Act more specifically. In the Committee Stage section 16 of this Act was approved without a single opposing United Party vote. Hon. members can go and have a look in the Hansard report. Five persons voted against section 16 in the Committee Stage. They were Messrs. Hepple, Lovell, Standford, Whitely and Mrs. Ballinger. Where is the United Party vote against it? Hon. members on the opposite side talk about adopting a standpoint, but what standpoint did they adopt at the time? Let us consider the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. This matter was dealt with by Gen. Smuts himself. Gen. Smuts moved an amendment in which he said that mixed marriages were disapproved of by his side of the House, but that they did not want any legislation on it. Where was the division on that? It is because of this lax attitude which the United Party have adopted all these years that they are still sitting on the Opposition side. Now the United Party wants to perform this same kind of egg dance here today and expect the public outside to think that the United Party is asking for a commission because this Act is so un-Christian and is being so terribly badly applied by the Police.

Are all those experts also performing an egg dance then?

Anyone who adopts the attitude the United Party is adopting is performing an egg dance. I am talking now about the political attitude of the United Party, because that is what they are again doing in this House today. It is a great pity the hon. member talked so much nonsense that I am unable to come to all the other aspects of this matter.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry; I only have twelve minutes at my disposal and I do not have the time to reply to the hon. member. The hon. member on the opposite side who talked about the Excelsior case must simply take the trouble to read the hon. the Minister’s speech in reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North in the no-confidence debate. He will find the answer he is looking for. In what respect do hon. members on the opposite side differ with the hon. the Minister? In what respect do hon. members on the opposite side differ with the facts mentioned there, and do they say that the steps taken by the State were not proper and correct under the given set of facts? Hon. members on the opposite side must now have the courage of their convictions, and must tell us this.

Let us go further and consider for a moment the egg dance performed by the United Party during the no-confidence motion. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout handed over his views on petty apartheid to the hon. the Prime Minister, and his hon. Leader then replied to that. We then had the same standpoint as has now been adopted. I realize that it was not possible to advocate the abolition of the Immorality Act during the no-confidence debate, because I know that the rules of the House prohibit that. However, we had the same attitude there. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was opposed to miscegenation and did not advocate mixed marriages, but it remained at that. Nothing was said then about what should happen then.

We are saying this.

Hon. members on the opposite side have not said this. They cannot show me one single debate this year in which they said that this Immorality Act should be scrapped. Some of the United Party members say it in the Press, but nobody says it in this House. Surely the United Party has an opportunity to do so today. Let the next speaker on the opposite side of this House tell the country outside that the United Party advocates either the retention or the abolition of this Act. The United Party must adopt a very clear standpoint and not do what the hon. member did for half an hour.

Hon. members on the opposite side are requesting a commission of inquiry, but I can see no need for such a commission of inquiry. Why do hon. members on the opposite side not say to the hon. the Minister, if it falls within the ambit of the motion, that we should investigate the entire sociological aspect of illegal carnal acts? The United Party comes forward with a motion requesting the investigation of the Immorality Act, but I am of the opinion that the request for such a commission by the United Party is simply a smokescreen behind which to flee from the matter on hand. The real point is what is the standpoint of that side of the House in regard to miscegenation in South Africa as far as it is controlled by the Immorality Act. That standpoint they must now adopt.

Appoint a commission.

The National Party will not allow itself to be taken in tow by everyone who says that a commission should be appointed. We are not prepared to appoint a commission the moment somebody asks for one. The same thing happened after a recent diamond case. It is all very well to advance pleas of this kind when a debate of this kind takes place here. But have hon. members on the opposite side ever thought what result an abolition of this Act would have within our metropolitan areas, and, inter alia, on our Coloured population? Has it ever occurred to hon. members on that side of the House that there must be protection against unscrupulous people? Have hon. members on that side of the House ever looked at what the figures which, according to a report I read, revealed in Cologne in Germany? It was found that 95 per cent of all mixed marriages were heading for failure. Have any of these people— and I do not necessarily want to classify the hon. members of the Opposition among them—who bewailed the fate of the offenders’ closest relatives, ever thought of the other parties in such cases? Have they ever thought of the thousands of bastard children which result from these situations? They speak so easily of suicide in regard to these cases. In how many cases of suicide does that suicide not take place because of the guilt feelings that person had about the adultery he committed, and not about the fact that he had been charged under the Immorality Act? In how many cases does suicide not take place after a person has been arrested? I can inform hon. members that I am convinced that more suicide cases occur under other crimes than under immorality. Here I am thinking in particular of a crime such as fraud. But if even the gallows does not serve to deter people from committing murder, why allege now that if this Act is abolished, the number of suicides would decrease? I simply cannot understand that. It has too much to do with guilt feelings.

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

No.

I want to conclude by saying that I cannot see any sense in the hon. the Minister and this side of the House having to consider whether to appoint a commission of inquiry. I also want to tell hon. members on that side of the House that this is a golden opportunity to at least be courageous and at least tell the public just once this year where they stand in regard to a specific matter.

Mr. Speaker, I think I should begin by congratulating the hon. member for Houghton on introducing this motion. I have not seen the Nationalist Party members of this House so happy since the election as they are today. At last they have a wonderful opportunity of getting away from life in South Africa in the economic sphere and from the general mess they are making of the administration of our country. Now they can discuss a real racial issue with all the emotions and heat that attaches to it. They feel they are back in 1948, even back to 1938, when “baster-plakate” adorned every lamppost on every corner.

We have been challenged on one point by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who made a very short speech. I think that is all he wanted to do. He challenged us to make our attitude in regard to this matter clear.

You know the rules of this House.

I am sorry. I was not aware that there was an arrangement regarding the allotted time for speeches.

But it is still true that the only point the hon. member made was a challenge to the United Party to make its attitude clear on this matter. Our attitude was clear all along. Our attitude was clear 21 years ago when this Bill was before Parliament. At the time Dr. Colin Steyn stated most emphatically that this was not a matter for legislation. No matter how much every one of us disapproved of miscegenation, how strongly we revolted against the thought of miscegenation, it was not yet a matter for legislation.

You did not vote against it.

We remember how we warned about the misery, the unhappiness and the social disturbances that would result from the application and the administration of this Act. What has happened now? The hon. member for Houghton has moved a motion tonight because in her speech she could show with quite remarkable evidence that the United Party was right 21 years ago. Every event since then has shown that this is not a matter for legislation.

Sir, where I think the hon. member’s action has been ill-considered is in the wording of her motion. She wants this Act to be repealed “forthwith” as if nothing has happened in the last 21 years. But, Sir, the whole social situation, the whole social structure of South Africa, has changed in the last 21 years. As a result of many laws there are now new consequences that we have to consider if we should repeal this measure without examining scientifically, carefully and calmly what these new consequences will be in the atmosphere of an expert commission appointed by the Government. The hon. member for Houghton made a strong point of all the experts of all political complexions who are supporting criticisms of these Acts, but she made the point herself—knowing her as I do she did not disguise the point—that many of them (I think she said about half of them) support an urgent inquiry into the application and administration of this Act. Those, Sir, are experts who know what they are talking about.

I believe that for us to rush into this “forthwith” would be extremely stupid and dangerous, and I believe that for us, again for political motives, to harden our hearts, as the Government is doing, and to refuse to admit that they have landed in a mess as a result of the fact that this Act appears on the Statute Book, is equally stupid and equally short-sighted. Sir, we were right. We see that this law requires harsh administration; we see that it is more difficult to obtain convictions under this law than under any other criminal law in our Criminal Code. We see that the number of acquittals, the number of people who are legally innocent, who have to suffer the degradation, the humiliation and the hurt of prosecution under this Act, are more than half of those brought before the court. Last year there was 55 per cent acquittals in prosecutions under this Act. Either the administration of justice under this Minister and under this Government is breaking down or this law is not capable of being administered in the same way as other criminal laws where the number of acquittals is far lower—I think something like 25 per cent or 30 per cent. These are facts that we cannot argue against; they are there. If the hon. member for Potchefstroom wants clarity, all he need do is to look at the facts; all he need do is to open his mind a little bit—just a little bit —and he will see that we are right.

We find, Sir, that this law has cruel effects: that a larger number of suicides are committed as a result of arrest under this law than under any other criminal law. Sir, you very seldom hear of a man arrested on a charge of murder, committing suicide. In the old days when adultery was a crime in South Africa you very seldom heard of a man committing suicide because he had committed adultery. The hon. member for Potchefstroom puts these two things on the same level, but he has no evidence, no support, for his argument. No, Sir, let us face the facts. We are opposed to miscegenation not because of any reason of racial hatred but for the practical reason that miscegenation has consequences socially, and for the individual concerned, that are unfortunate. Sir, in 1949 and 1950 when these two Acts were put on the Statute Book we had to deal with the evil of miscegenation but now, Sir, a new situation has arisen. We are dealing with two evils. We are now dealing with the evil of miscegenation, which has not ended; and we are dealing with the evil which flows from the administration of this unfortunate Act. There are now two evils. There is a new situation, and if we now rush in and try to repeal the second evil, which is the law, then we create a new set of circumstances that can lead to new evils and new problems, as I will show. We have to find a way out of the impossible situation that the Government has created by introducing an Act like this and putting it on the Statute Book and trying, not very successfully, to administer and to apply it. [Interjections.]

Sir, here I have an article in the excellent magazine Personality of 19 February, where various people were interviewed, and here we have Prof. S. A. S. Strauss, professor of law at the University of South Africa, not a liberal university, making no fewer than five suggestions as to what could be done to try to get out of the difficulties and the evil situation in which we find ourselves today as a result of the application of this Act. They should be investigated, and there are many other things. I cannot put the attitude of the United Party better than this independent jurist, Prof. Strauss, put it in this article, when he issued a warning. I too want to warn the House; I want to warn the hon. member for Houghton and I want to warn the Government because their attitudes, although they are poles apart, are essentially similar. They see no problems; they see no difficulties; they see simple solutions for one of the most complex problems that we have to deal with in South Africa. Here are Prof. Strauss’s words—

It is because this party, which has always taken a responsible line in South Africa, does not wish to under-estimate the social and emotional ramifications of this issue that we call upon the Government to agree —and I invite the hon. member for Houghton to accept our suggestion—that this matter should be referred to a commission for proper investigation. That, Sir, will take the matter out of politics. If the hon. member for Houghton is sincere, as I know she is, then I say to her that she cannot escape her duty to accept the United Party’s amendment so that the matter can truly be taken out of the political arena and discussed and thrashed out in an atmosphere where nobody is speaking for the Press, where nobody gives advance copies of their speeches to the Press, where nobody looks for political benefit and where we try to further the true interests of South Africa.

Can you tell us what the attitude of the United Party would be before such a commission?

Yes, that is a very reasonable question; I shall deal with it within a moment. Sir, we should ask this commission to investigate the new consequences that will arise from a repeal of this Act, because of what has happened in the last 21 years in South Africa. We will ask the commission to investigate what the effect would be of the new system of laws, of the new social structure that the Nationalist Party has created, upon people who avail themselves of their legal right to get married, for example. Of course, the hon. member for Houghton says that this must be done forthwith, under the present régime, with the present social system and structure that we have in South Africa.

People can make their own decisions.

I would like them to investigate what the position would be of people married under her dispensation. [Interjection.] Sir, I find it very difficult to continue. If the hon. member wants to ask me a question she can stand up and I will deal with it.

Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that people make the decision to marry across the colour line themselves? Nobody is going to force them to do it.

Sir, that is much better than having a running commentary from that hon. member. That may be so, but let me tell her that marriage is not an ordinary contract. Marriage is an arrangement which confers a new status upon individuals and in which society has a real and great interest because it leads to the procreation of the species; it leads to the birth of children. The hon. member may be indifferent, but sensible people are concerned about the position in society of children who are born as a result of such an Act. Her approach is a light-hearted, shallow one, with no consideration of the consequences that will result from her Act. I say that this is the sort of thing that a commission must investigate.

Under the Group Areas Act, where will these people live? Where will they be able to get entertainment together without humilation? Where will they be able to relax together and swim together? [Interjections.] These are things that have changed since 1950. We have a new situation. We have today, whether we like it or not, in South Africa population groups of different economic levels of development and it is a sociological fact that the males of the more developed group tend to abuse the females of the less developed group, so much so that even in many states of the U.S.A. until a few years ago that was reflected in the law. In a province of South Africa until 1927 there was a law making it a crime for a Black man to be intimate with a White woman, but it was not a crime for a White man to be intimate with a Black woman. That is the danger, and I say that if this law is repealed—and that is what I would like the commission to investigate—what protection can we give the women of the weaker society, not in the derogatory sense but in the economic sense? What protection can we give them?

Already there are Coloured people who are complaining about the new situation that has arisen because Black women may not come to an area like the Western Cape, so that their own women are in danger. That is the result and it is understandable. These are the problems that we would like the commission to investigate, amongst other things. That is why we on this side of the House say that because of this new situation, and a most unfortunate situation which has arisen, this should be investigated by experts. I do not believe in rhetorical questions, so I am not asking a question; I just want to put my difficulty to see that anything else can be the answer. Can there be an hon. member opposite, starting with the Minister of Justice, who can in his heart be satisfied or contented with the situation as it was revealed in the Excelsior case? Surely there is something wrong when that can happen. Surely there is something wrong if as a result of gossip men can be arrested and humiliated, women can be arrested, a man who was innocent, as was afterwards proved, is arrested, suicides are committed, and in the end there is no prosecution. They are legally innocent, as far as the law is concerned. Surely one cannot be happy with that? That is why again I say there is something wrong with this whole set-up, and it is worse than it was in 1949 and 1950 because the evil continues but a new evil has been superimposed upon it.

I want to mention another point to show you how we feel about this matter. Another matter which I would like to see investigated by this commission is how the powerful social sanctions can be made more effective. Nobody has disputed that there is a tremendous social sanction against miscegenation and sex.

Do you only want social sanctions and no legal sanctions?

No, I want the commission to investigate whether legal sanctions are possible in another form, because in the present form, I repeat, you create a greater evil than the one you are trying to combat. For example, should we not change our law so …

Are you for or against?

Sir, the hon. lady has now asked that stupid question ten times and the answer remains simple. The answer remains that we are in favour of an expert commission of jurists, sociologists, police, psychologists, religious leaders and moral leaders to investigate the rotten situation which has been created by the stupid actions of this Government over the last 21 years. What could be clearer? In reply to my hon. friend, I want to say that we should, for example, investigate whether greater rights ought not to be conferred upon women, especially women of the weaker economic groups who are deflowered or made with child by irresponsible men, so that they can have justice done to them in public courts. That would be a tremendous sanction operating against the males who abuse their superior position in our world. There a great many other possibilities, but all I want to say is that I think, in the interest of South Africa, we should not play politics with this matter. Therefore I plead with the hon. Minister to accept the United Party amendment. It is a good and wise amendment. I also plead that the appeal of the hon. member for Houghton, which appeared in yesterday’s paper, be realized. Let us take this matter out of politics, as she wishes and let us refer it to a commission of true experts outside the political sphere to give South Africa advice on one of its most delicate problems.

Over the years the United Party has never yet adopted a standpoint in regard to this matter. They say the same thing; they are opposed to miscegenation, but according to them it must not be prohibited by a law. They are opposed to miscegenation, but according to them the Act, as it has been laid down, does not work.

You have the same standpoint in respect of adultery.

We have since 1927, and subsequently in 1948, 1950 and 1957, adopted a definite standpoint in regard to this Act. In not one of those debates did the United Party ever adopt a definite standpoint. Nor did they do so today. The fact of the matter is that they hide behind commissions of inquiries, as they put it, but there is no definite standpoint. Among all those hon. members, is there not one single suggestion as to how the Act can be improved? They do not have a single suggestion, except that a commission should be appointed.

Tell us what your proposal is.

Yes, I shall come to that. In spite of all the criticism of this measure, and in spite of this psychosis which has been caused by the newspapers, there has so far been only one man who came forward with a proposal, i.e. the man mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville, Prof. Strauss. I shall refer to him. He is the only man who made a suggestion; all the others want an inquiry to be instituted by a commission. In regard to this matter, the opinions of a number of people in Stellenbosch also appeared in the newspaper, as if this now represented the spirit prevailing in Stellenbosch, the heart-land of Afrikanerdom. That is how it was presented. The first person mentioned, is a kindred spirit of the hon. member for Houghton.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Slabbert is a kindred spirit of the hon. member. The next to be mentioned, was a Mr. Plüddemann, senior lecturer in German who said: “The Immorality Act cannot, as far as I can see, be justified on moral grounds.” That is what he said and then he was quoted. Who is he really? I shall add here that there was also a professor of theology who suggested something, to which I am also going to refer. His name is Prof. Mulder.

I thought Prof. Strauss was the only one.

I shall add the name of Prof. Mulder. Prof. Mulder referred to the possibility of the names being suppressed, and of only mentioning the initials. I shall come to that in a moment. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned. I want to congratulate her. Our standpoints differ from each other as east from west. However, she is at least honest: she states her standpoint; she is not ashamed to state it. But I now want to tell her this. She is always doing this kind of thing. She is always trying to take up the cudgels for people who contravene the colour line, people who have sexual relations or who marry across the colour line, but she knows that it will not be she. It must be we Afrikaners or the English-speaking people.

Those are your personal thoughts.

It will not be she as a Jewess who does something like that. She will in this respect keep herself clean. But among our Afrikaners and the English-speaking people it must be allowed, and we must be spurred on to do these things. That is the hon. member’s attitude. That is in point of fact all I have against her. For the rest I have the greatest respect for her honesty in this connection. In this respect we are, as the hon. member for Prinshof said, bound to a certain norm in this country. The general norm in this country—and on this score the United Party and the English-speaking people agree with us—is that there should be no miscegenation, and that there should be no sexual intercourse across the colour line.

Do not do it then.

Who appointed the commission in 1938, or in 1939, to go into this matter? It was the United Party. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Yeoville, who has just interrupted me, must allow me to finish speaking. I did not annoy the hon. member when he was speaking. The United Party instituted the investigation, but the United Party did not give effect to the recommendations of the commission, despite its tremendous majority in this Home. After all, a war was brewing. Up to 1949 nothing had happened; then the National Party gave effect to it. If the hon. member now claims that this Act is intended to counteract immorality, she is wrong. That is not justified; that was not the case.

I did not say that. Read the law.

The hon. member alleged that. The hon. member wanted to know: “Why was adultery and the rest of it not punished?” When the Minister of the Interior introduced it, he stated very specifically that the purpose of the Bill was to check possible miscegenation as far as possible, and to promote racial purity as far as possible, even though the hon. the Minister also acknowledged that it would not be completely successful. That is the object of this Bill, and not to promote morality.

Various hon. speakers referred to the history of the 1927 legislation. Through that Act immorality, or sexual intercourse between White and Black, was prohibited. That measure was not opposed by the United Party. In 1949 there was the Mixed Marriages Act. In regard to that legislation as well there was no division, as the hon. member for Potchefstroom correctly said. That Party was afraid to vote against it, just as they are afraid for the hon. member for Houghton’s motion. The hon. members who discussed it at the time, was Dr. Colin Steyn and Gen. Smuts. They said that they did not think these matters could be controlled by means of legislation. That was their standpoint. However, when it came to the voting, they still failed to …

They did vote against the 1949 law.

They did not vote against it.

They did vote against the 1949 law.

They did not vote against it, not at the Second Reading …

And the Third Reading?

Why don’t you come to the position as it is today?

Yes, I shall come to the position as it is today. What is the actual charge today? The charge which is being made, is that this Act has failed completely. The first charge is that there is such a small percentage of successful prosecutions and convictions. The figure is approximately 50 per cent, or a little more than 50 per cent successful charges. What are the actual facts in regard to the matter? Now we must bear in mind what type of crime we are dealing with here. When one makes comparisons one must compare it to crimes of a similar nature. One must compare it to the same type of crime in order to determine what the percentage of convictions is. We are dealing here with crimes where you have to have recourse principally to accessories. When people commit immoral acts, they do not call a lot of people together to witness what is going on, so that you can then take them to court.

For what crimes does one then call people together?

What actually happens in most cases, is that the Police have to have recourse to an accessory or to an accomplice.

Or a gossipmonger.

No, not a gossipmonger, but to the evidence of the accessory. That is what happens. A similar crime is the receipt of stolen goods. There one also has to have recourse to an accessory. In the case of stolen goods, where one has to have recourse to accessories, the number of successful prosecutions is much less than in the case of this Act. It is much less. One must therefore compare similar cases in order to be able to make a true comparison. That is the one charge.

The second charge is the “fiasco of Excelsior”, as it is called. In the Excelsior case, things went wrong, and I explained it in this House. One is sorry that things went wrong, but it was not the first case in this country where things went wrong. That happens from time to time. I can mention a very important example of where things unfortunately went wrong, as they did at Excelsior.

Disclose that.

I shall not do so on this occasion, but I can do so.

Was it a murder trial?

As far as Excelsior is concerned, all that still remains to be settled between us and the United Party is the question of whether we were able to compel the accessories or accomplices to testify in terms of section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act. I say once again that one was unable to do so, because then I would have had to grant indemnity to these Bantu women in terms of section 254. That the Attorney-General did not want to do, because they were as guilty as the men. Why should he then grant them indemnity? Indemnity is just not granted.

There are cases where that is done, although the parties are guilty.

They were the first to be charged, and if they had pleaded not guilty and the case had been proceeded with, the indemnity would have had to be granted. You cannot do it. The hon. member is a practising advocate, and I therefore cannot understand how on earth he cannot understand it. How on earth can one grant indemnity to a person against whom one wants to take steps? One grants her an indemnity to the effect that if she says the right thing, as it suits you, you will not prosecute her, although you want to prosecute her.

It happens every day in other cases.

It does not happen. I do not know to what cases the hon. member is referring. There is no such thing. If you want to proceed to prosecute the person, you cannot do so if you have granted the indemnity to the effect that you will not prosecute. That hon. member ought to know that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the most important respect in which the Act has failed is not perhaps the fact that it has not checked immorality? Is that not perhaps the most important aspect which the hon. the Minister should look at?

I shall quote Prof. Strauss’ opinion to the hon. member. The article appears under the heading “Has the Act as a deterrent proved worthwhile?” I think that is the point the hon. member wants to know. Prof. Strauss says—

That is the reply. The same applies to murder. I am continually being attacked because of the large number of capital cases and executions. There are up to 100 each year. Must we now abolish the sanction against murder because it does not deter people from committing murder? In this connection I should also like to refer further to the article by Prof. Strauss. Honestly, I have kept my eyes open and I take a great deal of interest in it, for this is a matter which one does not of course, from the nature of the case, casually overlook. One is not unsympathetic towards it. What I find to read about the subject, I read. That is why I read Prof. Strauss’ article very carefully. I want to say that a more objective article I have never seen. It covers inter alia, the argument that, because sex is involved, which is of course an urge in people, one must deal with it in a different way to other crimes. I have said in this House that it is a crime just as any other, and is punished in the same way. He says here—

He suggests that it ought to be done by criminal law. That is what is happening here. Then he makes further suggestions. He is of course opposed to the Act. He says—

This is not what I did not get from the Opposition. I did not get one single suggestion from them, even though there are such a great number of them in this House, except that the hon. member for Durban North made a suggestion in his amendment.

That is not a proposal.

I shall leave him at that.

The first proposal made by Prof. Strauss is the following—

Sir, I do not think there is one person in this House who is prepared to accept this proposal. It means that two persons must be allowed to have relations across the colour bar at least once. Then they must be summoned before the magistrate and must there in camera—their names must not be made known—be told: “Look here, you are doing something wrong; if it happens again, we will deal with you.” I reject this with the contempt it deserves. I think the hon. member for Transkei will agree with me.

The second suggestion he makes reads as follows—

This is the case. It happens quite often in fact that if the non-White woman is found guilty, the White man gets an attorney, is defended, and is found not guilty.

Surely both must be guilty.

Yes. That is why, administratively, it is done in such a way that she is immediately released after she reaches prison. But the fact still remains that the conviction still stands against her name. This is therefore an idea which one could consider. There is quite a lot to be said for this suggestion.

His third suggestion reads—

The hon. member expressed her disapproval of this.

Yes.

But this is an idea which is quite popular, i.e. that the people should be dealt with differently. Their names must not be disclosed, at least not until they are found guilty. I also received representations in this connection which I referred to Appeal Judge Botha, the commissioner who is at present sitting in regard to our criminal procedure. This is for him to consider as a suggestion. I will almost be amazed if he accepts it, but he will at least consider it. It is a suggestion. My own feelings about this are, why should one not do this with every crime if you do it with this one? One cannot distinguish between this offence and any other offence.

His last suggestion is—

That is true; there are quite a number. I looked up a few of them. Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act provides that prosecutions can be instituted after the Attorney-General has considered the case. Section 21 of the General Law Amendment Act, the sabotage clause, makes the same provision. Section 8 of the Terrorism Act makes the same provision, as well as section 3 of the Indecent of Obscene Photographic Matter Act. Administratively we have precisely the same provision in regard to certain liquor matters, as well as to the Sunday observance laws, namely that it must first be referred to the Attorney-General of the province concerned. Sir, I recently had the Attorneys-General of all the provinces, with the exception of one, in my office. I asked them a few questions in this regard. The first question I asked them was whether there was any reason to act differently in a section 16 case than in other cases. The general opinion was that there was no real reason to do so. One simply cannot justify it. That was their reply. I then asked them whether they were prepared to give instructions that this kind of prosecution would not be proceeded with before it had received their personal attention. They were unanimously prepared to give instructions in their various provinces that where persons are charged the dossier should first be referred to them before the case is taken further, so that they can give their personal approval before the prosecution is proceeded with. These instructions will go out after this debate has been concluded. In this respect I am able to accommodate the hon. member for Durban North. The last part of his amendment was already carried out on 16th February, 1971.

The only one you told was Jimmy Kruger.

Yes, I cannot see why I should have shouted it from the rooftops. For the rest, I really cannot see of what use an inquiry would be. If all of us together here, we who are the representatives of the various points of view of the people, and who are responsible people, cannot find a solution to the difficulties the hon. members see, then I do not know of what use such a commission will be.

We adopt political standpoints.

I have dealt with the suggestions here which I received; let me now also have some suggestions from hon. members on the opposite side and on this side. [Interjections.]

Why do you not appoint a commission then?

One appoints commissions to find out certain things, but not as a rule to lay down legislation. [Interjections.] The recommendations of a commission only serve as a guiding line. They can be accepted or rejected. Then hon. members on the opposite side are the people who accuse us of being a commission government. Why do hon. members now want a commission in this connection? Why do other hon. members on that side not also come forward with suggestions, as the hon. member for Durban North did who said that cases should first be referred to the Attorneys-General of the various provinces?

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the hon. the Minister say unequivocally whether or not he is satisfied with the operation of this Act?

In the circumstances, and from the nature of the crime, my reply is “yes”. Let us be very honest with one another. There is a very simple solution. All one need do is to stay away from Bantu women. That is all one need do. Surely that is very easy.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I want to ask the Minister if he is entirely satisfied with the arrest of a completely innocent young man in the Excelsior case?

That is why we released him immediately. He was not asked to plead and was released immediately. The difficulty in regard to this matter is the psychosis which is being built up in regard to the Immorality Act. As I have already said, the solution to that is very simple. Our White must simply stay away from the other colour groups and vice versa. I shall furnish hon. members with figures of what is actually happening. I have here the number of convictions for the four years ending 1969. The convictions of White men with Bantu women was 769.

Can those Bantu women get maintenance?

Yes, if the Bantu women can prove that the White man was the father of her child, she can receive maintenance for that child. And there were no less than 394 cases where White men committed immoral acts with Coloured persons other than Bantu women. Altogether there were 1,163 convictions of White men. And the hon. member is always so concerned about underprivileged persons, and I am too. This Act partially offers protection to underprivileged persons because what really happens here? We are busy prostituting the underprivileged non-Whites. That is in point of fact what is happening. The hon. member ought to plead for greater protection. She ought not to plead for the abolition of this Act. For that same period the number of convictions of Bantu men with White women was a mere 22, of Coloured men with White women, a mere 18, and of Asiatic men with White women, a mere 13. That shows hon. members what is happening. It is our task and our duty to apply this Act in the most humane way possible. That is why I had these discussions with the Attorneys-General. We want to make certain that there was a proper case, and that there was no possibility of a person being summoned before the Court who could, at best, be found not guilty. That was the idea behind these discussions. Those are then the steps we are taking. I want to emphasize again that the solution is quite simple. One must simply not find oneself in this difficulty. It is our South African way of life, both of the English-speaking as well as the Afrikaans-speaking people, that one must not have intercourse across the colour line.

I am not making it compulsory.

You are not making it compulsory, but you are removing all barriers.

Mr. Speaker, I waited with real interest to see the actual standpoint which the various parties in this House would adopt in respect of the legislation and the motion. I think it is essential for us to strip this motion and its discussion of its non-essentials and to penetrate to the fundamental aspects. I do not think this House finds it difficult to understand and appreciate the hon. member for Houghton’s standpoint. After all, it is consistent with her political view. It is known that the hon. member for Houghton advocates an integrated society and that any obstacle in the way of this process of total integration, is in fact rejected by this hon. member. It is correct that this hon. member wants to bring about a process of equalizing the existing differences. Thus she could not motivate her argument and her standpoint with the human considerations which others have against this legislation. To her the most important aspect is not the stigma attaching to the alleged offender or his family as a result of prosecution in terms of this Act. Although I cannot agree with the hon. member, I at least appreciate the clarity with which she puts her point of view.

When we come to the hon. members of the United Party, however, we find ourselves in a strange position. We have repeatedly had the situation that the United Party tries to be everything for everybody at all times, and consequently suffers from political impotence. Just look at what has happened. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout adopted a standpoint in respect of what he alleged was petty apartheid. In addition, he said that section 16 of this particular legislation was the crudest and pettiest form of petty apartheid. The hon. member for Yeoville then made a typical rescue attempt by saying that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was actually referring to the application of this Act. What happened then? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout came forward and gave a definition of petty apartheid. In short, his definition means that petty apartheid is the enforcement of apartheid measures without consultation with the groups affected.

That is only one of four elements in the definition. You are twisting …

Yes, it is only one aspect, but I want to apply it to the particular circumstances of the debate.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must withdraw those words.

Yes, but may I then …

The hon. member must withdraw the words.

But that hon. member cannot make half a quotation.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words.

Then I say he is telling an untruth.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words.

Which words, Mr. Speaker?

That the hon. member for False Bay is twisting the definition.

I withdraw them reluctantly, but I withdraw them.

The hon. member must withdraw the words unreservedly.

Reluctantly, Sir …

The hon. member must withdraw the words unreservedly.

Very well, I withdraw them unreservedly.

The hon. member for False Bay may proceed.

It is obvious that it has in fact become impossible in the ranks of the United Party to reconcile the clashing opinions on matters of principle. I now want to emphasize that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as an honourable man, and taking into account his definition of petty apartheid …

It was a half-truth.

… taking into account his standpoint in that regard, should vote for the motion of the hon. member for Houghton. I think he is guilty. But what happened in addition? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the great exponent of the adverse effects of apartheid legislation. He is the apologist of the compassionate society. This Act forms part of that legislation, but the hon. member does not deem it worth the trouble to take part in a debate in which this Act is under discussion. And he has to ask the hon. member for Yeoville to step into the breach for him. In this way he naturally succeeds in avoiding having to state his viewpoint. Because what is the hon. members’ answer to problems? “Appoint a commission” is their answer. This commission must formulate the United Party’s standpoint for them. It must save them. But I want to ask the United Party what recommendation they are going to submit to such a commission? I think it is essential, in discussing the motion of the hon. member for Houghton, that we do not do so in isolation, but that we see it against the background of the existing complex composition of our population. In her idealistic aims, this hon. member can easily ignore the complexity of our society and the composition of our population. It is easy to do so.

But this legislation does not stand in isolation. It forms a pattern or a part of a pattern in which a whole society and its composition are reflected.

I am afraid the performance of hon. members on that side of the House actually means nothing more and must be regarded as nothing more than a method of deriving some sordid political advantage from certain circumstances and from certain standpoints, but especially from a complicated situation. I want to emphasize that this legislation represents part of a pattern which is aimed at the protection of communities, which is aimed at combating miscegenation, but especially at the orderly regulation of a society and a community.

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

No, I do not have time.

It is against this background that I want to take part in the discussion.

I want to ask whether that hon. member is exempted from…

Order!

Oh, that hon. member must simply keep Sea Point White by means of legislation or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the composition of the South African population precludes any easy solution. In addition, I want to say that outside South Africa there is no example of a country with a multi-national composition such as ours and which can profitably be held up to us. In principle the approach of which this legislation forms part is based on the fact that differences exist, that biological ethnic and cultural differences and differences in colour exist. Nobody who wants to make a contribution to sound relations in a complex society and who wants to help to solve these problems can ever ignore the existing circumstances. I find it difficult to imagine a more important factor in the destruction of human relations between White and Brown than in fact sexual intercourse over the colour line, and especially in respect of those who are born of such relationships.

I think one can only discuss this subject effectively if one asks this question and finds the answer to it: what is a criminal law system and what is envisaged by it? A criminal law system is nothing but a protective measure of a community, a protective measure of groups within a community. If one asks this question in respect of this legislation, which the hon. member for Houghton wants abolished, one finds that here the pure object of a criminal law system is implemented, namely the protection of communities. But the reason for the existence of both the pieces of legislation concerned must in fact be found in the mighty, I almost want to say, except for a few exceptions, total disapproval, in the South African way of thinking, whether it be Afrikaans or English speaking, of miscegenation in the first place.

The conclusion arrived at by the commission which investigated the desirability of legislation in respect of mixed marriages is known. Their recommendations were implemented in this legislation by the Government. On the one hand, the critics of this legislation, including the United Party, base their standpoint against the existence of this legislation on the tremendous social sanctions against and the stigma attaching to transgressors of this Act. But this very process contains the motivation, the reason for this legislation, because if public opinion places such a tremendous sanction on the transgressor and such a stigma is attached to him, it reflects the attitude of the society. This attitude is given legal expression by this legislation. It is true that where such a degree of disapproval of a particular practice or malpractice exists in a community, it usually leads to legislation. In this case it is no different.

I have heard of the sympathetic attitude, and I do not condemn it, but share it, towards the transgressor. I have heard of the sympathetic attitude towards the family of the transgressor, but I have heard no word of sympathy for the child born out of such a relationship. I have heard no word of the prejudice of society which such a child must suffer for a lifetime. He does not live in the well-to-do home of the father, but in the poor circumstances of the mother. Ask any social worker, male or female, to describe the circumstances which are found here.

I want to conclude by saying that this legislation represents a pattern. I say that at some stage or other the United Party will have to come to the conclusion that in order to have a share in governing, even as an Opposition, they will have to adopt a standpoint without asking for a commission to do so for them.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.

There is one point which arises from this clause upon which I should like to have the assurance of the hon. the Minister. The assurance I should like to get is that this provision will also apply to those cases which have not yet been finalized.

I can give the hon. member that assurance.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I wish to raise certain matters under paragraph (b). This provides that before the additional amount of interest payable on a bond is taken into consideration in determining rental, the lessor must prove the satisfaction of the Rent Board that the loan has been or will be applied for the purchase, erection or improvement (other than the maintenance and repair) of the premises. I raise this matter because, as the hon. the Minister may know, there is more than one way of killing a cat. An individual or a company wanting to build a block of flats may use his own capital for the purpose in order to avoid mortgage liability. Subsequently he may find himself in a position where he may want to use that asset as security to raise funds for other business or building purposes. As the clause now reads, however, he will be penalized if he pays an interest on his bond of more than 8½ per cent in that he will not be able to recover the difference from the tenants of the block of flats. The other builder may well decide in order to build a block of flats that he will borrow the money from a private company, a company of which he will be the sole beneficial owner of the shares. If he uses that company to finance the building of the block of flats it will be the loan creditor. In that way the owner will be able to collect the additional 1 or 1½ per cent, as the case may be, from the tenants of that particular block of flats. We are, of course, not opposed to this provision, but I think it will need careful watching by the department to ensure that subterfuges and manoeuvres do not take place. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the person who initially puts in his own capital in order to build dwellings for letting ought not to be placed in a worse position than the man who uses the manoeuvre of borrowing from a company of which he is the sole owner. This may have an effect on the building of additional blocks of flats. One may find that the owner of block A who wants to mortgage that block in order to build another block is going to be the loser at both ends because the new block will not be mortgaged and consequently he will not be entitled to that extra percentage. His old block is cut out for recoupment of this extra percentage because of the provision of this particular clause. All I want to ask the Minister is to ensure that his department watches this particularly to see whether this provision is not outmanoeuvred to the detriment of the builder who sets to work in a straightforward manner for the construction of dwellings. This matter gives point to the remarks the hon. the Minister made during the Second Reading when he said that this type of approach was one which needed further investigation by the Government; and this is one of those many which probably justify further investigation in order to ensure the effectiveness of this legislation.

There is another aspect to this provision that we should consider. It became clear to me after I had carefully analysed this provision. A person may have a loan for a period of, say, 5 years. With that money he has bought premises and erected a block of flats on it. Now, however, he has to go to a different financial institution to renew that loan of his after five years. My question is whether the wording of this particular provision covers a case like this, a case of loan renewal. I think the hon. the Minister should give us clarity on the question of loan renewal and tell us whether this is also covered, because the loan is not specifically for purchasing or building, because this has already been done. The loan is only negotiated to obtain money to help the lessor over his problems and to make possible the recoupment of the interest from the lessees.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that there are dangers implicit in any amendment of this nature, and they will naturally have to be looked at very carefully. On the other hand, the clause which is here being amended by the addition of (b) is an essential one inasmuch as there have been cases of blatant exploitation.

Which one are you referring to now?

I am dealing with (b),—the question of loans. Where an owner takes a bond on a property that bond has to be subsidized by the tenant; interest is allowed in the allowable rent and yet the money which is raised by taking out a bond could be spent on other purposes. If it is spent on the building of additional flats, those flats are now not under rent control. Therefore the owner can charge whatever rental he likes for the new block of flats and he will cover, within what the market will carry, interest rates as well, so in fact he is getting free money at the cost of the tenants of an existing building on which he takes out a loan. Sir, I welcome this provision and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will realize the difficulties raised by my colleague the hon. member for Green Point.

But if it is not under rent control, then there is nothing that I can do about it.

What this will prevent is that a tenant in a controlled block of flats will be called upon to subsidize interest rates on a bond taken out on a controlled block while the money is spent to build an uncontrolled block. This provides protection to the tenant of a controlled block where the bond is registered against a controlled building but where the money has in fact not been spent on that building.

Then I would like to refer to paragraph (a), another improvement which I welcome and which will cover some cases of hardship which I have discussed with the Minister and which I do not need to go into here. I had wondered whether this clause might not have gone further, but I agree now that perhaps it goes far enough. I want simply to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the situation of a daughter who has nursed an ailing mother, for instance, or to quote another case which his department has had to deal with, the case of a sister who has nursed an invalid sister over a long period of years, in one case for 15 years. The one sister gave up her work to nurse an invalid and mentally affected sister of hers and looked after her for 15 years. The lease of the flat was in the name of the ill and mentally deficient sister. When that sister died, the one who had given her whole life to looking after her, was then given notice on the ground that she was not the tenant. I realize that you cannot cover every case by law.

Order! I cannot see how that comes under this clause at all.

Sir, with respect, this clause is extending the protection granted to a lessee by including people in addition to those presently covered by the law, in other words, by including a divorced wife or a deserted wife.

Order! That is correct; the hon. member may speak on that, but he may not introduce new matters.

I am not suggesting that this should be amended further but that the Minister should bear in mind that other categories may be affected. I will take the matter no further than to bring it to the attention of the Minister so that perhaps in the future, if this sort of case occurs too often, further amendments might be considered.

Finally I welcome paragraph (c), the amendment of “services”, which will eliminate what is becoming nothing less than a racket, and that is the selling of so-called meal tickets entitling a person to a bun and a cup of coffee at an adjoining restaurant and then claiming that it is a bed-and-breakfast establishment. This has been exploited by certain owners of buildings and I think it is only right to say to others who may be adversely affected by this clause that they have to thank for it a few unscrupulous people who were prepared to try to twist the law in order to give what they call meals but which in fact were not meals. The result has been this amendment which will close that loophole, and if it causes inconvenience to genuine landlords they must blame those who made it necessary.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Green Point, it is quite clear that this can be misused, and I am quite happy to go further into this to see whether we can close that loop-hole which he has mentioned. I will go into it and see whether it can be done, but I can give him this assurance. I think it is quite clear what we actually want here, and if a man then borrows money from himself, really, to build a new block of flats and that type of thing, I think we can close that loophole. As far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, I think we agree. The other difficulty he brought up is in fact a difficulty, but I do not know whether we can draft a clause which will deal with all possible hard cases that can crop up in that direction. I do not think it is possible.

*To the hon. member for Germiston District I just want to say that those mortgages have been exempted and that this will not apply to them.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

There is one point I want to raise. Increases which result from an application are invariably made effective from the date of application. I wonder why the Minister has used the word “may” in regard to a reduction instead of making it compulsory from that date of complaint. It seems to me that the wording here is not consistent with what is done in regard to the making effective of increases, namely from the date of application, whereas the reduction is only permissive as from the date of complaint.

The Rent Board can say from what date.

My point is that the Rent Board need not necessarily in terms of this clause make the reduction effective from the date of complaint, but where it orders an increase it must make the increase effective as from the date of application. Why is there a difference in regard to a reduction resulting from a complaint as compared with an increase resulting from an application for an increase?

The point here is that as the law stands now, a decrease in rent is effective from the date when the letter is posted, or arrives at the home of the tenant, which is obviously unsatisfactory, so what we have done here is to say that the Rent Board must have the power to stipulate that it will be from a particular date. We did not deal with the question of an increase because that is quite clear in the law. The increase applies from the date when the application was made. There is a little difference between the two but it is so small that I do not think we need make any alteration here.

I want to point out that there is a difference. There are cases where an increase is ordered and a tenant, at great difficulty, is called upon to pay the additional amount for five or six months in one lump sum. Now if a tenant has been overcharged to the extent that the Rent Board finds that the rent was not reasonable, it seems that the relief provided for the tenant might well extend to the date of the complaint. I am not moving an amendment but I only want to ask the Minister to give consideration to substituting “shall” for “may” as far as reductions are concerned, to bring it into line with the procedure adopted in regard to increases.

I will discuss the point with my department and, if necessary, I shall move an amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Clause 4 (b) provides an additional protection for a tenant. I welcome this, since this flows directly from a plague of eviction notices given to parents to whom children were born in Durban. Again I would like to say to those who may find this inconvenient, that they have one firm of estate agents in Durban to thank for this provision, because this firm made a particular point of giving notice to tenants because they had had children. I do not know if I will be permitted to deal in detail with it, but the evil which is here being prevented is linked very closely with another loophole which is used for the same purpose, namely giving notice to people who do what is known as personal smalls washing in a flat where laundry is not allowed.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to raise that point.

I will speak to the Minister privately about this. I hope that perhaps that will be closed as well.

Where they are under rent control, it is very easy to deal with them. When they are not under rent control, one cannot very well deal with it. We changed the law last year.

It does not cover it.

Does it not? Well, then we had better do something that will cover it. I am willing to discuss this with the hon. member. The hon. member must remember that this clause was put into the Bill at his special request. I think it is very necessary. We can still talk about the other matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

A new clause 3, a new clause 4, a new clause 19, a new clause 20 and an amendment to the title appear on the Order Paper. All of these amendments deal exclusively with one matter, i.e. the question of keeping registers of unqualified assistants in pharmacology and of trainee chemists and druggists. Last week I received from the Pharmacy Board an urgent request for this amendment to be effected. They were unable to let us have it at an earlier date, nor did they draw our attention to it earlier on. It also deals with the fact that the training of chemists and druggists was changed two years ago in that a chemist and druggist is now required to have undergone four years’ academic training plus a year of training with a chemist and druggist. The term “unqualified assistants” indicates that the Pharmacy Board would like students who have already completed their first two years and have enrolled for their third and fourth years to work with registered chemists and druggists during their holidays.

I placed these amendments on the Order Paper in an attempt to have them incorporated into this Bill. But since this deals with clause 15, for which no provision has been made in the long title, it would be necessary to give an instruction to the whole House to discuss these amendments at the Committee Stage. I should have liked to have given such an instruction with the co-operation of both sides of the House. However, in negotiating this matter with the Whips, I did not readily obtain from the other side of the House permission to do this. For that reason I did not make the suggestion. As a result of that I am, therefore, not going to propose the new clause 3, clause 4—as it appears on the Order Paper, for it deals exclusively with this matter—the new clause 19, the new clause 20 or the amendment to the title. I am sorry that this is the case. I am particularly sorry because the Pharmacy Board felt very strongly about this matter. However, I do not wish to do something of that nature without the full co-operation of the Opposition, as this affects national health. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain the co-operation of the Opposition in this regard. That is the reason.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

To add the following proviso after “Minister” in line 48:

1. (a) diagnosing cancer while performing in respect of any person any act pertaining to the practice of dentistry, or
2. (b) treating cancer so diagnosed.

This clause deals with one matter only, i.e. the role played by dentists nowadays in diagnosing and treating cancer. Hon. members will be able to see that this clause seeks to restrict the cancer quacks altogether so that they will no longer be able to diagnose or give treatment. However, one must exclude certain persons from that action, as is in fact being done in clause 6, i.e. medical practitioners who normally do this type of work and others who are registered as such. In their representations to me the Dental Council and the Dental Association requested that dentists should also be included here in view of the fact that dentists did not deal with these matters in former years, but nowadays there are several cases of oral surgery and oral cancer which are not only diagnosed by dentists, but also treated by them. The whole object of this legislation is that such people should be excluded as well. For that reason I propose that it be inserted here that dentists shall not be prohibited from diagnosing or treating cancer. That is the object of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House naturally welcome the inclusion of dentists and as the hon. the Minister knows at the moment there is a specialized field in the dentistry which deals particularly with this condition of the mouth. While I am on my feet I want to deal with another matter under clause 6. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the new paragraph (c) which reads, and I quote—

I wonder if it would be possible for the hon. the Minister to add after the word “cancer” the words “or any other growth”. The hon. the Minister will know that one of the dangers of inexperienced people treating non-malignant growths, is that they might be quite easily turned into malignant growths by their plasters and so on. I wonder whether he could not give this some consideration. Furthermore, while I am on this question of cancer, there is another point which I want to deal with. Would the hon. the Minister tell us whether recognized institutions will include, for research purposes, those pharmaceutical companies which are doing research work in the production of pharmaceuticals of one kind or another which may help in the treatment of cancer. It is not clearly stated here. By institutions I think we mean hospitals or recognized research institutions like the South African Institute for Medical Research. I would like the hon. the Minister to make it clear in this Committee Stage that those pharmaceutical companies which are doing research work in cancer will be included in “institutions”.

Mr. Chairman, the Dental Association of South Africa will be particularly grateful for the addition of this proviso. It is in the interests of our medical profession that dentists should receive this recognition. From the nature of their practice it so happens that they are usually afforded the first opportunity of making a diagnosis of cancer in the oral cavity. In addition I want to mention that the two schools of dentistry in South Africa are paying special attention to cancer. The students are given a good grounding in attending to this disease in their private practices. Then I want to mention that at present the specialists, the oral surgeons, are receiving training enabling them to cope fully with the treatment of cancer. For that reason we are particularly grateful to the hon. the Minister for having decided to add this proviso.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Rustenburg, who is of course a member of the dental profession, for his friendly words. I know that in this matter, too, he has been particularly helpful to us.

†In regard to the hon. member for Rosettenville’s last point which he raised, namely his reference to pharmaceutical institutions which are doing research work, I want to state that they are certainly included in this clause. As the clause reads, the hon. member will see it says: “At any institution approved for this purpose by the Minister”. This was inserted on purpose, so that all these pharmaceutical institutions which are registered with us will get the approval of the hon. the Minister so that he will know, also for the sake of the Medical Research Council, where such research is being done in South Africa.

They will be obliged to apply and become registered?

They do not have to be registered. They have to get the approval. This is really a good thing and I am sure that they will welcome this as well, because they would like to have the approval of the hon. the Minister and to have that contact with the Medical Research Council.

In regard to the second point, the inclusion of the words “or any other growth” after the word “cancer”, I can see the point of the hon. member. I may say that this was also raised with me by hon. members on this side of the House some time ago. I have given this matter my careful attention but have decided against it for the simple reason that, firstly, as this clause reads now, the provisions are very strict indeed, as the hon. member knows. Secondly, if any other growth is included the provisions of this clause will go too far. Then, for example, a chiropodist who treats feet as well as some growths on feet, will be affected. We have looked into the matter and I am sure that the clause as it stands now is going far enough in combating the evil that we would like to combat in South Africa. If we go as far as is suggested by the hon. member, perhaps with good reason, I feel that we will be going too far and we will include other people whom we would not like to be covered by the provisions of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to what the hon. the Minister has said and I am prepared not to move my amendment. I would nevertheless like to ask him to give this aspect his very careful consideration, especially where advertisements appear in the paper which simply state that readers should phone a certain number to have growths removed. These advertisements do not specify cancer but simply say that growths will be removed. I think we must investigate these people to see exactly what they are doing. This is one of the reasons I raised the matter.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister explain to us laymen why it is that a dentist may now diagnose cancer and then be allowed to treat it in the wide form in which the hon. the Minister’s amendment is framed. One understood that dentists are not really qualified by their training either to diagnose or to treat cancer. Could the hon. the Minister explain to us what this is all about?

Mr. Chairman, may I say very specifically that dentists are qualified and recognized as being able to make diagnoses in connection with their particular work, namely as far as the mouth is concerned. Secondly, they are not only allowed, but through registration with the Medical Council it is implicit in their registration that they can diagnose and treat all matters which fall within the scope of dentistry. This is the only provision we are making here.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

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

To add at the end of the Clause:

The object of my amendment is to provide that the provisions of this clause of the Bill and other clauses relating to the prohibition of certain persons to do certain acts and that the sanctions that will apply to them if they do these acts shall not apply to chiropractors. As we indicated during the Second Reading debate, if one looks at the clauses which precede clause 7, it is clear, and I put it no higher than this, that chiropractors could be subjected to the provisions of the new section 39C added by clause 7 of the Bill. This new section 39C provides that certain criminal offences will be committed by persons who do certain acts which are not authorized. As I say, I put it no higher than that they could be in fact dealt with under this new section. The hon. the Minister has said that he does not want chiropractors to be dealt with under this measure and that it was not his intention to do so. But as evidence of the fact that they could be dealt with under this particular clause and especially under the proposed section 39C one had the Bill which was withdrawn by the hon. the Minister and, in fact, the new Bill in which it appears that when a person is charged with contravening the new section 39C the onus of proving that he was in fact a chiropractor shall be on him and that the provisions will not apply to a chiropractor. This indicates that in fact this clause could encompass the activities of chiropractors. If I understood the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate, he said that in principle he had no objection to chiropractors being excluded from the operation of the new section 39C. He also said that he had been advised by his legal advisors that the best way of dealing with matters was to pass this Bill and then also to pass a separate Bill dealing with chiropractors, in which they were to be exempted from these provisions. I think the same difficulty arose last year when we had the identical Bill. The hon. the Minister’s difficulties were, as I understand the situation, that he could not exclude them from the provisions of this Bill by excluding them specifically therein, because there was no definition of a chiropractor. One understands those difficulties. A formula has been devised whereby under the Bill withdrawn and the existing Bill, chiropractors are to be, if that Bill is passed by the House and this Bill becomes law, exempted from the operation of section 39C. We do not have that Bill before us. We do not know whether it will be passed by this House or by this Parliament. If it is not passed by this House and by Parliament, of course the power will exist to do far more to the chiropractors than the existing Chiropractors Bill envisages. In other words, not only will chiropractors in future be banned, but it would be possible to restrict chiropractors presently practising in respect of what they now do. We do not know whether this Bill is going to be passed or not. We do not know whether the Chiropractors Bill is going to be put into law or not. So, Sir, the amendment which I move standing in my name on the Order Paper purports to do just this. In principle the hon. the Minister has no objection to it. He does not wish this Act to apply to chiropractors.

There has been provided a substitute for a definition in the Chiropractors Bill. That is that persons who are practising for gain as chiropractors are excluded. If anyone is charged with contravening this section, the onus shall be on him to prove that he is doing acts which were normally done by chiropractors. There is no definition, but the onus is on him to show that in fact and in practice these are acts done by chiropractors and shall be excluded. All it will do, is to add another section, 39D, excluding chiropractors, as defined by the hon. the Minister in both his Bills. It is not really a definition, but it describes nevertheless the persons and the activities in that manner, excluding them from the provisions of this Bill. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see that, while there is no definition, all that this amendment proposes to do, is to take his proposed definition in the Chiropractors Bill, put it into this Bill and exclude those persons contemplated in the Chiropractors Bill from the operation of section 39C. That is the effect of doing this. What he does in the Chiropractors Bill, we hope he will be able to do in this Bill. The wording of the formula is not ours; it is the formula of the hon. the Minister’s. I hope that he will see his way clear to accept this amendment, which, as he has indicated, in principle he is not against.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this is not such an easy matter as the hon. member has just stated it to be. I have an idea the hon. member knows it is not. Let me say at once that right from the beginning, ever since last year, it has never been my intention or that of the Department that this Bill, and specifically section 39C, should affect the chiropractors. I have given them this undertaking and, as I have already said here, I am prepared to keep that promise.

A further intention was to exclude them in this legislation. On the advice of the law advisers it was decided to introduce a separate Bill for regulating matters relating to chiropractics, instead of including it in this legislation. The hon. member said that in principle I would have no objection to what he was proposing. This, of course, is not correct. What is the hon. member proposing in effect? I have emphasized throughout, and this is also contained in the Bill dealing with chiropractics, that in future a list will be kept of persons practising at present and of students studying at present. Only these persons will be excluded from the provisions of section 39C. Now the hon. member is proposing the exclusion of any person who may in future practise chiropractics. Surely there is a world of difference between these two things. If we were to do this, we would be doing an extremely irresponsible thing in this regard. Whereas we are now introducing supplementary control over all medical auxiliary services, it would mean that with regard to one group of people we would be providing that they would be entirely excluded, that, as far as they were concerned, there would be no control and no training and that they could proceed in the present way now and in future.

But you could make the same provision in the Chiropractors Bill.

No, there it would only apply to those who are practising at present and who are studying at present. Since 1928 it has been law in South Africa that any person who wants to make a diagnosis or who wants to apply treatment must have basic training not below a certain minimum. Since 1928 it has been the rule that anyone who wants to practise as a dentist, for example, must have basic training not below a certain minimum. If he does not have that and passes himself off as practising as such, he is liable to punishment. Now the hon. member is saying that this is perfectly in order as far as all other persons are concerned, but no rules, no control whatsoever, are required for anyone who says he is practising chiropractics.

You can restrict it later.

I can restrict it later, but I am not going to land myself in difficulties now just to try to get out of them later. The hon. member will realize that I cannot accept this amendment under any circumstances. The hon. member asked, and this is a fair argument, how we could be sure that this House would pass that Bill which deals with chiropractors. But if this House is prepared to accept this Bill as it stands, the one which is before us now, I can see no problem in connection with the passing of the Chiropractors Bill, because it wants to prevent the very thing we seek to prevent in this Bill. I cannot accept the argument of the hon. member. Indeed, I believe the hon. member himself would have second thoughts if I were to accept it now, because it would mean that we would be taking a step in the wrong direction with regard to control over persons diagnosing and treating the public, a step which South Africa definitely would not like to see, particularly not after we had reached such heights in the sphere of medicine. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member because of its far-reaching implications.

I find the hon. the Minister’s argument an extraordinary one. He says it is not his intention under this Bill to control or in any way affect chiropractors. Yet he says he cannot accept this amendment on the grounds that this Bill deals generally with all paramedical services; why should we therefore exclude one category of persons while covering all the rest? But, Mr. Chairman, the Minister must be honest with this House, he must be quite open with this House. The question is whether he intends or does not intend in terms of the Bill which is now before the House to deal with chiropractors adversely—in other words, to control them in some way, to restrict their practice or prevent them from practising at all. Does he or does he not. He cannot expect the House to accept his explanation that on the one hand he does not want to exclude them because the acts they perform form part and parcel of paramedical acts and consequently cannot exclude them from this Bill, and on the other hand to want us to believe that it is not his intention to control them under this legislation. If he does not wish this Bill to affect in any way the practice of chiropractors —it does not matter whether it is those who are at present practising or those who may come in in future—and the Minister has said that it is not his intention, then he ought to be able to accept this amendment. The other question whether those who ought to be allowed to practise should only be those who practise at present and those who are studying or whether it should also include others who may qualify in future, is a matter for discussion under the Chiropractors Bill; it has nothing to do with this amendment, nothing whatsoever. He cannot rely on that argument in an endeavour to justify his refusal to accept this amendment. On this side of the House we are very concerned with the position of chiropractors. I do not want to enter into discussion about the Bill which is on the Order Paper but not yet before us. Whether or not we will be satisfied with that Bill is a matter for discussion when the Bill comes up. But I want to repeat that we on this side of the House are very concerned about the position of chiropractors.

For political reasons.

They have over many years performed a valuable service to this country. And we should like to know what the attitude is of hon. members on the Government side regarding chiropractors. Do they wish to see them continue in their practice? If they do I trust they will support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that in terms of the provisions of this Bill chiropractors could be restricted in their practice. The terms of this Bill are wide enough to make it possible for them to be restricted in their practice. Are hon. members on the Government side satisfied with that situation, or do they agree that chiropractors have performed a valuable service in this country and should be permitted to continue in practice? What is their attitude?

What has been the situation up till now?

I quite agree that up till now they have carried on their practice not under any law, but the very point that we make is that this law which is now before the Committee could enable the Medical Council to declare the acts which are now being performed by chiropractors to be acts which should be performed not by chiropractors but by other sections of the medical profession as such. There is no doubt about it that the provisions of the Bill could exclude chiropractors from practice, not only the ones who are in practice at present but all future chiropractors who may wish to come to this country to practise or who may wish to qualify in this country for practice.

Are you prepared to leave them uncontrolled?

The question as to whether or not we are prepared to leave them uncontrolled is another matter entirely. They have not been subject to control up to now. What is more, since the publication of the report of this commission in 1962, I think I am correct in saying, a report on which the Government now relies to pass legislation against the chiropractors nothing whatsoever has been done by the Government against chiropractice. It is now 1971, so the Government cannot argue that they have been a danger to the public, because if they have been a danger to the public why have they been allowed to continue since 1962? It is in this report that the commissioners said that their profession is not scientifically based. If the hon. the Minister thought that this was a serious matter which required attention, why has he done nothing about it since 1962? No, the hon. the Minister and members on the Government side must be quite frank with this House and with the public and the voters. Do they or do they not wish to allow chiropractors to continue in practice? If they do, they must give better reasons for refusing to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North.

Order! Before calling upon the hon. member for Brentwood to speak, I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there is another Bill on the Table of this House, i.e. the Chiropractors Bill. Consequently, even though the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North does raise this matter, I should not like to allow at this stage a wide and general discussion on the pros and cons of chiropractors. Hon. members may refer to them but I think it is wrong to go into the matter in detail on this occasion.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your ruling because that is what this entire problem is about, but hon. members of the Opposition do not want to recognize this. The Committee has already agreed to certain clauses of the Bill under discussion; we have now proceeded to clause 7, and the opposite side of this House agreed to clause 2 of this Bill without any opposition, one to which I want to refer back in order to relate it to the matter now under discussion. The proposed section 13A (1) inserted by clause 2, which has been agreed to, reads—

In other words, the Medical Council, which was discredited by the hon. member for Berea—

Here we are dealing with a Bill covering certain professions which already exist and which render supplementary services to the medical profession, in order to afford those people the opportunity of regulating their affairs when the Medical Council deems it fit that they should comply with compulsory registration and certain rules and regulations. This is what we are dealing with and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any other profession. If the hon. member now wants to bring in chiropractors, whom he has not defined, he should by the same token move an amendment in respect of neuropaths and osteopaths, etc. He cannot simply single out one, because this does not concern those people who are outside. This entire piece of legislation concerns the people who are inside. If this legislation happens to create a position in which those people are affected, they have to be saved from the outside, by their own organizations. This is the only place where we find any bond between this legislation and the legislation which will possibly follow this, in other words, the other legislation to follow this has to make provision either for chiropractors or for osteopaths or for whomsoever, who are not recognized by the Medical Council as an auxiliary service as laid down in clause 2 of this Bill. In that case we shall have to pass other legislation for them as well.

In addition, I should just like to quote this. Sir, this is now being turned into something political.

Oh no!

Yes, the hon. member for Musgrave clearly said we had to say whether we were for or against chiropractors. He is now trying to force the discussion of something which is not relevant. I just want to tell the hon. member that the Chiropractic Association in one of their circulars signed by their secretary, said the following (translation)—

This is the one now under discussion—

If they prove that they are not transgressing this Act, it has nothing to do with us. I cannot understand the hon. member for Durban North and Musgrave, who have had basic scientific training. The hon. members belong to one of the most honourable professions in this country with a scientific training. They, too, have a code and a higher authority regulating matters for them, just as I, as a medical practitioner, am under the control of the Medical Council. Now they want to accept something as scientific which is not acceptable to the Medical Council in the context of this Bill. Let us go back to 1934 when the attorneys and notaries had similar basic legislation, Act No. 23 of 1934, before this House of Assembly. The same principle was applicable when the attorneys and notaries wanted to put their case. At that time they alone put their case, what was of interest to them, how they were to maintain their rules and discipline and what minimum requirement were essential for them. This Act of 1934 does not make any reference anywhere to other people outside. The legislation now before this House is similar.

The hon. member for Brentwood makes us even more apprehensive than we were before. He quotes the straight chiropractors. How many of them are there? Are there four, or are there five? He does not quote from what over a hundred of the other chiropractors say. Then he says we are trying to make a political issue of it. Surely we are all here as representatives of the people and if the rights, not only of the chiropractors, but the rights of the many thousands of people are affected, we must do something. Obviously, I have nothing against the medical profession, but I include myself amongst those whose rights are affected.

Does the hon. member want to protect them?

Yes, most certainly I think that the chiropractors should be allowed to continue. That is the object of this operation. Let me say that, when one talks of a political issue, everything we deal with here are political issues. A member of Parliament must make a decision which he believes in as a representative, as he is, of his people. He must decide, if we divide on this clause, where he stands in relation to his constituency and whether he wants the chiropractors excluded from the operation of this Bill or not. The hon. the Minister says that he is not going to apply this and does not intend applying it to chiropractors. If that is so, when an amendment is proposed which says that the sanctions in section 39C will not be applied to chiropractors, if the hon. the Minister really means what he says and in principle agrees and if this hon. member, who has just spoken and every other hon. member sitting there agrees, they should vote for the amendment. If they do not do so, they give notice to the people they represent in this House, that they do not want the chiropractors excluded from the operation of this section. It is as simple as that.

The hon. the Minister says that he cannot accept this amendment under any circumstances, because it goes too far and protects all of them. That it is what it is intended to do. At this stage we do not know whether we will get the Chiropractors Bill, whether it is going to be passed, or withdrawn again, or whether it is going to be changed. All we know is that we have at this stage this Bill, which can exclude chiropractors from operating.

Or any others too.

Yes, I agree, it can exclude others too. My amendment deals with chiropractors and it is in that regard that the question before the House on my particular amendment is how members feel about whether or not chiropractors should practise. One speaks here, not on behalf of one’s political party, but on behalf of one’s constituents, or one should. Let no one come along and say that this is not going to deal with or could not deal with chiropractors. One can look at both Bills relating to chiropractors, and one sees there a specific reference to section 39C, where they are specifically excluded from this provision. If one can have it in that Bill, then one can have it in this Bill. At this stage we have no Chiropractors Bill before us. We merely have the Minister’s assurance that it will not deal with chiropractors and we have his assurance that, in principle, he has no objection. We have provided a formula taken from the Minister’s own Bill on chiropractors. It says that chiropractors should be excluded. The simple question on this amendment is that you either want them to be or you do not. When you vote, you will say to yourself, to the House and to your constituents: We want chiropractors to be dealt with by the Medical Council and, if necessary, have their wings clipped, because they can be, on the hon. the Minister’s own admission by his introduction of the Chiropractors Bill. We will be saying: We are not prepared to allow them to be excluded. It is really as simple as that. It is not a political issue. It is an issue before the House. You want them excluded or you do not want them excluded. Will the hon. the Minister now say what his attitude is? Then I am sure that the others will follow him as they usually do through that little opening in the kraal where you normally count the sheep.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North is now dragging in a matter by its hair, and he and I do not have much!

The chiropractors are not at all concerned in this legislation before us. The only persons who are mentioned by name in this Bill and who are being excluded specifically, are the so-called cancer doctors or cancer quacks. A ban is not being placed by this legislation on any other person who can satisfy the Medical Council with regard to its scientific test for registration. Now the hon. member for Durban North says the only issue before this House is whether we are for or against chiropractors. Now my challenge to that hon. member is to tell us whether he is for or against scientific training. Any profession operating in the medical field and paramedical field which can stand the test of science may be registered in terms of this legislation. I challenge the hon. member to prove the contrary.

But now the hon. member comes along and drags in another matter by its hair, because the hon. member for Berea has once again tried, just as he did the other day with regard to the question of drugs, to make a little bit of miserable political capital out of this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to draw attention to one point in the proposed amendment and ask the hon. member by whom the amendment was proposed exactly what he means by it. The hon. member proposed that “the provisions of sections 32 and 39A shall not apply in respect of any person who is practising for gain as a chiropractor in the Republic”. What I read into this, is that the hon. member wants any person who has started practising as a chiropractor, even if he has only a Std. Six certificate, to receive full recognition as a chiropractor. What I also read in this amendment, is that a person who has gained no scientific knowledge, not even in that particular field of study in which, as is being suggested—and I assume this—experience may be gained, should in fact be admitted as a chiropractor. Can anything be more ridiculous than that? I should like to issue a challenge to the Opposition to let us hear what the hon. member for Rosettenville has to say about the attitude of the Medical Council in respect of people who have to receive scientific training. Notice has been given in this House of the introduction of a Bill which will deal with chiropractors. It has been ruled that we may not discuss it, and I gladly abide by that ruling. But if this matter is taken so far that the hon. Opposition is trying to make political capital out of it, as people have already tried to do in the Press, I just want to point out to the hon. member that this kind of legislation, which does at least exercise control over every single profession that falls under medicine, is being introduced for the protection of these people.

Any legislation such as the legislation being introduced now, is intended to serve as protection not only for the public, but also for that particular profession. That is why the method was followed that was in fact followed by the hon. the Minister. That is why it is possible for me to feel absolutely free to vote for this Bill as it was proposed by the hon. the Minister, and I can account for it fully.

But I should like to ask once again what I asked a moment ago, i.e. what the hon. member for Rosettenville has to say in respect of the non-training of people who pretend to be medical practitioners and who then practice the medical profession. In conclusion I may just point out that in the very ranks of the chiropractic profession there are people who have expressed their concern at the fact that there are persons who are practising as chiropractors and who are by no means qualified to do so. If such a clause were inserted for the protection of any person who practises as a chiropractor, it would merely prove how irresponsible an Opposition can be in that it wants to tell the public that any person who wishes to practise as a chiropractor at all, may receive his two month’s training or no training whatsoever, and he will be welcome according to the proposer of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are two matters with which we ought to deal. Firstly, there seems to be, and I am sure that there is, a doubt in people’s minds, not only in this House, but also in the minds of people outside this House, whether or not chiropractors can be dealt with under the Bill which we have before us.

There is no doubt about it. They can deal with them like with any other person. That is what I am interested in.

If they can be dealt with under this Bill, it means that the Minister, under this Bill, can do what he wishes to do under the Chiropractors Bill. That is how it appears to me. Therefore, the Chiropractors Bill is redundant if he goes on with this Bill. The Chiropractors Bill becomes a Bill which is duplicating the Minister’s intention. That is the first point. People had that doubt in their minds and that doubt has now been removed by the Minister. That doubt had been expressed by members on the Government side of the House, but that doubt is now removed. We know that the Minister now has two methods of dealing with the chiropractors.

Do you want me to deal with them at all?

The hon. the Minister must just give me the opportunity to finish. The next point is that there is not a single member on this side of the House who wants the chiropractors to be allowed to practise his profession unless he is trained to do so. Now, the difficulty that has arisen, as far as chiropractors are concerned, and they say this themselves, is their inability to have some recognized standards of training and control. Now what is the hon. the Minister doing? The Minister is prolonging the life of people who have not been trained. Whether they have been trained in America, or whether they have been trained at the bottom of Adderley Street, he is prolonging the life of the untrained people as well as the trained.

Are you against that?

I am against them being allowed to practise if they do not have at least some recognized basis of training. The hon. the Minister is not doing anything to control these people at all. Up to now he has not laid down a standard of proficiency. He has not done anything in that regard. All he has done, is he has said here that he will not interfere with the present chiropractors who are practising. He will not qualify them. What their qualifications are, and how they got those qualifications, is a different basis of argument. He has said here that he will not interfere with the chiropractors who are at present training as chiropractors. He has also said that he will not interfere with the students who are training. Who are the students that are training, and where are they training?

What has that got to do with this Bill?

Mr. Chairman, I have embarrassed the Government members by what I have said. I will abide by your ruling which you made earlier on when you said that you would not like us to go too deeply into the merits or the demerits of the chiropractors, but I was challenged to state my views. That is what I am doing now. I say that the present Bill could eliminate chiropractors if the hon. the Minister wishes to do so. He has yet another weapon, and that is the Chiropractors Bill which may come before us. He will then have both those methods to deal with chiropractors. When that Bill comes before the House, we will deal with the merits of chiropractors, but that is a different story. Here I say all that we are doing on this side of the House is to give the Minister one weapon instead of two. That is what we are doing. We want them to be excluded from this Bill and what happens with them in the next Bill will be seen when that Bill comes in front of this House. That is all we have to say in this matter.

I would urge the hon. the Minister to do what he set out to do originally and that is to exclude the chiropractors from this Bill. That is what the hon. the Minister has said. That is what we are asking him to do now. We want it to be put down in black and white.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Rosettenville whether I understood him correctly when he said that he wanted chiropractors to be properly trained? Is that correct?

Yes.

When they are properly trained they will be admitted by the Medical Council as a paramedical service. Is that correct and is that what the hon. member wants? If they are a properly trained profession they can get recognition by the Medical Council and become a paramedical profession. If that is the case the hon. the Minister will be empowered by this Bill to recognize them as such and give them protection as a profession. Having them properly qualified will protect the public as well. This is what the hon. the Minister is aiming at in this Bill. He wants to protect them until they have acquired such recognition. The hon. the Minister intends to bring the Bill on Chiropractors before this House in order to protect those that are at present practising as chiropractors and to enable them to carry on with their work. Until such time as they have put their house in order those that are practising will be protected under the Bill proposed by the hon. the Minister. But when they have put their house in order they will be, as any other paramedical service, entitled to become a fully recognized paramedical service. Therefore I feel there is no sense in adopting the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North which would preclude them from getting proper recognition, as they may get later under this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the position is becoming more and more interesting, or perhaps I should say curiouser and curiouser as a result of the explanation of the hon. member for Geduld. It would seem that the Nationalist Party caucus has been told one thing and this House another by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister certainly did not tell this House what the hon. member for Geduld has just told us was the intention of this Bill, namely to bring the chiropractors under the wing of the Medical Council once they qualify. This is exactly what the hon. the Minister did not tell the House. I think that if any speech made in this debate warrants this House voting in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North, it is the speech of the hon. member for Geduld. We are now perfectly clear what the intention of the hon. the Minister is with this Bill. We are grateful to the hon. member for Geduld for spelling it out to us so clearly.

I would also like to react to the speech of the hon. member for Witbank. He has complained that we are introducing an amendment to protect chiropractors without laying down any qualification at all. He asks with horror and indignation whether we are prepared to allow a man with a Standard 6 certificate to practise as a chiropractor. If the hon. member for Witbank is so indignant about the lack of qualifications of chiropractors and if that is the argument of hon. members on that side of the House, why have they not come to this House with a Bill to protect the public against the lack of qualifications of chiropractors? Chiropractors have been practising for many years without any specific requirement. What is more curious, in terms of this Bill which the Government proposes to introduce to deal with chiropractors …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member must allow me to develop my argument. He must just be patient. In terms of the Bill which this Government proposes to introduce to deal with chiropractors which is on the Order Paper they propose to recognize the present practitioners and those who are in training without laying down any qualifications whatsoever. So what nonsense does the hon. member for Witbank talk that he objects to our amendment because we do not lay down any qualifications? It becomes obvious, the more this clause is being debated, that what the Government really has in mind, is to be able to control the chiropractor under this Bill. Unless the hon. the Minister and the members on the Government benches support the amendment by the hon. member for Durban North, the public and the voters who support the Government will be entitled to come to exactly the same conclusion.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban North proposes but one thing. That is that in future anyone who professes to be practising chiropractics will have carte blanche to carry on without control, qualifications or anything. That is the implication. Am I correct? Is that the implication of the hon. member’s amendment?

Yes.

All right. It is rather strange that the amendment comes from the hon. member for Durban North because in 1962 we had before this House a private member’s Bill. In that Bill it was proposed that chiropractors continue, but that there should be strict control and registers kept. It is much stricter than the hon. member’s amendment. I opposed that private member’s Bill, and I read here in Hansard (1962, column 1290):

I second the amendment.

*I have never seen any hon. member adopting such a two-faced approach. But I do not want to take up this matter with him. This makes me think that there has not been compliance with my request during the Second-Reading debate, i.e. that political capital should not be made out of health matters. This is politicizing and nothing else. But let me repeat that I am not going to allow myself to be misled into dragging chiropractors across the floor of this House. They are decent people.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I have a good understanding with them. We understand each other. If the vested rights of chiropractors were to be affected in the future, I should do something to prevent those rights from being affected. That is why there is another Bill on the Table before us. I say vested rights, and I define them specifically as those who are practising and those who are studying.

The hon. member for Musgrave wanted to know why we did not prohibit it altogether; but over the years it has been the tradition of this House and of South Africa that one does not come forward with a total prohibition, but that we have respect and regard for vested rights, and that we carry these qualities into effect in legislation. That is precisely what is going to happen in this case.

But did the hon. member for Durban North give us his interpretation of the matter? What is the intention of this clause? I think I should now come back to the clause and outline the situation as it is today. The position at present is that only medical practitioners, dentists and nurses must be registered in South Africa. But at present there is no control whatever over any other person who, in any other sphere, wants to treat or diagnose, etc., the human body. Now, in this clause we are providing that as from the date of the promulgation of this legislation, control will be exercised, as it is done in the case of the medical practitioner and the dentist, over any person in South Africa who wants to treat, diagnose or touch the human body in regard to its health. If this is not a major step forward, I do not know what it is. In this legislation no single profession, including that of the chiropractors, is mentioned by name. This is going to affect not only chiropractors, but also any profession or person wishing to treat or diagnose the human body. Since this is the case, I am not prepared to exclude one single profession. Why does the hon. member not ask me to exclude other professions as well? What is the position going to be if this legislation is passed? It will mean that the Medical Council will be able to register and recognize any profession if its members are satisfied with the training. In the years that lie ahead this council may also register chiropractors if it is satisfied with their basic training. Those people who are practising that profession at present, will not be deprived by me of that privilege, and it is in fact with a view to the possibility that the Medical Council may eventually recognize them that I say this. I am not prepared to exclude one single profession from this legislation.

†The hon. member for Musgrave asked me to be honest and open. But that I have been and what is more, I am taking the same line I took in 1962. May I say that I have had no opposition against this Bill from anybody, except from the Opposition. In this Bill we are taking steps to make it possible for anyone who may possibly treat or diagnose the human body to be placed under control and be registered. That being the case I am not prepared to write in here the name of any specific organization, neither chiropractors nor anybody else. After this Bill becomes law and it appears to me that it affects the vested right of chiropractors adversely, I shall guard against it and give them the opportunity to ensure that their vested rights will not be affected.

Then it will be too late.

No.

*Let us now turn the thing around. Let us suppose we accepted the amendment of the hon. member and entirely excluded one group of people from this legislation. Then suppose that in the course of the present session or at a later stage we wanted to do something in regard to chiropractors. Would we be able to do something if we now accepted the amendment of the hon. member? No, what would have to happen then, would be that we would have to repeal his amendment first. I am not as clueless as that, even if I am not a lawyer. Surely, I am not going to accept a thing now which, later on, I would have to repeal first. If we wanted this legislation to mean something, we would first have to withdraw the amendment of the hon. member, i.e. if we accepted it. And, surely, that would be tantamount to setting about things in a back to front way. The hon. member admits that with this amendment he wants to give carte blanche to the whole chiropractic profession. If, at a later stage, we wanted to impose certain restrictions on them, we would have to repeal the carte blanche clause first. That is why I say that I am not prepared to accept this amendment Why did we come here with this Bill? It is not because I thought it up or because it was thought up by the Department of Health, but because the Medical Council has over the years been asking for this magna charta in order that the paramedical professions—I think there are 41 of them—may be protected and minimum qualifications may be laid down for them. I am not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment. Sir, what is our duty in this House? The hon. member mounted a high pedestal here and asked What is our duty in this House? I do not know how he sees it, but every member sitting here has in regard to this legislation just one duty, just one objective, and that is not to protect any profession; it is to afford the public of South Africa the protection to which they are entitled. That is all that is being done by this Bill. What kind of protection? The object of the Bill is to afford the public of South Africa this minimum protection, i.e. that any person who touches or looks at the body of a South African for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment, should have received minimum training, irrespective of his profession, irrespective of whether or not it is a supplementary medical profession.

Order! I think the hon. the Minister is now going too far. I do not think the merits should be discussed now.

Sir, if we want to realize that objective and carry out that duty of protecting the public, we must accept this legislation without any exclusions whatsoever, and for that reason I am not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

May I say just briefly that I find it very difficult to understand what the hon. the Minister has put up here as an argument. He says he is not prepared to exclude anyone from the operation of section 39C but, Sir, he is. He has produced two chiropractors’ bills now —not one—in which he specifically excludes chiropractors as defined from the operation of the proposed section 39C.

As defined.

The definition of “chiropractor” is exactly what is in my amendment. I may say that I had difficulty in trying to define a chiropractor so as to exclude him from the operation of this section.

May I ask a question? Your amendment gives carte blanche to the chiropractor’s profession. Does the Bill before us give carte blanche to the chiropractor?

No, Sir, this is the whole point. What I propose in this amendment is that persons who are now practising as chiropractors shall be excluded—we cannot define them so we use the terminology of the Minister’s own Bill and we say that if persons are practising for gain as chiropractors the onus is on them to show that they are doing things which are done by chiropractors at this stage. We exclude them as they have been for the last 50 years, or whatever the period may be, in the country, and as they are now from the operation of the proposed section 39C. The hon. the Minister says he is not prepared to exclude anyone from the operation of the proposed new section 39C; he is not prepared to do so in this Bill but, Sir, he is prepared to do so; he has given notice of his intention to do so in the Chiropractor’s Bill. He is going to exclude the chiropractors by the Chiropractor’s Bill. Is that not right?

No, that is not right.

But the Minister is going to exclude those who are now practising.

That is the difference between your amendment and my Bill.

The difference is this: We say that persons who are practising must be excluded. That is what this amendment says.

Where?

Read the first paragraph of the amendment.

It is for the hon. the Minister to determine who may practise as a chiropractor, which he proposes to do in the Chiropractor’s Bill. Is that not right? He proposes to say in the Chiropractor s Bill that only those presently practising and those in training may practise. If he passes his Bill, this will refer only to those persons who are practising. The first subsection of the proposed new section 39D says—

That is what you want in your amendment.

That is what I propose.

That is for all time.

Well, perhaps for all time until one changes the law in this regard. But the hon. the Minister proposes, and we do not propose—this is the difference—in another Bill which may or may not be passed, to limit the sort of persons who are practising to those persons who are practising and those who are in training and no one else thereafter. This is the difference, and surely the hon. the Minister appreciates that. I am very sorry, but before I sit down I just want to mention one more thing. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister felt it necessary to refer to the fact that when a private member’s Bill was before this House I seconded his amendment to that Chiropractors’ Bill. I do not know whether the Minister remembers what happened at that time. There was much discussion because it was a private member’s Bill and there was a free vote. There was much discussion across the floor of the House. I am prepared to have a Select Committee look into this if my word is not accepted in this regard. The Minister will remember the discussions that we had. Dr. Aubrey Radford was one of the persons concerned. I said at the time that I liked chiropractors; I had been to a chiropractor and he did something for me after an event involving one of the Minister’s colleagues, which I shall not describe. He got me out of some difficulty and pain that I was in at the time, as the result of the treatment, I seconded the Minister’s amendment because that Bill, he will recall, purported to give the chiropractors the right by statutory protection to do the things that the medical profession is entitled to do.

That is exactly what you are doing in your amendment.

Nonsense, Sir. What this proposes to do is to give the power to the Medical Council to prohibit chiropractors from practising, to say they may only do this or they may only do that. It is totally and completely different and the hon. the Minister ought to know it. In fact, if I may say so, the situation in 1962 was that the Bill presented by Mr. Van der Walt was, to use a word the hon. the Minister would understand, a “gemors”, and we could not get out of the difficulties by resigning ourselves to it; we had to declare our attitude, and that is just what we have to do here.

During the Second-Reading debate I put a certain point to the hon. the Minister with regard to this particular amendment with particular reference to the use of “solely” in the manufacture of drugs and medicine. In the hon. the Minister’s reply during the Second-Reading debate, he indicated that he felt the matter could be gone into and that he would seek the opinion of the South African Pharmacy Board. He indicated too, that, if it were possible to improve this clause so as not to preclude certain manufacturers whose business did not consist solely of the manufacture of drugs and medicines, he would do so. I rise to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has been able, in fact, to consult with the Pharmacy Board and whether he has been able to arrive at an improvement to the existing wording.

I have gone into the matter which the hon. member raised. The law advisers told me that it “solely” refers to the manufacture of drugs and medicines only, and not to other activities of the operation of a firm. Consequently I am of the opinion that the problem he had in this case has been met, and that it is not necessary to effect any change in that case.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

I move as an amendment—

Sir, as the clause stands at the moment, it states:

Now I quote the relevant sub-paragraph (b)—

I believe that, since this particular section of the Act was first promulgated, there has been a change and that not only habit-forming drugs are regarded in a serious light, but that potentially harmful drugs are also a matter which requires to be treated very seriously. I want to draw the attention of this Committee to the fact that the only drug I know of to have been banned so far by the Drugs Control Council, has not been a habit-forming drug, but has been a potentially harmful drug, namely L.S.D. I believe that it would make for clarity and good administration if the hon. the Minister would be prepared to accept the addition after “habit-forming drugs” of “potentially harmful drug”.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. The use of potentially harmful drugs is becoming more and more prevalent and it is abused to such an extent that it is not only the drug itself, but the cumulative effects of the potentially harmful drug that we have to watch. It is because of the cumulative effects of these drugs that I would like the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the hon. member for Berea is a good one, and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I just want to tell hon. members that this improves the clause in that there is certain apparatus which is intended for the protection of persons in, for example, factories, etc. It is simply to cover that possibility, too, that this amendment is being moved. I may just say that it has only been brought to our attention during the past week that there is, indeed, such apparatus which is specifically used for the protection of persons working in such factories. We are, therefore inserting the word “prevention”, which improves the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would be good enough to give me his opinion concerning a matter in this particular clause which I raised during the Second Reading. I drew attention to the fact that at the present moment hypodermic syringes and hypodermic needles are freely available. There is no restriction whatsoever in regard to their purchase or supply. I indicated that while I was not anxious to burden my fellow professional men with any additional restrictions or red tape, I wondered whether it was wise in fact that these particular instruments should be so freely available. I realize there could be difficulty in providing a means of control. The people who need this hypodermic equipment are for instance diabetics and others. It is also used for the various veterinary remedies when farmers and others who are treating animals may require syringes and needles. However, it seems to me that perhaps some system could be adopted whereby this equipment could only be purchased on signature so that at least there would be a check on who purchases hypodermic equipment. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has been able to give this matter consideration and what his reaction to my suggestion is likely to be.

Mr. Chairman, I did give my attention to this matter and I must apologize for not replying during the Second Reading debate already.

The position is that the hon. member is quite right in asking what means of control one could institute. The only way that I can think of is twofold. The equipment can either be supplied on prescription or, as the hon. member has suggested, by signing some register when such equipment is being purchased. As I say, I looked into this matter, but it would be too big a burden on the public if we were to institute either of these forms of control. For that reason I see no way of complying with the hon. member’s wishes in this regard. The hon. member must not forget that there are so many people who are badly in need of syringes for their own treatment, and he has quite rightly mentioned diabetics and others. But farmers also use syringes in large quantities. In future I think it would be better, as we do contemplate, to take control over the substances that they inject rather than to take control over syringes. However, I think it would be too big a burden on the public if the necessary control is taken to see to it that syringes are not as freely available as they are at present.

Mr.Chairman, I am grateful for the hon. the Minister’s explanation and I accept his reasons. The only question which I have to ask is If it should become apparent that there is a growing abuse by young drug addicts of the use of hypodermic materials, would this particular amendment give the hon. the Minister the power to act? Will he have the power to act if the position changes for the worse?

No, that is not envisaged.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister what the reason for this amendment is.

The amendment is merely an improvement effected by the legal draftsmen.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, we wanted to give this clause further consideration. I simply rise to tell the Minister that we are satisfied with the explanation he has given us and we accept the clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman. I move the following amendment, as it stands on the Order Paper—

In line 14, page 12, to omit “nearly”. This is merely an improvement on the text of the Bill.

Mr.Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given us the reason for this amendment. He changes the picture considerably by the removal of the word “nearly”, because it previously read: “Provided that, except where the applicant has been permitted under section 17 (2) to register a nearly resembling trade mark in respect of the goods or services …”

Now, it has been changed to “a resembling” trade mark. Is the reason that “nearly resembling” and “resembling” mean the same thing and that the one word is simply superfluous?

Mr. Chairman, I believe the one is more arbitrary than the other. “Must resemble” is more exact than “nearly resemble”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the development of the Bantu homelands goes to the heart of the political dialogue in South Africa. It indicates to us the beacons marking off the courses along which the various political parties want to lead South Africa, and it gives us an indication of the changes awaiting us on the political scene. To be able to form a proper opinion of this political scene, one must take cognisance of a few external facts.

The first fact which I think is important, is the fact that the Sunday Times has a political column which is written by a certain Hogarth de Hoogh. I take it that various journalists contribute to this column. However, it is also important to know that Hogarth de Hoogh is the pseudonym of a certain person. I want to suggest, in fact this is quite true, that the hon. member for Kensington writes under the name of Hogarth de Hoogh. He is Hogarth de Hoogh and he is also responsible for what appears in this column. Another important aspect of which we must take cognisance is that there is in the ranks of the United Party, as represented here in this House, a restlessness, a dissatisfaction and a frustration which is gradually becoming clearer. I am absolutely sure that I am correct when I say that this is beautifully illustrated by the actions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He furnished a definition of petty apartheid here. This definition of the hon. member is to a great extent Progressive policy. The hon. member was repudiated by his Leader, but he has not yet told us whether he agrees with that repudiation.

You will still hear a great deal about it.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that we are going to hear more about it, and when we hear about it again, I am certain the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will be prepared to take a further pace away from the leadership of the United Party. The hon. member made an important statement on the Immorality Act. In the debate here last week he was again repudiated as far as his attitude towards the Immorality Act is concerned.

Order! The hon. member is going a little too far now.

On top of all this, we have now had a shift in emphasis in the policy of the Progressive Party in respect of their attitude to the development of the Bantu homelands. The Progressive Party says that they, too, see for the future of South Africa a policy which will have to be geo-political. South Africa will have to be territorially subdivided for the various peoples in South Africa, White and non-White. In this regard there is an agreement between the policy of the United Party and that of the Progressive Party. They see a federal set-up for South Africa. The same political structure is being envisaged for South Africa by these two parties, namely a federal government, to which the various states or provinces, whatever they call them, belong. The political structure foreseen for South Africa by the Progressives and the United Party is precisely the same. They differ on the franchise and the constitution of that federal government, but in my opinion they are only differing still at this stage.

Now it is important to note that one of the members of the United Party, under the pseudonym of Hogarth de Hoogh, took a very firm step in the direction of supporting the Progressive Party. I want to refer to yesterday’s edition, 28th February, in which the hon. member for Kensington said: “Would a moral society allow these things?” Then he asked the question: “Would a moral society tolerate the Immorality Act?” These are Progressive Party words, surely. Then he continues: “Would a moral society tell its non-White citizens that they must not use the same bus or sit on the same park bench, or ride in the same taxi as the White citizens?” This is Progressive Party policy which is being proclaimed here. But now—I just want to refer to this in passing—there is an image-building article in this same newspaper on Colin Eglin, the leader of the Progressive Party, which concludes with this paragraph—

Order! What does this have to do with the Bill now?

Mr. Speaker, I am coming to that.

Yes, but the hon. member is making a wide detour to get there.

Now the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party has already done two things to bring more “dynamism” and activity into the political scene. The first to which I referred a moment ago, is the shift in emphasis which took place in respect of the Progressive Party in so far that it is the opposite of the policy for the development of the Bantu homelands and the alternative which they present. This is the view which the Progressive Party held in this connection.

Now I want to put forward the argument in this House that we have here the first step on the part of the Progressive Party taking them ever closer to the United Party.

Order! I thought the hon. member said he was going to return to the Bill now. He is still a long way away from the Bill.

Sir, I am discussing the alternative of the Progressive Party to this legislation which is now before the House.

I think the hon. member should rather return to the Bill.

Sir, we now find that these actions on the part of the Progressive Party is meeting with a response in the United Party. This morning there was a report in the Rand Daily Mail on the federal state and the development of the homelands as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout sees it. According to this edition of the newspaper the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says—I quote—

that is, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

Perhaps the hon. member for Bezuidenhout can tell us whether the reporter reported him correctly. “He sees the federal idea by contrast as being unconcerned with colour”. The policy of the United Party as regards their federal state, the development of the Bantu homelands and the representation which they must have in a federal state is definitely based on colour. Does the United Party not want to introduce separate voter’s lists? It is very clear to me that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as far as this statement is concerned, is deviating from the policy of the United Party as it has been stated in this House.

You do not understand it.

I understand it well. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is moving away from the policy of the United Party and is moving in the direction of the Progressive Party. When the new leader of the Progressive Party wants to concentrate on verligte Afrikaners, then it is very clear that he thinks of people who think like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and not of persons who are not so-called verlig and Nationalists. People who, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, think that a federal state will develop “as being unconcerned with colour” are people like Mr. Willem Kleynhans and others who are moving towards the Progressive Party.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill now.

It concerns nations; multi-nationality.

Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout acknowledge the concept of multi-nationality in all its consequences. If the hon. member does accept the concept of multi-nationality and colour is no longer of importance, on what basis can the United Party then justify separate voters’ lists for the Coloureds and separate voters’ lists for the Bantu? They want to have six White representatives elected by the Bantu on separate voters’ lists. But surely justice is not being done them to the concept of multi-nationality.

It is very clear to me that this legislation in regard to the development of the homelands, as it is reflected in the new attitude of the United Party and the new attitude of the Progressive Party, will lead to a new political orientation of opposition politics in South Africa, a development which we are watching with interest.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central who has just sat down, I felt, was so deep in the clay that he subsided without hardly even blowing a bubble. He took a flier here by saying that he felt that the hon. member for Kensington, a member of the United Party, was the journalist who wrote the column by Hogarth De Hoogh yesterday. I think we will leave it to the hon. member for Kensington to establish whether he was in fact the author of that article, and if not, I am quite sure that the hon. member for Pretoria Central will be prepared to apologize to him, if it turns out that the hon. member for Kensington did not write that article, because the hon. member for Pretoria Central has come along here on a supposition and has tried to fasten something on to the United Party completely taking a shot in the dark.

What has that got to do with this Bill?

I am just replying to what the hon. member for Pretoria Central was saying. Sir, I must say that I was extremely interested not only in the attention that he gave to the Progressive Party but to the interest shown by all hon. members opposite when the hon. member for Houghton was putting out her new federal policy. I am beginning to wonder whether there may not be any truth in the story that the “verligte” Nationalists are starting to look to the Progressive Party for a new home. It is a most interesting development, Sir; hon. members opposite revealed their interest by the questions they were asking. When I see the rash of psychedelic shirts and fluorescent ties that have come out, to attempt to prove that hon. members on that side are switched on when we know that they are switched out, then I really begin to wonder about the future of the Nationalist Party. But, Sir, what I do not wonder about is the future of South Africa under the dispensation which is being put in the hands of this hon. Minister by this Bill. What is happening with this Bill is merely to convert this Parliament into the rubber stamp which will be applied to the blank cheque which is being given into the hands of this Minister to determine the future of all South Africa, Black South Africa as well as White South Africa. I say that the Bill that we have before us now, with the power that it places in the hands of the hon. the Minister, is going to destroy the fabric of Western civilization in this country. Sir, the civilization we have today is something which is based on a common interest, a common interest in which Black South Africa and White South Africa are working together to create what is our civilization—the educational facilities, the employment, the housing, the health services, the things which distinguish this country from every other country in Africa, created here by the White people with their leadership and their initiative, their financial knowledge and their financial power and by Black South Africa with the mass labour that they provide. It is an interest that is common to Black South Africa and White South Africa. But, Sir, with this Bill the hon. the Minister is creating, or taking unto his hands the power to create ultimately, eight mini-Black States and one state which will be White on top and the whole base of it resting on the Bantu people who are cut off completely, in the Nationalist Party theory, from any kind of interest in this country, the land, the place in which they reside. Sir, we have heard of the idol which had feet of clay. Here we have precisely the same kind of set-up being created in this country, where you will have a mini-White state of some million people, resting on a base of ten or twelve million Black people to whom any kind of right in this area is denied by the Nationalist Party. What will happen then, Sir, is that the interest that we have in common today will be parcelled out into eight or nine or ten or twelve separate selfish personal interests, personal to every single one of those groups or homelands or countries which are being set up by the Nationalist Party and that, Sir, will destroy Western civilization in this country, because civilization is a thing of association, it is a thing of the mind; it is a process whereby you reach out to the imagination and the thought processes of people who are less civilized. You take them and you direct their thoughts and their whole thinking and their way of life and everything else into a new pattern and a new direction. What is happening here is that there is being created deliberately in our country totally different ideas; people are being forced apart into different directions; people are being forced to turn in upon themselves. Instead of contributing to the common good of all the people in South Africa, the Bantu people are today being forced to turn upon and into themselves and to seek in themselves their own salvation and to develop and generate a selfish interest for themselves at the expense of the common good.

What utter nonsense.

Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan, who was the person who asked the Minister to have a black light put on all motorcars which had been involved in accidents, must not come and talk to me about “nonsense”. The truth is that this Nationalist Party is rejecting, finally, the whole contribution made by Black South Africa to what is the common civilization in this country. Black South Africa is being turned in upon itself. I have asked this question before and I ask it again of the hon. the Minister. Where White South Africa represents here Christian Western civilization, if you reject these people and turn your back on them and force them to go in their own direction, in what direction are you expecting them to go? Where can they go if they turn themselves away from the direction in which we have been developing them now for these many years?

You say you turn them away if you give them independence?

By giving them independence you create for them a new loyalty and a new centre for their affections and you create for them a new interest which will be totally their own and in which the White man will have no share whatever.

What about Swaziland?

In Swaziland precisely the same thing has happened. Where there might have been a common interest in what was going on in all of Southern Africa, today you have an independent people with an interest of their own, a mini-State which cannot stand on its own feet for any length of time.

And Lesotho?

And Lesotho. These small countries are simply not able to cope. They are the despair of the world and they are more inclined to draw into some kind of association because they know they are too small. I said during the Second Reading that this Bill was merely a dead end; you were merely directing the Bantu people of South Africa into a dead end. And the hon. the Minister got most upset about it. But this is what is happening. These states will not be able to survive in isolation. They will have to come back into some kind of association. Even the Nationalist Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, said there would have to be some kind of a commonwealth in which there would be eight Black states and one White state, simply to maintain this kind of contact between White South Africa and Black South Africa. Our country is being torn apart simply for the reason that this Nationalist Party cannot see that by maintaining and holding together what is now together and is growing together, we will be able to withstand, as we have with stood, the whole attack of the world. By breaking it down and creating separate and dividing influences we are ruining our own position. It is not that we just want to be selfish and care for our own personal interest, but we bear in our hands the light of civilization, and surely that is what is important in the context in which we live today. We stand as a group in this darkening Continent of Africa where the lights are going out one after the other. White South Africa stands with a light in its hand, but here we have a Nationalist Party which has turned its back on that light, on the mission which we were put here to carry out. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei.

I just want to examine one idea of the last speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River—it is in fact the only one he expressed—namely, that of the destruction of Western civilization in South Africa which would allegedly be caused by this legislation before us. Sir, I think it is a terrible over-taxing of one’s intelligence and imagination to make a statement like that. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Mooi River and members on his side who apparently agree with him in this regard, do not seem to realize what we have said so many times, i.e. that the political system maintained by us as the National Party Government, ensures that this Parliament, as the strongest and most important bastion for the protection of civilization and everything concerning mankind in South Africa, is to be kept exclusively in the hands of the Whites of South Africa; and if there ever was a strong bastion and a perpetuation of Christian civilization in South Africa, it is this Parliament. It is this instrument of authority which the hon. member for Mooi River and his entire party want to share with all the non-White nations in South Africa, with the Bantu as well as with the Indians and the Coloured people, and this cannot be instrumental in promoting Western civilization, as the hon. member pleaded.

The hon. member went further. He said that by our policy the Bantu nations were being driven away and rejected. It is not true that we are driving the Bantu nations away and rejecting them. This is what the hon. member said. The hon. member for Durban Point and others who share his line of thought are forever telling us that we are keeping the Bantu too close to us and are not bringing about proper separation as there ought to be. Everything we do is alleged to be integration or to lead to it. One moment we are told that we are fraternizing too much with the Bantu nations, while the next moment the hon. member says that we are chasing and driving them away from us. In our policy in regard to the Bantu nations or any other non-White nation in South Africa, there is no such thing as chasing them away, estranging them or driving them away. We grant each of those Bantu nations, in the same way as we grant it to the other two non-White nations in South Africa as well, the same self-realization and self-fulfilment which we as Whites claim for ourselves, inter alia, in this Parliament. We do not begrudge them what we want for ourselves. How the hon. member can regard that as a chasing away and a frightening off of the Bantu nations, is beyond one’s comprehension.

In the hon. member’s reference to Swaziland he said: Yes, it was wrong that Swaziland had also been allowed to follow its own course, because with Swaziland a combined and greater Southern African interest and unity could have been established among everyone. The hon. member nods his agreement that I have quoted his words correctly. I think this is something abominable that the hon. member said. We all know what is meant by “in one communal Southern African context”, which is greater than the Republic and Swaziland together. We know what the numerical ratio between White and Black in this Southern African geographical entity is. What the hon. member said is an ill-considered statement which does nothing but conjure up a limited Pan-Africanistic reality here in South Africa. This is what would have happened. Surely we cannot accept that an increasing number of non-White nations in Southern Africa will be prepared to serve voluntarily under a small group of Whites in this Parliament. Surely they will want to realize themselves either in this Parliament or in their own units. I do not think that hon. member had any arguments for discussing this.

I now want to come back to trends of thought that were raised here last Friday, especially in the speech by the hon. member for Houghton. Last Friday I think the hon. member for Houghton raised the veil which had been lifted ever so slightly at their congress by her kindred spirit, Dr. De Beer, a little further and showed us more. Sir, it does not often happen that a lady shows one more. Here it did happen. I shall be sorry if some of my colleagues in this House become over-enthusiastic.

I should like to reassure the hon. member for Transkei first. In case he does not know it, I just want to say that it is of course completely unacceptable to me to pay any attention to his amendment, so much so that I am not even going to discuss it.

The hon. member for Houghton’s speech, and especially the delightful exchange of words with the hon. member for Pinelands and other United Party members during her speech, once again very clearly contrasted the fundamental considerations which are relevant in this Bill, namely what the political views or aspects of the policies of the various political parties in South Africa are in regard to the Bantu nations. What are their political aspects? We are now not referring to the agricultural aspects, educational aspects, etc. It is only the political aspects of the policy which are, more than anything else, relevant in this Bill. We say in this Bill that we are opening the way even wider for allowing the Bantu nations to fulfil themselves to an increasing extent under the principle of self-determination. As we stated in the preamble, it can even lead to independence. We have seen here very clearly that, although even our fiercest political opponents in the United Party and in the much smaller Progressive Party have in the past opposed us very vehemently in respect of our concept of Bantu homelands, all those Opposition groups are now accepting the concept of Bantu homelands, though not—and I hasten to say this—in accordance with our political policy as the National Party. The United Party already accepts the concept of Bantu homelands. We know this because it is stated in their yellow booklet and in their other statements of policy as well. The hon. member for Houghton’s party accepts it now as well.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must give me a chance now. We always hear in this Parliament that this Government’s policy of separate development is failing day after day, that, according to them, it is failing more and more. If the concept of Bantu homelands is now being accepted and is being accepted by the Opposition, the United Party on the other side as well as the Progressive Party, although not along the same political basis as our policy, then it can surely not be regarded as a failure from the point of view of the unfolding of the National Party’s policy. If the concept of Bantu homelands, which is our concept, is accepted and they want to apply it in their way, then it is at least some kind of victory for this National Party. If the concept of Bantu homelands, which is now accepted by them, is still regarded by them as a failure, then becoming a Republic has also failed, because there is nothing they opposed more vehemently than becoming a Republic. Now they accept this too, but at the time it was a failure. This is the political logic of the Opposition.

That is a poor argument. It is not logical.

No, it is not a poor argument, but knowing the hon. member for North Rand as I do, I realize that he cannot follow the argument.

I now want to come to the statements made by the hon. member for Houghton in her speech. If we listened perspicaciously and paid analytical attention to the hon. member for Houghton’s speech, to her party’s congress of a week or more ago and to the statements of policy of the Opposition Party, it is as clear as the rising sun that there are at least four clear points of agreement between their two policies. I shall briefly put those four points of agreement to the hon. members.

So what!

The hon. member for Mooi River says, “So what”. I am very glad to hear that, because that remark implies that I am correct. Nevertheless, I want to outline the four points of agreement.

We are all against T.B., for instance!

In the 18 years the hon. member for Houghton and I have been sitting together in this House, I have never seen her so much on the defensive as she was in this House last Friday. I have never yet seen her so much on the defensive in regard to her own case. My time is very limited. Let me quickly mention the four points.

In the first place, there is the federal scheme. Federalism has always been the United Party’s policy in terms of race federation. This we know. It is an old point. But from the Progressive Party’s congress and the hon. member for Houghton’s statements here, we learn that they are for the first time talking about a federal scheme.

What has that to do with us?

It has a tremendous amount to do with the hon. member.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I shall reply to this little question, but there is no time for more.

Did the hon. the Minister not hear me say that this policy was accepted in 1963? I will supply him with the documentary proof, if he does not believe me.

I heard the hon. member say that, but South Africa has not heard it so far. [Interjections.]

*Sir, look at them fighting about that same little point again now. The United Party and the Progressive Party are fighting again. [Interjections.] Sir, those hon. members must not shout me down now to such an extent that I cannot complete these four points in the limited time at my disposal.

The second point is the geographical basis of the representation they want to give the people in the central Parliament.

No.

Yes! We know that the United Party said from the first day: “There is also a geographical content in our policy of race federation”. I am not arguing with the United Party about that. It is an old point in their policy, but the Progressive Party has now come to light with it for the first time. They say that they also have a geographical content in their policy now. Do you remember, Sir, how quite a quarrel developed between the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands last week when the hon. member for Pinelands said by way of an interjection that their policy had always had a geographical content? He was correct in saying this. Then the hon. member for Houghton challenged him. She said to him: “It is not true. You do not know your own policy. Your policy has never had a geographical content.”

[Inaudible.]

Now she keeps on agreeing with me. Sir, the greatest irony and grotesqueness of the whole situation is that the Progressive Party’s member here does not want the United Party to admit and reiterate that they have had a geographical content in their policy. She is now grabbing it for her party. For the first time she is now coming to light with the geographical concept for their policy. In doing so she is moving closer to the United Party, or the United Party is moving closer to her. I do not know how the polarization is working, but the two are moving closer to each other.

The third point of agreement between the political policies of these two concerns the provincial status which they accord to the Native areas. This is something the United Party has said previously as well. It is an old concept of theirs. We can refer far back in their documents to confirm this. It is even contained in this famous or notorious yellow booklet of theirs. But what does the Progressive Party say? The Progressive Party has never told us this. They have always spoken of a communal voters’ roll with qualifications. Now they are imparting a geographical content to their policy and saying that the Bantu areas can attain the status of a province. These are the same words the United Party used long before she did. I do not know why she is still remaining outside the context of the United Party. I think the United Party should open their doors. They should leave a back door open so that the hon. member for Houghton may enter.

She is seeking contact with you.

Sir, it is superficial childishness to say that she is seeking contact with us. The only common element is that all now admit that there is such a reality as Bantu homelands. Politically, however, they want to develop those areas quite differently from the way we want to do so. My point is that, politically speaking, those two parties of the Opposition want to develop those areas similarly. [Interjections.] We need no longer quarrel about the provincial status of those areas. It has been clearly established. The Progressive Party is now also in favour of a provincial status for the Bantu areas. In that regard they will have to do some more explaining.

Now we come to the fourth point of agreement between those two parties. It has been clearly expressed by leading persons on both sides. In this regard I am going to mention something in respect of the United Party which has been mentioned very seldom. If the leading member of theirs who did in fact say this, spoke out of turn, I should like this to be authoritatively denied and rectified in this House. I am going to quote what he said.

The Progressive Party says, and said so explicitly the other day, that when a Bantu area, a homeland, obtains independence, they will invite it to join the federal scheme. When we spoke to the hon. member for Houghton here by way of interjections, she said that Swaziland would also be given the opportunity of joining their federal scheme. This is their other point of agreement with United Party. I say this because last year, in April, 1970, the hon. Senator Horak, who is the chief secretary of the United Party, said that he foresaw the day, under a United Party Government, when representatives of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland would sit in the federal parliament which his party planned for South Africa.

Yes.

The hon. member for Transkei is confirming it.

What did Dr. Verwoerd say?

No, the hon. member must not jump on Dr. Verwoerd’s back with such a false argument. Dr. Verwoerd never said that a Bantu homeland could join us before or after its independence or that a former protectorate could enter this Central Parliament before or after its independence. What we have in fact said and what Dr. Verwoerd did in fact say, is that we were sorry that the course of history in South Africa led to the establishment of a separate Swaziland, a Besutoland and a Bechuanaland with remnants of those nations in the Republic, because this should never have happened in 1910. This we have in fact said. In other words, those protectorates could have continued to exist on a united political basis with their brothers who are living in our country. However, Dr. Verwoerd never said what the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. Senator Horak have said, namely that they are prepared to invite the three independent countries to join the race federation under the race federation scheme of the United Party and the Progressive Party. The purpose of that is simply to increase the preponderance of Black nations over the White nation in this Parliament. I wonder where the Western civilization comes in about which the hon. member for Mooi River made such a fuss a few moments ago.

In a certain sense, only in a limited sense, because I am honest and scientific towards those two parties, here is a fifth point of agreement between them, and that is in respect of the voters’ roll. We know that the hon. member for Houghton is in favour of a voters’ roll with qualified franchise rights. They have not yet outlined very clearly what their qualifications will be.

I will send you another pamphlet.

They will be on the basis of civilization.

The qualifications will be educational and economic qualifications. I told the hon. the Minister what they were a few days ago.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the hon. member to make that interjection. She said explicitly that they would be on an educational basis and on the basis of economic considerations. We know that hon. members of the United Party and the Party itself have already hinted in a very suggestive way at qualifications for franchise rights for the Bantu. I shall quote from the famous yellow brochure of the United Party. I refer to page 10 of the English copy, where the following appears in a neat black frame:

Now we must listen to the following words:

But this is not all. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself said things such as these. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “Everyone need not have the same say”—these are merely the various nations—“it need not be according to the same criterion …” Therefore they need not have the same qualifications for the franchise. He went further and said: “There may be different criteria, depending on the stage of civilization which each race group has reached. Later we can decide again about all these problems.” I also want to read to this House from a report in the Cape Argus of 22nd January, 1962. This is old information, but this is what the United Party initially thought. This is a very interesting report and I hope I shall have enough time to deal with it properly. The report reads as follows:

Here we have the economic considerations spoken of by the hon. member for Houghton which she confirmed again this afternoon.

The cat you have hold of won’t jump.

*The MINISTER: No, it will, and what is more, it is a big political tomcat that I have hold of. I have to do with a big political tomcat here. And there is another little political tomcat following upon this one now. Hon. members on the other side must listen now. According to this newspaper, the hon. member for Yeoville said this, “speaking at a meeting of the Luncheon Club in Cape Town”. He added: “Mr. Marais Steyn said representation in the Lower House should be based on the standard of living attained by the different groups …” Once again a qualified franchise is suggested. When he had finished speaking, the newspaper reported, “Mr. Steyn was thanked by the Western Cape Chairman of the Progressive Party, Mr. Colin Eglin”. Mr. Eglin is the present leader of the Progressive Party. This matter of the voters’ roll, with or without qualifications, is something which has roots going far back into the past. The Progressive Party knows about it, and their present leader knows about it. I have now mentioned five points on which there is great agreement. On the point I have just mentioned, there is limited agreement. The difference lies in the fact that while the Progressive Party states that there should be a common voters’ roll with qualifications, the United Party states that there should be a separate voters’ roll for the Bantu. Is what they want to introduce here not in itself a qualification based on colour? What else is it based on? While we are considering these most fundamental matters, the political development of the Bantu nations and their homelands, I want us to realize that the difference which we perhaps imagined existed between the Progressive Party and the United Party is disappearing. The two parties are moving towards each other. Who runs the fastest and who is going to run the farthest in order to reach the other group, we will still have to see.

You are way out in front.

I am always way out in front. In the limited time at my disposal I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Transkei. The hon. member said that the Natives’ authorities that do not accept or have not accepted our political system of Bantu authorities, have undergone no development in the past. The hon. member went so far as to mention the Zulus as an example of this. I think it was a completely untrue argument which the hon. member ferreted out. Statements such as these by the hon. member only contribute towards creating ill-feeling among such a Bantu people towards the government of the country. The facts prove that years before the Zulu people ever received a territorial authority, or even accepted regional authorities as the basis of territorial authorities, there was a great deal of development in their Bantu areas as a result of expenditure and undertakings by this Government. Towns were laid out there. They received agricultural expansion, an agricultural school, a school for chiefs and a university. I am only mentioning a few small things here. I can give hon. members some statistics. I shall go back as far as 1960. I want to say to you, Sir, that the gross fixed investment in Zululand increased from R1 million in 1960 to almost R20 million in 1966. Then, for reasons which we can explain very well, it dropped again, to approximately R10 million in the financial year which ended in 1968. It was only in that one homeland where the annual investments in money increased so tremendously. In the financial year 1967-’68 alone, almost R5 million was spent only on Bantu towns. R1.3 million was spent on land purchases.

Furthermore, agricultural, educational and other development projects were undertaken in Zululand. This all happened before that people accepted a territorial authority and even before they accepted a number of regional authorities worth mentioning. How dare the hon. member put forward an untrue and inflammatory argument such as that in this House? The same applies to other Bantu nations. [Interjection.] The hon. member shouts, “how many jobs”? Last week I said in this Chamber that of the seven Bantu nations who already have territorial authorities, four have more than 50 per cent of their population permanently in their homelands. The Zulus are one of them. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the Opposition are like that proverbial hot stone—you can rub fat on it as many times as you wish, it will not stick. The same happens to the facts we present to them.

In addition, the hon. member for Transkei said that the legislative assemblies and the various Bantu nations would not even know what the legislative assemblies and executive councils which they will receive in terms of this Act would look like.

Yes.

Then he still shouts “yes” afterwards. This is a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. It just testifies to the incomplete study the hon. member made of this Bill. Do you know what, Sir? Those people already know in essence, almost completely, what their legislative assemblies and their executive councils look like, because they already have them. If the hon. member had studied the Bill properly, he would have seen that the legislative assemblies and the executive councils which those Bantu peoples already have under the scheme which we call the activated scheme, can be recognized just like that in the new system which they can get in terms of chapter 1 and chapter 2 of this Bill. [Time expired.]

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion.

When this debate was adjourned last week we were discussing the necessity for a water research commission, for which this Bill is making provision. We have a mass of research bodies in the country; more and more are being established and more research is being done, but the regrettable thing is that we have not had a statutory body in connection with water research long ago, because water is one of the most important elements in the country that we have to conserve. Sir, this country is rich in metals, minerals and raw materials, but it is poor in water. May I just say in passing that I have noticed that in this Bill reference is made to the “oogmerke” of the commission instead of “doelstellings”. This is a small point, but I should like to call the hon. the Minister’s attention to it. Reference is normally made to the “objects” (doelstellings) of a council and not the “oogmerke” of a council. But so much for that.

I should now like to refer to the objects of a water research commission. In clause 2 (3) (a) quite a number of objects of the commission are mentioned, and I should firstly like to deal with the question of “supply”. Sir, the provision of water in this country is probably one of the most important of all the objects mentioned here. We simply have a country that has a high range of mountains to the east, all the way down the borders, and that is where the precipitation largely takes place, and where it will always take place. There is nothing extraordinary in this; one finds precisely the same thing in Australia. With this high degree of precipitation in the eastern mountain range, along the Drakensberg and the Amatola mountains, more than half of that water flows into foreign areas; it flows into the Bantu areas, across short distances down to the east coast. The question of the provision of water is still the most important subject we can talk about in this country. I want to say that water reclamation and the desalination of sea water are both methods for supplementing water supplies, but all these things involve extensive problems. In the purification and the reclamation of water there is an effluent that result in extensive problems. In the desalination of sea water it is even worse. If one considers the history of the countries that went in for the desalination of sea water on a large scale, one finds that they build up a mountainous supply of by-products that they do not know what to do with. One is not allowed to throw it back into the sea and one is not allowed to keep it on land, because all the salts are detrimental to the soil. The desalination of sea water results in extensive problems. It is fitting for a water research commission to delve into all the methods for the provision of water, but the most important aspect is still the water supplies that one has at one’s disposal. That is why it is so important, before it is too late, for us to examine the quantity of water the country can provide for itself from the run-offs of the Drakensberg mountains and from the other mountain ranges where there is a high rainfall.

I almost want to predict that if we already had a method for pumping water back from the eastern water shed to the western, the Vaal Dam would already have been full at this stage instead of containing the percentage it now does as a result of the fact that so much water now runs off to the sea. This water has now been running off for several months, and will continue to do so for many more months, and this is water that we do not dam up and use. That is why it is so important for the provision of water to be one of the primary objects of a water research commission.

I want to go further in this connection. We have neighbouring territories, Lesotho and Botswana, and up to now we still know very little of the negotiations in connections with the Oxbow scheme. I think it is high time that the hon. the Minister explains things to us and tells us how far these negotiations have progressed in connection with the Oxbow scheme. Can we expect something from it in the future or not? Because it is important for us to know this.

I want to come back and say that the most important water shed we have, the most important water area we have, is from the northern tip of the Drakensberg down to the Amatola. As I said previously, I think the primary object ought to be the provision of water. But now I come to the distribution of water, which is also one of the objects of the research commission, and the distribution and allocation of water to the urban areas, industry and agriculture are amongst the most important things we are dealing with. I do not want to say that there is correct allocation at this stage. Neither do I want to say that the water research commission will manage to establish methods whereby the correct allocation can be achieved in the future. I know that agriculture now uses a very great deal of the water we have at our disposal. How much will be necessary in the future to provide for the large urban and industrial complexes that are being built up remains a horse of another colour.

Then I want to speak about the pollution of water. We all know what a burning question the pollution of water is. The Usutu River does not fall within our territory; it lies in Swaziland, but when I read of what happened there when the water sources were polluted, so much so that helicopters had to be used to patrol the banks of the river warning farmers and everyone that even their livestock should not drink there, one can realize what dangers are involved in pollution. Sir, everyone probably read in the newspapers about what went on recently in East London. I do not want to choose sides there, and I do not want to say who was right, and which of the experts who were used there was correct, but if the pollution of the bathing spots and the sea water becomes so much worse that it becomes dangerous for the people to swim there, then pollution is a terribly serious question. We have spoken so many times of the effluent from factories, and of the necessity of purifying water before it is allowed to return to our streams, but what must happen to the water that comes out of the earth, and to what extent that water can be polluted we do not know. Pollution is an international problem, and a tremendous amount of research has been done throughout the world as far as our air and water is concerned, but I think that water pollution is one of the primary problems we have in this country, a problem that can assume such proportions in the future that it actually has a detrimental effect on the provision of our water supplies. One does not want to speak about certain rivers that are exposed to dangers. It is not necessary to mention this. The Minister will know about it.

Now I want to come to another aspect, the necessity for the results of research to be distributed to the public and to us all. This is one of the big problems we always have with research. It does not matter whether it is scientific research, agricultural research of whatever kind of research it may be, but the results of that research, for some or other reason, always get caught up in a bottleneck and never reach the public. I want to make a very strong recommendation to the Minister that it should be regarded as one of the most important objects of such a research commission that the results obtained be published from time to time and be given to the consumer public and the public in general so that they know where they stand in connection with the functions of such a research commission.

In addition there is just one small point that we can deal with in the Committee Stage. Under clause 4 (2) the members of the commission are appointed for a period which is determined by the State President. I should like to know from the Minister, since it is the usual procedure in the establishment of a statutory council or a statutory commission for the period of service of the members to be predetermined at three years or five years, why the State President is being allowed, in this particular case, to determine the period for which he may appoint a member. After all, he can get rid of him if he wants to. To me this is such a strange phenomenon in the establishment of a statutory council.

We are very grateful to have this Bill before this hon. House today. And it very seldom happens that there is so much agreement in this House about a Bill and about its importance and the necessity for having it. There are two salient points in this Bill. The one is the establishment of a statutory research commission for water affairs, and the second is the way in which the commission must obtain its funds. It is necessary, and I think it is important, for such a statutory commission to be assured of funds. I think that with this Bill it was an absolutely correct decision on the part of the Minister to even set out a scheme in the Act about how the commission will obtain its funds. I consider it important that the Minister indicated in this Bill that these funds would be obtained on as broad a level as possible; in other words, that all levels of the population would make a contribution to the funds of this statutory water research commission. I think it is important because it would thereby be possible for this water research commission to obtain as much funds as possible, because we know that research is expensive. But there is also another very important point, i.e. that no one—and I repeat no one— can be taxed by this trifling water levy to such an extent that they would even be aware of it, whether they be city dwellers, farmers or industrialists. I think it is important, and I think that by the application of this principle there ought to be sufficient funds coming in to provide for research needs. You know, the problem with our people at large is simply that as soon as one touches their pockets there is trouble. A further aspect of this Bill is the importance of the research that has to be done. There are quite a number of matters on which research is done and about which one could speak for hours. The hon. the Minister mentioned a whole series of them, for example the conservation of water, subterranean water, the best utilization for irrigation purposes, desalination, weather forecasting and the relationship between industrial water and water for agriculture. These are all fields which were somewhat neglected up to a few years ago. For example, I am now thinking of the reclamation of water, water pollution and now also the desalination of water.

Another subject that I personally find tremendously interesting is that in connection with subterranean water research. Why should this particular field interest me? It interests me because when one thinks matter-of-factly about it, one comes to realize that one-fifteenth to one-twentieth of the water falling on South African soil flows away in the rivers. With a tremendous damming-up programme one can store about 50 per cent of all the run-off water in dams. When one thinks of this, one comes to realize that it constitutes only a small portion of the water falling on the surface. The surface water and the subterranean water therefore go to make up the water on which we all have to live. The surface water supplies 100 per cent of the livestock, 100 per cent of the maize production, almost 90 per cent of wheat cultivation and 75 per cent of the potato cultivation. That is why the surface water, the protection of the soil and subterranean water are of special importance. It is therefore a privilege for me to be able to say that at the request of the hon. the Minister the University of the Free State has already begun with a course in geo-hydrology. This is an altogether new field in the sphere of scientific investigation in South Africa, and it is of particular importance. The Geo-hydrology Department of the University of the Free State is particularly suited to carry out this research. There is no doubt about that. This department is headed by an outstanding scientist, Prof. Botha. At this stage he has no fewer than 30 post-graduate students in geology in his department. This makes the department one of the biggest departments in geology and geological research in the entire Republic. But there is one small matter that makes one a little gloomy. After the establishment of the Geo-hydrology Department, one first-year student enrolled for the course this year. If one thinks of the importance of this particular task, one feels a heaviness of heart at the fact that only one student enrolled. However, this does not cause one concern because all undertakings do begin on a small scale and are only extended in the course of time. But one does feel, nevertheless, that another plan should be made to encourage this. To be sure, in the course of the year Prof. Botha will probably pay a visit to overseas countries such as France, England and the U.S.A. in order to do research and to investigate this particular field of study, so that we do not have to begin from scratch but can make use of all the experience that already exists. But to first train one first-year student indicates to one that this particular field will furnish many problems and that it will take a very long time before it has come into its stride. One wonders whether the proper course, under the guidance of this water research commission, would not be to establish institutes at our various universities. Thus an institute for geo-hydrology could be established at Bloemfontein. Such an institute could then immediately co-opt people from outside and bring together a whole team of scientists to form a complete institute, which could then be used, like other institutes existing at our universities, to make a particular study of this subject under the guidance and co-ordination of the water research commission. I advocate institutes at the universities because actually an outside body cannot very easily commission a university to carry out certain research. They can be asked to do so, but as soon as one has an institute one is dealing with a board of control for that institute. I imagine that the water research commission can eventually appoint the effective section of the board of control of this institute, thereby to promote this research. This only applies to one field of research that must be undertaken. This indicates to us the mass of research awaiting us. It indicates to us how extremely important this particular Bill is for the future of South Africa and all its people. We are grateful for the fact that this Bill is before the hon. House today and that it enjoys so much support from both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on this side have already indicated that we are supporting this Bill. Indeed, in the past there has been a request from all sides of the House for further facilities and further scientific investigation and research into so many water problems that, as the hon. member has said, it is no wonder that there is such a unanimous approval and support for this measure. Therefore I do not intend to keep the House for very long.

There are one or two points I would like to raise at this juncture. We on this side view the Water Research Commission as a body which will provide the scientific evidence for the department to be what we have in the past called the enforcement agency of the law. The hon. the Minister will remember two or three years ago, when we were dealing with this question of the enforcement agency, as we call it, that he said his department would enforce the law itself. It would be the enforcement agency. This goes back right to 1956, I think it was, when the present Water Act was before a Select Committee. Some of us on that Select Committee sought to have incorporated in the Act what we then termed “the enforcement agency”. We likened it to the circumstances at the present time under the Public Health Act, where private persons who feel that there is a threat to public health associated with their own community in some way or another, can lodge a complaint with the Department of Public Health. The whole machinery of the State and the Act itself is so geared that a complaint in regard to public health conditions goes forward to the appropriate authorities. The complainants in the case, the civil people concerned with the matter, drop out and the Department of Public Health takes over. Whether it is in a rural area or in an area under the control of a local authority, as the case may be, there is a properly constituted authority to carry on with the investigation and, if necessary, to initiate a prosecution, to get the evidence which will stand up in a court of law and, if the prosecution succeeds, to punish anybody who may be guilty of breaching public health laws and running the risk of creating disease in any particular place in the Republic. It was along that pattern that we sought in the Water Bill as it was at the time, to have an enforcement agency. You get the individual farmer who has to visualize the problems which arise if water which he gets for domestic purposes or for irrigation or for any other purpose connected with his business, is polluted. He has to take steps, not only to see that he suffers no damage or gets recompense for any damage that he may suffer, but that the person or the body who is responsible for the pollution is, if necessary prosecuted, taken to court and punished and that a repetition of that condition is avoided in the future. Where the ordinary farmer is concerned, it is virtually an impossibility. My hon. friend reminds me—and I make a very strong point of that—that prosecutions fail repeatedly because the technical and scientific evidence is not available before the court. It is no light matter even for companies in the agricultural community to obtain the professional people of proper standing who are capable of handling the scientific techniques which will give them the evidence which is necessary to stand up in a court of law. It is very difficult indeed. The people who are capable of doing that are few and far between.

This is the problem that we have had all the way through since the Act was first put on the Statute Book, namely of getting an enforcement body that would take that responsibility out of the hands of the private individual and in the interest of the country at large, would take all the necessary steps to get the scientific evidence, if necessary, initiate a prosecution and get the necessary technical and professional evidence. We look upon this body as a body that will get that evidence. We hope we are right that that is the body envisaged in this Bill. For that reason we agree to the levy for the research fund. It is not a principle which we would normally view with a very great measure of favour. We would look to the State to provide the funds for this kind of research in ordinary circumstances. But here the truth of the matter is that we feel that justice is being done by having a fund coming from such a source as that envisaged in the Bill, for the purpose of this research which the council will undertake.

The kind of problem that we are up against is this case that we now have in regard to the Usutu River. I want to mention this to the hon. the Minister, because we will be coming back to it at a later stage. It has already been mentioned by one or two of the members. Two members at least have said that this is a Swaziland river. It is not a Swaziland river. It has most of its sources outside our boundaries but it is a river which is an international boundary between us and the Portuguese territory to the north of us.

The mishap unfortunately occurred in Swaziland.

Yes, that is the point I am coming to. However, it is not a Swaziland river. The mishap occurred in Swaziland. But what flows from that? The mishap occurred in Swaziland but the water which we are using and which we are entitled to use here in the Republic, our share of the water of the Great Usutu River, is not so polluted that the fish are lying dead in not hundreds, but thousands along the bank of the Usutu. I do not know what the papers down here have said about it, but I have just come down from there.

On the other side of the river, which is an international boundary, is the Portuguese territory. There there are scores of White settlers who are drawing their water from that river. There are also Bantu on our side of the river and Bantu on the Portuguese side of the river who are drawing from that water. When the river takes the turn at the international boundary, at the MacMahon Award line, and turns north, it becomes a purely Portuguese river. The Portuguese control both banks.

Now look at it from our point of view for a moment. Just at the Ndumu Game Reserve, the Pongola River runs into the Usutu. Because of the flat terrain, this age-old flat plain where the Usutu and the Pongola Rivers meet each other, if the Usutu is coming down in flood while the Pongola is running low, the water of the Usutu turns up the Pongola and it runs for at least 14 miles up the Pongola on a very flat level plain. It can come down up to two feet deep and it will travel for 14 miles up the Pongola if the position is, as it is particularly at this moment, with the building of the J. G. Strydom Dam when the Pongola is either not flowing at all or is very low-flowing. On the other hand if the Usutu is very low and the Pongola comes down in flood, the Pongola goes into the Usutu. It can travel into the Usutu and up the Usutu River and back into one of its old mouths that was created many years ago. In other words, the Pongola has two points of flowing into the Usutu. If the Usutu comes down in flood the flood water can come in at both those points and right up into the Pongola. On the other hand, if the Pongola comes down in flood there is a natural tendency for it to keep to the lower level. Then it will travel up the Usutu and then back again up its old water course. When the polluted water came down the Usutu, the Department of Water Affairs released a flash flood from the J. G. Strydom Dam. We are very grateful for that.

6,000 cusecs.

The hon. the Minister says it was about 6,000 cusecs. I understood that was so. Without having refrained from letting in that water and then having a look to see what was going to happen, it is impossible to say just what that 6,000 cusecs has saved us from. It is, however, abundantly clear that it has saved us from a disaster in the Ndumu Reserve and in those areas of the plains of the Pongola River. Those pans or plains are filled by the overflow and the flood-flow from the Pongola. Had that flash flood not been released from the J. G. Streydom Dam by the department, it could well have been the case that the water coming down the Usutu would have backed up the Pongola, filled all the pans in the Ndumu Game Reserve and all the pans which provide fish for the Tonga people on the plains on the Pongola for quite a distance up the river towards the J. G. Strydom Dam. We have been saved this because, firstly there was the water in the J. G. Strydom Dam and secondly because the hon. the Minister’s department acted quickly, efficiently and effectively when they released those 6,000 cusecs so that it was able to rise at any rate as steeply as the water coming down in the Usutu and it succeeded in edging away the Usutu water from coming back into the Pongola and its several mouths.

What now of the damage which has been done? Here we have three different states which are involved with this water. I hope we are going to learn a lesson in another connection altogether. I hope we are going to take the lesson to heart as to what can happen in some of our other big rivers and in regard to what we are doing to those rivers. Here the damage was done in Swaziland. Will there be any redress? This is one reason why I ask the hon. the Minister whether attention has been given to this. What do we do under these circumstances? It is an accident. As we know, in nature accidents are common. It is natural to have an accident. When I was a very young man, I was on my father’s farm and I used to do a lot of fencing. Afterwards I was in the Army and then I did fencing again with barbed wire entanglements I found a natural law. Plenty of other people have suffered from it. I tried to find a little formula and I succeeded. I call it the law of “the innate hostility of inanimate things”. That is a natural law and a very strong one. This is a manifestation of it. This is what happens. You have an “accident” as we call it and water is polluted. South Africa suffers because of it and we could have suffered grievous harm. I do not know what the Portuguese Government is doing about it. I have seen the damage done there and they will most probably come into it. It might have happened on our side. I do not know whether some kind of negotiations have taken place or if it is contemplated to deal with matters of this kind. In a matter of this sort the problem of our rights in regard to these rivers which today form an international boundary or can form an international boundary or flow partly through another country and partly through our country or in future through a third country such as we have had in the Pongola River, is a matter we should look into.

Then there is the question of our coastal waters. I hope this body proposed in the Bill will be allowed to undertake the scientific research in this regard as well. A body concerned with our coastal waters has already been established. It also deals with the protection of our lagoons which go right up into our rivers in some cases. It will not stop on the beach. Pollution from our seas goes right up into our bays and semi-enclosed bays, into our lagoons and up into our rivers. Mr. Archibald, M.E.C., is the chairman of the body in Natal which is recognized by the Government. It is composed of representatives of all the various State departments and provisions and regulations dealing with these matters were set out in black and white, but they have failed. They do not seem to work. We are facing the conditions which were foreseen at the time when that committee was established, but the committee is not functioning. It lacks all kinds of resources for research and for dealing with the problem. I think this problem is so vast that it is beyond the wit of man to find the language to describe how vast the pollution of our seawater is. As I have said, this pollution is carrying on into our lagoons and up our rivers. It is therefore going right into the domain of the hon. the Minister. I want to ask again, what we are going to do in this regard? The present machinery is inadequate, is falling down and, in any case, never had the necessary scientists and people who could do research work to help in this regard. Quite rightly the hon. the Minister has come before Parliament with this Bill. As we have said in regard to other Bills of this kind, I want to say that we are also completely behind him with this one. The hon. member who preceded me said that here we have a case where all sides of the House are completely unanimous in their support of the hon. the Minister in not only the setting up of this research but also in the providing of funds in the form of the levy that is proposed in this Bill. I hope that the hon. the Minister is going to be bold. This is a case where there is a vast responsibility resting on his shoulders. He no longer has to be worried about divided councils and one side continually saying “Go” and the other side saying “Hold back”. Here everybody is saying to him “Go forward, and get this body created as soon as you can”. Let us get on with the job of tackling these problems. Civilization, as they call it, is catching up with us and it may ruin us before we are able to grapple with the problems.

Mr. Speaker, if one thinks of the fact that water is the world’s and man’s main artery, one can only be thankful to the hon. the Minister for having come along to this House with such a Bill. Even more so, one can only be thankful for such unanimity on the part of both parties in this House, for their sober discussion and wholehearted support for this Bill. I have always refused, and always will refuse to be numbered among the people who from time to time lapse into a spirit of pessimism and fear that South Africa will, at some or other time in the distant future, perhaps go to meet its downfall as a result of a water shortage. I do not believe in that. It will not happen. Although we believe that South Africa’s water sources are limited, I do not think that we have ever exploited their full potential. I think that for this reason the establishment of such a commission is very necessary and very timely. As I see it this commission will in future chiefly carry out its functions in four fields.

The first is by having unknown sources discovered and exploited, in other words subterranean sources that we are not yet aware of. In the second place well-known but unexploited sources can be exploited. Here I am thinking of numerous old mine-shafts in the Republic of South Africa, several of which are in my own constituency, Heidelberg, mineshafts that have never been used up to now and are storing millions and millions of gallons of pure water. In the third place I have in mind the reclamation and the purification of used water, which will have to take place to a large extent in future. Scientists claim that in a city like Johannesburg 85 per cent of the used water can be reclaimed. In the fourth place I think this commission will give its attention to the saving of water as used by human-beings, for domestic use and in irrigation, where flood irrigation can to a large extent be replaced by spray irrigation. To undertake these tasks a water research commission, as now envisaged, and a water research fund are necessary. Through research this commission will then be able to determine how many developed sources there still are and how and where reclamation and saving can take place. It is interesting to know that the area in which my constituency is situated, the Vaal triangle or the Witwatersrand area, drew the trekkers and the farmers to it 70 or 80 years ago as a result of its abundant supply of water. I quote (translation)—

It is interesting to know that although people moved there as a result of the area’s abundance of water, the present picture is just the reverse. That area has developed to such an extent that it demands more and more water. There we find some of the greatest water needs in the Republic of South Africa. In 1966, for example, the 1.36 million people in greater Johannesburg used 78 million gallons of water per day. 60 million gallons of this reached the sewerage works. A Johannesburg City Council expert then calculated that by the year 2,000 there would be an enormous increase in both the population and in the run-off in the drains of their houses and places of work. In the year 2,000 more than 3 million people will use 250 million gallons daily, and at least 85 per cent of this water will be available for re-use. We therefore see that this proposed commission will be of inestimable value to the Witwatersrand and the Vaal triangle area, where water will be more and more urgently needed now and in the future. Those of us from that area are grateful that this water research commission is going to be appointed, and also that a water research fund is going to be established. We know that it will often have to turn its steps and its attention to the Witwatersrand where this is so necessary We wish this to-be-established commission and fund all prosperity and success; we welcome them; we need their attention in the Witwatersrand and in the Vaal triangle area.

I am very grateful for the fact that both sides of the House are agreed in connection with this legislation before us. In fact, since I have been in this House of Assembly, I cannot remember us ever having a single stormy debate here in which we differed about water affairs. Not only the fact that hon. members on both sides of the House accepted the Bill in this spirit, but also the arguments with which they came to light, are an indication that a situation has already developed in South Africa that makes it extremely necessary for us to have a body such as this at our disposal. Sir, one could ask why we are specifically coming forward with this Bill at this stage, and why we did not do so previously. The reason for the establishment of such a commission specifically at this stage is that recently we have witnessed very extensive developments in South Africa as far as the chemical industry is concerned. We must remember that as man creates more complex processes it becomes increasingly difficult to control the effluents of these processes, particularly in respect of the pollution that results. That is why it was necessary, at some time or other, for us in this country to come forward with such a commission which will have the authority that this commission will have, and that will also obtain the funds that this commission will obtain. After we have looked at what is happening in the rest of the world, it is very clear to me that this step in South Africa is one that is actually placing our country in the forefront; as I said on a previous occasion, other countries of the world have apparently not yet been so forcibly impressed by the scarcity of water and the necessity in particular of stopping pollution, as we in South Africa have been compelled to do because our sources are naturally smaller than the water sources that many other countries have at their disposal. We therefore had to be quicker in submitting such legislation than other countries that have already passed such legislation or still have to do so. I think that the attention which the matter will have to receive in the rest of the world will increase, and I also believe that South Africa’s example will be followed in the future.

†The hon. member for Mooi River, in supporting this Bill referred to the important part that pollution plays in a situation as we have it today. The hon. member urged that we should focus attention upon the whole question of pollution. Of course, we are doing so and that is what the Bill is there for. The incidence of pollution in South Africa is responsible for the fact that we have come forward with this Bill at this juncture.

The hon. member also dealt with what he called environmental destruction. I think when the Vote “Water Affairs” comes under discussion, we will have an opportunity to discuss all aspects of pollution and the destruction of the environment. I do not think that we should discuss these matters at greater length in this debate. The hon. member also referred to the question of desalination. May I tell the hon. member that not only do we have extensive research done in South Africa on the question of desalination but that we also have a very beneficial relationship with other countries in the world. We are not out of date. As a matter of fact, on many aspects we are working together with countries of Europe and America.

*The hon. member for Piketberg made the remark that we cannot expect other people to solve our problems for us. That is so, and that is specifically why South Africa, with its particular geographic situation and its particular problems, must look in the first place to the capabilities of its own people for solving those problems. There are many aspects in which South Africa, situated as it is, cannot look to other countries for the solution of its problems. In fact, we think the day will come when other countries will come to South Africa to see what we are doing in this connection. I want to remind the hon. member that it was not other countries, but South Africa that made the breakthrough in connection with the big problem of water reclamation. There is already enormous interest in it abroad. Many countries are coming forward and asking us whether they can have a look at what we are doing here and they are asking whether we can make information available to them.

Sir, I notice that the hon. member for Orange Grove is not here at the moment.

The hon. member for East London City made a remark here which led me to suspect that he is under the impression—I do not want us to misunderstand each other; I know he means it well—that we are going to get assistance from the commission in connection with our big construction projects and our planning. I want to tell the hon. member that I see the work of the commission in a slightly different light. I think the needs are also a little different. We feel that the commission must specifically be there to co-ordinate the activities of existing bodies particularly the private sector and the universities, as well as the activities of the Department of Water Affairs and the C.S.I.R., with special reference to basic and applied research. But it is not our intention that the commission should eventually take over the broad planning and functions of the Department of Water Affairs. We do not think that the constitution of the commission is such that it would be able to do so. In other words, we shall try to confine the activities of the commission to those spheres where the Department cannot easily extend its activities, because it does not always have the technical staff available and because it cannot always attempt to gauge the basic problem in depth to the extent in which a commission, with the help of universities and institutes, is able to do so. I think we can supplement each other. I do not think that we shall contemplate calling upon the commission, or even calling upon its assistance, except when it comes to construction work involving basic problems such as landslides, the hardness of rock and the kind of problems requiring special research before the Department can continue with its work. The hon. member also referred to pollution disasters. In that connection I just want to link up with what the hon. member for South Coast mentioned here. It is a pity that what happened a few days ago in a neighbouring state, where a retaining wall at a factory broke releasing extremely poisonous effluent, had to happen. As hon. members know, the effluent from a pulp factory is the most dangerous of industrial effluents. The Department sent some of its best engineers overseas for months at a stretch to get abreast of the latest research and to gain the latest knowledge in that connection. We know that a great deal is being done in other countries, because the effluent from the factory, the black concentrate, the chemicals that are used to break down the fibre and that cannot be reclaimed, are extremely dangerous.

The black liquor.

Where it is poured out very far into the sea it can also be dangerous because even in the sea although it is greatly diluted, it remains a dangerous substance. In South Africa we are trying to get rid of it in another way; we are trying to evaporate the water in it, but it still remains dangerous because in such an evaporation process it infiltrates the soil, and now or in the future it can break through somewhere and destroy the entire region. What happened here was that the pulp factory in Lesotho built an evaporation dam because the factory was not near the sea. They did good work, but the dam broke as a result of rains and the poisonous water ran out and was en route to the confluence of the Pongola. Fortunately the Department of Water Affairs quickly discovered what was happening; otherwise there would have been a great deal of damage as a result of these poisonous substances. Fortunately we had enough water in the Strydom Dam, and the best we could then do was to release all the large quantity of the water in the Strydom Dam to carry the poisonous substances along, washing them to the sea as quickly as possible. Had that not happened, a great deal of damage would really have been done.

The hon. member for South Coast asked whether an agreement existed between the countries so that this sort of thing will not happen. We have a forum where we can talk to each other. The countries involved are those bordering on the same rivers, and we are on very good terms and hold regular meetings. The understanding that now exists between South Africa, Swaziland and the Portuguese territories, and also with Botswana and Rhodesia, is better than it was at first, and we can therefore discuss this kind of problem with each other. I hope and trust that when we can come forward with more technical knowledge and therefore can offer direct assistance, we can make plans in connection with our common problems and that we shall then make further progress. That is why I think that here too South Africa, with the position it occupies in Southern Africa—and I do not want to be misunderstood—because we are in a position to possess advanced knowledge and do research can land up in a position of leadership in which we can really be of service to our neighbouring states. This is one of the fields in which we can, in fact, do so.

The hon. member also raised a few other points, but time is getting short and I shall rather deal with them under the Vote. I also think that the hon. member himself will come back to subjects like St. Lucia under the Vote.

The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to a very important development in the Orange Free State, and I am glad that he mentioned it here, i.e. that the University of the Orange Free State has decided to establish an Institute for Geo-hydro logy. We are glad that it is being established there, and we look forward to deriving a great deal of benefit from it. It is a young university with a vigorous Department of Geology and a clever head, Prof. Ben Botha. The university has come forward and decided to do this service for South Africa and to enter upon a new field that we must enter, i.e. a field concerned with a proper study of the whole subterranean water situation of South Africa. This is important, because you will understand that we shall have to fall back increasingly on our subterranean water position. Whether we want to know it or not the fact remains that in certain parts of South Africa there is a great deal of subterranean water available, but we must be able to determine the rate of replenishment and we must therefore be able to conclude from that what the rate of withdrawal must be. If not, we shall exceed that and undermine our subterranean water supplies. But while there are large subterranean water supplies available in certain areas, it is also a fact that we have already exceeded our supplies in large areas of the country. Now this is the kind of thing one does not have to be clever about and ask why one did not do this or that. You know the development of geo-hydrology is a fairly recent one. But the accumulation and extension of knowledge, especially in the leading countries, two of which are France and America was of such great use in recent times that today, with the latest methods, we can make much better determinations than at first. It is necessary for us to understand the subterranean water situation as soon as possible, and know as much about it as possible, because we cannot meet the future if we do not have that knowledge. That is why I am very grateful that the University of the Orange Free State is going to furnish this particular service. I also want to tell the hon. member that he need not be afraid of the fact that only one student enrolled this year. You know, they only decided a few weeks ago to begin with the institute, and I am glad that they had a student available immediately, and I believe that next year they will have quite a few more students, because this will help to prepare our country in this field as well.

The hon. member for Heidelberg raised a very important point. I can understand that where he lives it is very important for him to know what the future of the Vaal Triangle sources will be. It is specifically in the Vaal Triangle that we must harness science very quickly, firstly to reclaim as much as we possibly can, and secondly to stop pollution, because that is where the chemical industry is developing on a large scale. It is so difficult for a country to meet the extensive development taking place in the Vaal Triangle at present if one is not sufficiently prepared for the immediate harnessing of science in order to prevent the results of industrial development catching one unawares, because it is specifically there that we do not have a great deal of water. That is why I want to tell the hon. member that we have already held discussions with the Rand Water Board and that in the future, in co-operation with the Rand Water Board and the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Pretoria we shall probably be launching considerable research programmes; and I must say that we shall need to make the necessary funds available very quickly in order to inject them immediately into the research projects in progress in the Vaal Triangle.

I think that these are the most important remarks that need to be made in respect of hon. members who took part in the debate. I am glad that we could accept the Bill with so much unanimity, and I look forward to the good work which this commission will do, and what this will mean for South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

As a result of the rapid increase in the demand for water and the resultant rapid progress in technology, new problems are continually cropping up, or new developments taking place.

In order to ensure that everything takes place in an orderly manner, it is of course necessary, inter alia, to exercise control and make provision for new developments and to facilitate and ensure the smooth functioning of administrative procedures in that regard, and this can best be done by stipulating it by way of legislation.

It has now become necessary to adjust the Water Act, and the easiest will be to discuss each clause and to explain the proposed amendments.

Clause 1:

Such good progress is at present being made with research and experiments in regard to the purification of municipal effluent, including sewage, that a process of purifying the effluent to a standard where the purified product will be suitable for human consumption has already been developed. A great deal of progress has already been made in the perfection of this process to make it economically practicable for local authorities. The time has therefore arrived to make the provisions of the Water Act, 1956 (Act No. 54 of 1956) applicable to reclamation works of this nature, and particularly in order to encourage local authorities, by means of subsidies, to undertake such works. To make that possible it is being proposed here that the definition of “water work” in section 1 of the Act, be amended to include reclamation works so that subsidies in terms of section 162 of the Act can be granted by the Minister of Water Affairs just as in the case of water supply schemes. In other words, it has become necessary to include this new development and its technology in the Act.

Clause 2:

A new phenomenon in the utilization of public water is the action taken by financially resourceful persons or groups of persons to build water works of great size on their own responsibility which has, or may have, a considerable effect on existing or future Government water works or on the rights of other riparian owners. Where major water works of this nature are built only by irrigation boards, water boards or other statutory bodies, as has been the case up to now, it is possible to control the use of water thus stored or abstracted, in terms of the prescription of the Water Act. However, where a water work is built by an individual or a non-statutory body it is not possible, in most cases, to do this without the aid of a Water Court or without proclaiming a Government water control area. To effect control by means of a Water Court is an extremely expensive, lengthy and often unpractical process, and to proclaim a Government water control area for the sole purpose of controlling one water work is obviously undesirable. To meet the new threat to the orderly functioning of the water economy of the country, it is being proposed in clause 2 of the Bill to bring the construction of all major water works in unproclaimed rivers under Government control.

Clause 3:

Attention has been drawn to practices which have originated for the intensive breeding and fattening of stock which constitute a real danger of the pollution of public streams. The extremely prejudicial consequences of this have already been experienced in America and it is deemed very necessary that steps be taken in time to prevent similar conditions in South Africa. The method which is being proposed, is the insertion of a section into the Water Act as indicated in clause 3 of the Bill. The intention here is to bring concentrations of any livestock for fattening purposes, just as in the case of industries, into the cadre of control undertakings. If pollution should result from that, the Minister would be able to apply the same control as that which obtains in the case of industries.

Clause 4:

The large-scale abstraction of subterranean water by gold mines from the dolomitic area on the West Rand, is leading to the depletion of surface and subterranean water resources which have for many years supplied water for irrigation purposes. The result is that the irrigation farmers in question are being compelled to seek a means of subsistence elsewhere, and consequently they must be compensated financially for the loss of a livelihood. However, there are no statutory provisions which compel the mine-owners to pay compensation, or according to which the amount of compensation can be arranged. In disputes which have thus far arisen, the Minister of Water Affairs has acted as mediator, but he is handicapped by a lack of jurisdiction. In clause 4 of the Bill steps are being suggested to supplement the deficiency.

Clause 5:

The present procedure whereby stipulations and conditions for the supply of water from Government water works for various purposes, excluding irrigation, is prescribed by regulation, places an unnecessary administrative burden on the Department, which can to a considerable degree be alleviated if it is possible to enable the Minister to lay down stipulations and conditions without having to promulgate regulations each time a water work is put into operation, or to amend the regulations whenever it is found necessary to do so.

Clause 6 (a), (c) and (d):

In terms of the provisions of sections 63 (8) (a), 63 (9) (a) and 63 (10) of the Act, land which is included in the schedule of irrigable surface areas of a Government water scheme is deleted from that schedule if—

1. (a) there is an increase in the number of owners of said land so that the land any one of the greater number of owners is entitled to irrigate is less than 20 morgen in extent; or
2. (b) any scheduled land owned in terms of a settlement law, is alienated or leased for a long period to a person who is already the owner or lessee of other scheduled land; or
3. (c) the owner of scheduled land obtains the water rights, without the said land, from another person; or
4. (d) a person who does not own scheduled land obtains the water rights from two or more persons, in other words, purchases it;

unless the Minister on the recommendation of the Land Tenure Board otherwise directs. The intention of these provisions is to prevent the fragmentation of scheduled land into uneconomic units, or that any particular individual obtains an unreasonably great advantage from such a Government water work. The Act does, however, provide that in cases where this is justified on merit, the Minister of Water Affairs may make an exception. However, the Minister can only act “on the recommendation of the Land Tenure Board”. This means that if the said Board were to recommend that in any particular case an exception should in fact be made, the Minister may nevertheless, at his discretion, refuse. But if the Board, for reasons not acceptable to the Minister, should refuse to recommend that an exception be made, there is no matter before the Minister to decide. What it amounts to in practice is that the Minister may in the one case reject the Board’s recommendation at his discretion while the Board in another case is in the position to undermine the Minister’s authority. This is an anomaly which must be rectified, and consequently it is being proposed in clause 7 (a), (c) and (d) of the Bill that the said provisions be amended so that the Minister need only consult the Land Tenure Board, without in actual fact being bound by the Board’s decision. The same principles already apply in sections 3, 12, 21 and 110 (b) of the Water Act for example, where discretionary powers are granted to the Minister, after consultation with other Ministers, the South African Bureau of Standards and the Public Service Commission.

Clause 6 (b):

All that is being proposed here, is the rectification of a printers error in the Afrikaans text of section 63 (8) (c) of the Act.

Clause 7 (a):

Section 66 of the Act empowers the Minister to assess rates on land which is irrigated with water from Government water works. The intention was of course to empower the Minister also to assess charges in respect of water which may be supplied for all other purposes. However, the phrasing of the section is not clear enough in this respect, and it is now being proposed to improve the phrasing.

Clauses 7 (b), 8 and 9:

In addition the provisions of section 66 of the Act empowers the Minister to recover outstanding charges and rates by causing steps to be taken in a court of law, and in addition to stop the supply of water to the land in question until such time as the outstanding amount has been collected. It is also provided that rates and charges assessed by the Minister or an Irrigation Board are a charge upon the land and that future owners remain responsible for them. Lastly it is provided that no transfer of land in respect of which a rate has been assessed may be effected in the deeds registry to the name of any other person unless a certificate has been submitted to the effect that all outstanding rates have been paid. The result of this is that the Registrar of Deeds has to endorse all the said deeds and registers. This does not only apply to all Government water schemes, but also to all irrigation districts. This arrangement places a tremendous burden of work on the staff of deeds registries, something which is not justified, taking into account the safeguard already contained in the Water Act. At the request of the Registrar of Deeds it is therefore recommended that section 66 (3) and 92 (3) (b) of the Water Act be deleted.

Clause 10:

In terms of section 123 (1) of the Act the financial year of a Water Board ends on 31st December of each year, and in terms of section 109 (8) a Water Board is required to convene a meeting during January of each year. It would be an advantage for a Board to deal with its annual statements during the compulsory annual meeting, but it is not always possible to have the annual statements ready in time after the termination of the financial year of 31st December. Consequently it is being proposed that the time for the compulsory annual meeting be changed to February in order to allow sufficient time for the preparation of annual statements.

Clause 11:

In section 121 (5) of the Act reference is made to moneys which the Minister may advance to a newly established Water Board until such time as a Board receives an income from the sale of water. However, it is also provided that no advance shall be made in respect of any waterworks the total cost of which will exceed R60,000 when completed, unless a report on the proposed works has been laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and such advance had been approved by resolution of both such Houses. Similar provisions were previously contained in section 157, as regards loans to irrigation boards, but the section in question was amended during 1969 by increasing the amount to R150,000. The reason is that the construction costs of civil engineering works have increased tremendously since the promulgation of the Water Act in 1956. The result of this is that a far smaller work can be constructed at a cost of R60,000 today than was the case in 1956. For the same reason it is now being proposed to effect a similar amendment to section 121 (5).

Clause 12:

In terms of section 125 of the Water Act a water Board is required to establish and maintain a renewals fund in order to defray the costs of the renewal of its water works. However no fund need be maintained if the water works in question has a useful life of not less than the period of any loan raised in connection therewith. If these statutory provisions are applied strictly according to their literary meaning, a water board must therefore maintain another fund in order to make adequate provision for the complete replacement of a water works of which the expected useful life is perhaps a few years less than the period of the loan. In order to comply with this requirement, a board is then obliged to have the present uses pay for a water works which will in the distant future be available free of charge for the benefit of the future users. Such an arrangement places an unfairly heavy burden on the financers of a Board and results in the case of the Phalaborwa Water Board for example, that the tariffs for the provision of water having to be increased by 23 per cent. At present the said Board is temporarily exempted from the statutory requirements (in terms of the second proviso to section 125), but on the effluxion of the exemption period the Board will be required to increase the tariff by 23 per cent, which will make the price of water uneconomic. It is therefore being proposed in clause 12 of the Bill that the Minister be empowered to determine the scope of a renewals fund, taking into consideration the nature and probable life of a water works, as well as the amount and redemption period of any loan raised in connection therewith.

Clause 13:

As far as the increase of the amount of R60,000 to R150,000 is concerned, the same observations apply as under clause 11 of this Bill.

The Water Act was amended by Act No. 77 of 1969 by making certain additional control measures, as set out in section 95A, possible in cases where irrigation boards do not fulfil their obligations properly or where the takeover by the state of irrigation board schemes may be necessary for other reasons. The initial provisions of section 95 are, in terms of section 125, mutatis mutandis applicable to other boards or bodies with powers and duties similar to those of irrigation boards, such as settlement management boards, for example. Consequently the supplementary provisions of section 95A also had to be made applicable, in terms of Act 77 of 1969 to the latter boards and bodies. Through an oversight, however, this was not done and the necessary provision is now being made in clause 13 of the Bill.

Clause 14:

In section 166 of the Act provision is made for authorizing persons to enter upon private property for the purpose of complying with certain requirements of the Act. In practice it has been found that the purposes specified in the section are not sufficient, and consequently it is being proposed in clause 14 that persons may be authorized to enter upon private land in order to comply with any provision of the Act.

Clause 15:

The Department continually finds it necessary in the execution of its functions to enter upon the land of private persons.

During operations carried out on this land unavoidable damage to it may be caused. In this way, for example, a tree must sometimes be felled in order to enable a surveyor to make his surveys, or lands are damaged where a drilling rig has been set up to drill test holes, and so on. In such cases the owners are compensated for the damage thus caused. In the past such matters were submitted to the Treasury for the necessary approval to compensate for the damage. As has already been mentioned, the damage is unavoidable and is usually slight, and the Treasury was of the opinion that the section should be amended so that the Department itself may also decide on these matters in order by so doing to alleviate the burden of work.

As hon. members can see, it is being envisaged, with the changes in the existing measures and the new measures which are now before the House, to facilitate the smooth operation of activities and to make corrections. I do not think there is a single proposal in this Bill which has not at some stage or another been discussed on either side of the House. It is necessary to have better control over water matters in this country. That is why it is with pleasure that I move the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that we on this side of the House support the Bill which the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs has brought forward this afternoon. However, that is not to say that there will not be some debate in regard to some of the clauses in the Bill. There are some provisions of a very far-reaching nature incorporated in this Bill. I should like to touch upon two or three of them. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for having dealt clause by clause with this measure. It is a Bill which does not deal with one big central principle which is then expanded in the other provisions of the Bill. Virtually every clause deals with some important point, but a point which is disassociated from the other points in the Bill. Each point could stand alone. It is not associated with or linked to a common purpose or some common principle with any of the other clauses in the Bill. The Bill itself is one which we have to expect. I want to add that this is not criticism of the department for the work which it is doing because we realize that it is short-handed and that it is very difficult to get trained people in that department. There is a growing realization of the fact that in water we have one of the most precious commodities which nature has bestowed upon us in this country; the whole public attitude towards water has changed completely over the last 30 or 40 years and possibly in the last 10 or 15 years, and even as late as the last two or three years. Water has taken on a degree of importance which can hardly be reconciled with the public attitude towards water of 30 or 40 years ago. Because the Act of 1956 is being administered by the department, with its difficulties in regard to staff, and so forth, we must anticipate year by year—and this we do—that the Minister will be forced to bring before this House a measure dealing with the problems and difficulties which the department has come across in its administration of the parent Act as it has been amended from time to time. That is inevitable now. The greater the emphasis on the value of water, the greater the pressure will be on the department to do something to ensure that the interest of the people who are beneficiaries are maintained. This interest grows in value year by year and when people have something of value and they think it is imperilled or in jeopardy, they turn to the authority which is responsible for the care of that particular interest. In this case the valuable commodity is water and the authority responsible for its care is the hon. the Minister. Should there be a shortfall in the protection that he has afforded to people who either have water or are afraid of losing some interest in water, as the case may be, or should that water become polluted and is therefore lost to the interested people in a sense, they will go to the hon. the Minister. Here again in this Bill, as in so many other Bills which deal with water, we have the question of pollution once again coming to the fore. Special provision is made here to deal with the question of pollution. This question of pollution runs continuously through the various Bills which we have dealt with.

Now that the hon. the Prime Minister is here I want to make a special appeal to him. Last year I made a similar appeal, but he did not see his way clear to agree with us on that occasion. However, he will come to our way of thinking eventually. The logic of circumstances will force him to do so. I want the hon. the Prime Minister to think about it and then to give us a Minister and a department which will be concerned with the protection of our environment. This will include all the measures which the hon. the Minister brings before us. The hon. the Minister is struggling against adversity in this matter. He is dealing with his portfolio and with the portfolio of Forestry which also entails the problem of pollution of the soil and pollution of the environment. This also carries with it the pollution of the environment because it deals with the pollution of water. In its various aspects, the Bill which has just been read a second time, deals with the question of research into the question of water wherever it may be and wherever it falls under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister and his department. This includes the underground water supplies, rain, rivers, lakes tidal rivers and so forth. All these aspects are involved in the problem of pollution. That is only one aspect of it. This hon. Minister has to grapple with this part of it, the pollution of our seawater, bays, semi-enclosed bays, river estuaries and rivers are the responsibility of another Minister altogether. The arrangements of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in this regard has broken down. When it comes to air pollution and other pollutions of the environment neither the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs or the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, nor the hon. the Minister of Forestry is concerned. Again it is the responsibility of another Minister altogether. Even the hon. the Minister of Health comes into the picture somewhere.

This is surely the wrong way to deal with a matter of such importance. Every facet of it is important. The pollution of our water can be fatal to invested capital, to the health of man and beast and agriculture. When one comes to the question of the pollution of the air, one realizes that it can be fatal to the health of the population. The pollution of soil is one of the biggest problems facing the more progressive countries of the world today. These countries are of the most advanced in agriculture and their biggest problem is the pollution of the soil. What flows from this kind of pollution? From pollution of the soil you go to pollution of the waters because your flood and run water drain into your rivers and into your lakes. What does that do? It kills your bird-life, animals and animalcule which we know are absolutely vital for the survival of the human race.

What do we know about the laws dealing with underground water? Which of our scientists will stand up in public today and say that he is going to give a lecture about what is known about underground water and the laws that govern underground water? In this Bill we have a clause, to which I will come in a minute, where the hon. the Minister defines the damages which can flow from certain aspects of the use of underground water. Does the hon. the Minister say that he can say with certainty that the scientists have told him what the laws are that are governing the underground water supplies here in the Republic and that therefore he is safe to assess damages? Is he safe to say to a person that he is causing harm to certain other persons, that those farmers, those towns or industries are suffering and that he is responsible to the extent of RX,000 or RX million and that he is going to allot damages against him for doing that? When damages are paid is the harm then cured? Of course not. It is no good paying damages after the water has been polluted and after the damage is done. What we want to do is to prevent the damage.

I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister again that he has an hon. Minister that he can spare. I am not being personal now, but am only stating what I am sure he will agree with. It is a fact that he can spare one or two of his Ministers but what we can no longer spare in South Africa is a Minister who is going to be responsible for all those things which are polluting our environment, which are affecting the health, not only of the human population but of every living organism, including our vegetation. This Minister will then be the man to whom people who complain of pollution of this section of our environment or that section can turn because it is known that that is the Minister whose Department is in charge of all that. One will go to with certainty to the man who carries that responsibility and who has a Department who can deal with it. That is what is lacking today and I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to please help his own country by providing that Minister and that Department to see that our environment is no longer polluted. We are only at the beginning and surely we can learn the lesson of history from other countries. We can see what is happening at the present time in other countries.

At the present time in the United States there are 600 firms who are doing nothing but bottling pure spring water. Last year they increased their turnover by no less than 500 million dollars. They bottle pure spring water so that the person who drinks it is able to say that it is good fresh spring water. It has not been polluted, purified, reactivated, polluted again, reactivated and purified once more, eventually becoming a dead element which can be described in chemical terms, poured into your glass or, for those who have lemonade, which can be mixed with your lemonade. It is pure spring water, and the profit is sufficient for the existence of 600 firms in America providing it. That is how far they have gone. But they have gone that far because of the pollution of their main water supply. So it goes with all or most of the older and bigger countries of the world. We need not follow suit, but we are perilously near the time when we have to, whether we like it or not, take active steps. We are going to have, I should say, at least four or five various departments, each one trying to grapple with a segment of the problem, with no adequate co-ordination so that the picture can be seen as a whole and adequate steps taken to deal with it.

As to the Bill itself, I say we are supporting it. We think that the Minister must come with a Bill like this from time to time. I only want to deal with one or two clauses. As the Minister has said, under this Vote there will be other opportunities for debate. In regard to clause 2 we are at one with the Minister in suggesting that “no person shall construct, alter or enlarge any water work in which more than 100 morgen feet of public water could be impounded or stored or by means of which more than ten cubic feet of water per second could be extracted or diverted from a public stream, except under the authority of a permit from the Minister …” We have heard the reason he has advanced for this clause. We agree with him. Where such works have already been constructed, there is nothing the Minister can do about it. They have been constructed legally and there they are. I would like to suggest that the Minister might consider calling—even if he fixes a time; six months if he likes— for a registration of existing works where that size of conservation dam has been constructed, or a dam which can give that amount of draw-off, namely 10 cubic feet a second, so that he has, at the date when he enforces this clause, a record of all the dams of that size already constructed. As time goes on and this clause is enforced against people who come to the Minister for a permit for the purpose of constructing, altering or enlarging existing dams of those dimensions, the Minister will have a record of those who have already completed that work which is legal, but for which a permit from the Minister has not been obtained in terms of this clause. When they constructed their dams this clause was not in operation. It is not being made retrospective. We do not ask for it to be made retrospective. But we believe that possibly a register of such existing dams would be advantageous.

Then I come to clause 4. This deals with the question of sub-terranean water and the powers which the hon. the Minister is now taking. It says that they—

When the hon. the Minister replies, could he perhaps give us some further information as to how he sees the quantum of the water being worked out, what the effect is likely to be and how he is going to assess the quantum of the damages to the people who are likely to suffer. You see, Sir, this can be very far-reaching. As I said earlier on, I am afraid we are woefully ignorant of the laws dealing with subterranean waters. Where a matter of this kind is concerned, which may be dealing with many, many millions of gallons of water we should look for some kind of a formula which can be applied in specific cases. The Minister can consider this as he will be vested with that power.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.