Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, traditionally the municipalities and local authorities have acted as the agents of the Government in administering Bantu townships and, as they were earlier known, locations in the so-called White areas, but at the same time they had considerable latitude in exercising their authority. Almost 50 years ago the first Urban Areas Act was passed by this Parliament, setting out in more detail the powers of the local authorities. Over the years, especially the last 20 years, the Government has whittled away the powers of these local authorities and Ministers have taken more and more control into their own hands and have restricted the authorities from acting without the approval of the Minister. While their authority has been whittled away, they have had onerous tasks forced on them, compelling them to furnish services even for bodies outside their jurisdiction.

This Bill before us takes over complete control from the local authorities. Once this measure has been passed they will have lost all control over the Bantu living in their areas of jurisdiction. They will, however, still be liable to furnish services in certain instances and they are compelled to do so whether they like it or not. I should like to refer especially to clause 18 of the Bill on page 30, to show how onerous these duties can be and what can befall a municipality or local authority if it fails to carry out its duties to the satisfaction of the board. In terms of this clause, if a local authority neglects to perform any act which by or under the provisions of this Act it is empowered or required to perform in relation to a board, or performs any such act in such a manner that, in the opinion of such board, the purpose for which such act is so empowered or required is not achieved, then certain things can happen. It says, “in the opinion of the board”; the board will decide whether the local authority has carried out its functions to its satisfaction. If the board is not satisfied the Minister can intervene and then the board can undertake the work itself and collect the cost from the local authority. It can do so by going to court in the normal course, to which we have no objection, as I said in the Committee Stage. But it has the further power of levying a rate on all the rateable property of the local authority to collect the amount due, or it can grab the subsidy due to be paid to the local authority by some other authority. I say that this is very far-reaching. I know that there is a precedent for this. The late Dr. Verwoerd empowered the Resettlement Board to take the same line of action against the Johannesburg municipality. That does not make it right. This is an instance of just how far the board has power to act against the local authorities.

It is intended that the boards will finance themselves out of Bantu revenue. Therefore it may be contended that the municipalities should be pleased to hand over the responsibility to the boards. We know that certain municipalities had to finance capital works in their Bantu townships out of their own treasury. They have done it quite willingly in order to ensure that the facilities given to the Bantu living in the area are suitable. Despite the fact that this responsibility is going to be taken from the local authorities, they as a whole are not satisfied with this legislation. They prefer to keep the control in their own hands. The U.M.F. were certainly not unanimous in agreeing to hand over control of their affairs to the board. One of the reasons why the municipalities are not satisfied to hand over their control to the board is that the board is responsible to no one but the Minister, whereas the municipalities, the local councils and the local authorities are responsible to the people living in their areas, the people who elect them. They have a responsibility to their people to see that all the people living in their areas are made as contented as can be, and housed as suitably as possible and that health provisions and other duties of the local authorities are carried out to the advantage of all the people living in that area, as far as possible.

The Minister has said that the Bantu were consulted before this legislation was introduced. In Parliament he read certain telegrams he had received from urban councils. He read one from the urban council of Bloemfontein, which read—

Clause 26 protects the rights of the Bantu living in the urban areas given to them under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. Naturally they are relieved to see that those rights are being protected. They support the Bill because they believe that they will have freer movement around the area of Bloemfontein and simultaneously have their rights protected. The hon. the Minister also read a telegram from Kimberley, which said—

They regard it as a major concession. The hon. the Minister also had a telegram from Potchefstroom. They said that the Bill implied major advantages for both the Bantu and the Republic of South Africa. What are the major advantages for the Bantu in this Bill? They have nothing to do with administration, because that is taken away from the local government. The advantages to the Bantu are that they are allowed to move from one area to another in the course of their work.

There are many other advantages, apart from that one.

But that is the advantage to the Bantu. They tell us here what the advantages are. They mention clause 26 and the fact that they may move.

They did not mention only clause 26; they mentioned others as well.

Well, the hon. the Minister did not read any others to us. I do not know why he did not. This is the same type of telegram that he allegedly once received from a man saying he supported his policy and at the same time asking for a licence for a filling station. He only supported the Minister’s policy in order to obtain a filling station licence. I cannot understand how the hon. the Deputy Minister can read this type of telegram to us and give the game away. They accepted this Bill because of the protection they get under clause 26.

The hon. the Deputy Minister denies that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is taking more powers to himself under this Bill. I do not know how the hon. the Deputy Minister can do that. After all, in terms of clause 11 (1) (e), all the powers exercised by a local authority are transferred to the boards. In the same clause it is laid down that all the powers exercised by a board in terms of the Bantu Urban Areas Act, can be exercised by the Minister. But in addition, there are, I think, about 17 other instances where the Minister is taking special powers. I should like to go through them quickly. On page 18 of the Bill, as it was discussed at the Second Reading, we find the following side-note in line with clause 11: “Object and general powers and functions of a board.” The board has all the powers of a local authority, the Minister has all the powers of the board and yet, in addition, the Minister is given a number of other powers in terms of this Bill. I just want to read the authority of the Minister in terms of this Bill. In terms of clause 11 (1) (a) the board shall “have power, with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine” to acquire land. In paragraph (c) of clause 11 I it is laid down that the board shall have power, with the approval of the Minister to develop land or to hypothecate land, etc. I do not have to jump around to find the instances where the Minister is vested with such powers. I merely have to turn over each page and I find more and more powers given to the Minister. Lines 26 to 30 on page 20 reads as follows:

Lower down on that same page one finds the following words: “as the Minister may from time to time after consultation with the Administrator specify by notice in the Gazette. If one turns the page over, one reads of the powers with which the Minister is vested in regard to the labour organization. Line 59 on page 22 reads as follows: “shall, save as may be otherwise determined by the Minister”.

Those are all in terms of the relevant Acts.

No, they are not. Clause 11 (1) (e) sets out all the powers which the Minister takes in terms of a number of other relevant Acts. These are powers which the Minister has in addition to the powers which he has in terms of those Acts.

Clause 12 (2) gives the Minister a further power and it reads as follows:

Line 20 on page 24 reads as follows: “Shall, save as may be otherwise determined by the Minister in.” Lines 40 to 41 on that same page read: “in terms of this Act by a board, shall be determined by agreement between the Minister and the body by which those assets”. Clause 13 (1) (d) reads: “of any loans obtained by it with the approval of the Minister granted in consultation …”. Lines 65 to 66 read as follows: “and subject to such conditions as may be determined, by the Minister …”. In line 4 on page 28 we again have the words “be approved by the Minister”. Lines 54 to 56 on page 28 read: “such local authority to the Minister, whose decision thereon, given after consultation with the Administrator concerned, shall be final”. On page 30 we have clause 18, which deals with the powers of the Minister. In other words, in addition to all the powers to which I have referred, clause 18 gives the Minister further powers. On page 32 we have the same thing again. I can go on in this way. On page 34 the Minister is vested with a whole string of powers.

On top of that we have clause 22 (3) (f)!

Yes, on top of all that we have clause 22 (3) (f). The hon. the Deputy Minister is right. I am glad it has sunk into him what powers he really is taking for himself in terms of this Bill. This means that the board will merely become a tool of the Minister. It will be a rubber stamp. Nothing these boards can do is free of control by the Minister.

We also spent some time on discussing the question of the services levy paid by employers. That is of importance because the services levy funds are also handed over to this board. We expressed our concern about the fact that the board may transfer these funds to the Bantu Trust and that they would be used in the reserves. This would be contrary to the assurance which was given by Dr. Verwoerd when he introduced this scheme. Now, the Deputy Minister has given the assurance, and he has introduced an amendment to this Bill which makes it quite clear, that the existing laws will have to be observed. If, in terms of the law, the funds cannot be used at present in the reserves, the hon. the Deputy Minister has given the assurance that they will not be so used in the future either. However, at the same time he issued quite a long statement about what could be done and what could not be done. The suggestion is that these funds will be u ed outside the area of the local authority, provided the local authority itself takes the initiative in getting the consent of the employers’ representatives on the services levy committee to use the funds elsewhere. I still say that that will be contrary to the spirit of the legislation and the assurances that Dr. Verwoerd gave the employers at the time that it would not happen.

What is the bait which is offered for the acceptance of this measure? Why are we asked to accept it? We are told that there will be a more efficient administration and also that there will be freedom of movement by the Bantu. Everybody wants the Bantu to have freedom of movement. The Bantu themselves want it, their employers want it, but we contend that it is not necessary to introduce this measure to bring that policy about. The employer, the Bantu and everybody else would have been just as happy had provision been made for the freer movement of the Bantu and the administration left under the control of the local authorities. They have been given no choice. As far as the Government is concerned, they either choose freedom of movement and the taking away of control from local authorities, or no freedom of movement.

When this Bill has been passed the Minister of Bantu Administration will control the life of every African. He controls it in the reserves, and he will control it in the urban areas and in the rural areas. No matter where they are, the Africans will come under the Department of Bantu Administration to the exclusion of other departments. The only exception of course is that the Minister of Labour can prohibit them, by means of job reservation, from doing certain work. This hon. Deputy Minister now takes over control of where they can work, what work they can do, where they may live, and where they may not live. He will say that is not so, but with the powers which are being given to him he can in fact do these things.

You have a guilty conscience in saying that I will say it is not so.

The hon. the Minister says that we know him and that we should trust his honesty. He said that he will not do this and that he will not do that, but the Minister can do these things by exercising control. He says they will not do it. He will probably not do it, but what about others? I still say that it is a most surprising thing for a Minister to have to say in introducing a measure that they were grateful that their bona fides were trusted. I think it is a shocking thing that an hon. Minister has to assure the House and his own members that people trust him.

In the Second Reading debate I said that there was only one consolation. That is that after this measure has been passed there will probably not be any need for further legislation affecting the life of the Bantu. There is only one possible one that may still be introduced. They will not do it now, but they may in a few years’ time, and that will be to repeal section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. We are waiting to see that happen. Otherwise, there is no more necessity for them to interfere because with this legislation they can control the very lives of the Bantu. In their ambit they have embraced every aspect of Native life. We oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as of old the hon. member for Transkei has regaled us with his lamentations about what the Government envisages, according to his view. The hon. member says that this legislation is going to deprive local authorities of powers and that this Government is smothering municipalities and local authorities to death. I should like to quote from a speech by the late Dr. Verwoerd. It was delivered on 17th September, 1956, when he addressed the 5th congress of the Administrators of non-White Affairs about this matter. He said at the time:

I think the hon. member for Transkei would do so well to stop nagging about the story that he is fabricating, i.e. that the Government is taking the powers of local authorities away from them. The powers that local authorities exercise in this connection were delegated to them by the Government. The hon. member for Transkei also made a great fuss about the fact that the hon. the Minister, in his opinion, now has so much power. The Minister surely acts in terms of the law and in terms of the power the law confers upon him. He is now not invested with the powers of a dictator.

But why, then, is this legislation necessary?

I shall reply to the hon. member on that question. During the discussion of this Bill I gained the impression that the Opposition was not opposing this legislation on the grounds of principle, but because their political belief has always been attuned, and remains attuned, to greater labour integration. What is the principle at issue here? I want to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister said during his Second Reading speech. He said:

1. (a) greater mobility of Bantu labour;
2. (b) to establish effective administrative machinery in respect of Bantu affairs; and
3. (c) to join in a statutory body, and on the basis of knowledge of Bantu affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned.

I wish the hon. Opposition would take this third point to heart this evening, because this is one of the basic objects of this legislation. I shall therefore repeat it: “On the basis of knowledge of Bantu affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned. That is what this Bill is about, but my impression in all the debates about this Bill was firstly that the United Party, through its actions, cherishes a silent hope and desire that White South Africa should be so overrun by Bantu that the Government simply cannot implement its policy of separate development. That is the impression I received, i.e. that it is the United Party’s desire that such difficult circumstances must develop in our country that the Government has to throw in the towel. That is why the hon. member for King William’s Town advocates … well, we do not have much respect for a man who relinquishes his Afrikanerdom in order to become a United Party member.

He did not relinquish his Afrikanerdom. [Interjections.]

That hon. member for King William’s Town now advocates that proprietary rights should be given to the Bantu in the White areas and that they should be allowed to come and live here with their families. They thereby want to create difficult situations in the hope that the policy of this Government will fail.

My second impression of this debate is that this Opposition has become a willing mouthpiece of the liberal Press, of those who advocate integration and of the interests of those industrialists who want only one thing, i.e. “create a Bantu labour pool for me in White areas that is as big as possible so that I can obtain Bantu labour whenever I want to and in whatever quantities I choose, irrespective of any social, socio economic and political consequences”. That is the impression I gained.

It is a political speech.

We are assembled in this House to talk politics, and the National Party has never been afraid to talk politics. I gain the impression that the hon. Opposition does not care how a Bantu labourer is displaced in South Africa. They do not care if their policy should again give rise to the development of Bantu hovels on a large scale, as in the past, as long as they have the Bantu labour working for them.

Nonsense!

I shall proceed to prove it. My third impression of this debate is that the hon. Opposition is throwing everything into the struggle of placing the Government, everywhere and at all times, under suspicion …

But of course.

… among the Bantu. Oh, the hon. member admits it. He admits that it is their task to place the Government under suspicion among the Bantu and in the world at large. Let me come back to the hon. member for Transkei, and now I want to prove what I said. [Interjections.] The “powder puff” must please keep quiet so that I can state my case. What did the hon. member for Transkei say? I said that I had gained the impression that the United Party wanted, everywhere and at all times, to discredit the Government. In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Transkei said—

By implication the hon. member is telling the Bantu and the world at large that this Government acts inhumanely …

Hear, hear!

… that it oppresses and that it negates human rights. I hear the hon. member over there saying “hear, hear”. In other words, he admits that the hon. member for Transkei said that this Government is inhumane towards the Bantu, that it oppresses and that it negates human rights. In other words, they sing the same tune as the U.N. But what did the Deputy Minister say and what reason do you and I, Sir, have to doubt the hon. the Deputy Minister’s word? I shall quote to you from Hansard, Column 2409. The hon. the Deputy Minister said—

In the same column he states, in addition, that our policy can only succeed if it is applied in a fair, just and humane manner. When the Opposition says that this Government oppresses, is inhumane and negates human rights, they are surely playing with fire, because what are they consequently telling the Bantu and the countries abroad?

They are telling the Bantu that they are being oppressed by this Government and deprived of human rights. This legislation, so they tell the Bantu, is taking rights from them. But surely this is not true. On the contrary. If there has ever been a Government striving to maintain the human dignity of the individual, to develop an individual sense of identity and to activate Nationalism, it is this Government. This Government specifically believes in the human dignity and the identity of the individual; it likewise believes in Nationalism. If South Africa were ever to be plunged into the quagmire of revolution, one should blame not separate development, but the United Party which is prepared to place itself at the service of the integrationists.

The hon. member for Transkei said that another reason why he objects to this legislation is because “councillors are elected”. We know that councillors are elected, and it frequently happens that a person is elected as a councillor because he has promised to plant trees on one’s pavement or to have the street in one’s neighbourhood tarred. But is this Government not elected as well? Has this Government not been placed in power these past 23 years by the electorate on the grounds of a policy that it has presented to the electorate on a nation-wide basis? Under the circumstances I do not believe that the hon. member for Transkei’s argument in this connection is a valid one.

One of the results of this legislation would be greater uniformity in the application of Acts to the urban Bantu.

†May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that all the regulations and proclamations with reference to the urban Bantu can be divided into six groups. To demonstrate the complexity of this problem, let me by way of argument show how this Bill will assist the Government in implementing the Bantu Urban Areas Act of 1945. Let me first of all enumerate these 6 groups in order to prove why it was considered necessary to proceed to the establishment of these administration boards. There are regulations dealing with the administration of the Bantu—19 sets of regulations in all. Employment and passes are governed by 15 sets of regulations, while residence and ownership are governed by 21 sets. On top of that 5 sets of regulations govern rights of association, 11 sets Bantu education and 3 sets the supply and use of intoxicating liquor. All these regulations cover a very wide field. All are aimed at ensuring method and order in the control of Bantu labour, influx of Bantu and the provision of amenities. Thus there are the regulations for the control and management of premises on which Bantu beer is being manufactured, for the control of meetings and gatherings in Bantu areas, for the control of premises licensed for the accommodation of Bantu, for trading, and to control labour, transport and certain other activities. I have only mentioned a certain number of fields covered by these regulations but I think I have given sufficient proof why it has become necessary to establish, these administration boards.

*I therefore say that one result of this Bill will be greater uniformity. It is known that all the existing Acts and regulations that must be implemented by many bodies, can create confusion and frequently embarrass the State. They can even have political repercussions that can cross our borders and land up in the international political arena. Opportunities can also be created for local authorities to evade the Government’s policy. Hence the sensitivity of hon. members opposite when Johannesburg is mentioned.

But this legislation will also bring about greater fairness towards the Bantu citizen —because Acts will now be implemented along strict lines, which in turn will lead to the protection of the Bantu worker. We accept that these boards will consist only of experts, people who also know the soul of the Bantu. As the Deputy Minister said, these boards will be able to deal with problems more quickly, apart from the fact that mobility in the labour force will be facilitated. In 1904 10.4 per cent of the urban population were Bantu. By 1951 the figure was already 27.1 per cent. The Tomlinson commission said that if the rate were to continue increasing as it did from 1910 to 1951, by the year 2000 there would be 10 million Bantu in the White urban areas. Fortunately we have a Government that is doing its best to stop the flow of Bantu and to establish them in their own homelands, and some success has already been achieved in doing so.

What is the task of a Government, specifically this Government in this country? It is, firstly, to develop our country in an orderly way; secondly, to maintain a sound growth rate; thirdly, to ensure sufficient labour; fourthly, to guard against unemployment; and, fifthly, to ensure that the available labour is used economically and efficiently. But apart from that, this Government also has a mandate from the electorate, a mandate to guard against White South Africa being engulfed by Bantu and to guard against the danger of integration. With this legislation, as with legislation in the past, the Government is implementing this mandate. But the Government also has a duty and a responsibility to the Bantu which it is honouring by trying to create just and fair labour conditions so that the Bantu can sell his labour on an economic bases. Through its policy this Government prevents overloading of the labour market which could entail a great deal of unemployment among the Bantu. Sir, I need not tell you of the dangers or the implications involved if we were to have large-scale unemployment. Thirdly, this Government also has another duty towards the Bantu, i.e. to create circumstances and conditions such that the Bantu labourer will not be unnecessarily frustrated by, inter alia, various interpretations and the inconsistent implementation of Acts. That is why this Bill, when it appears on the Statute Book and is implemented, will make a tremendous contribution towards eradicating any frustration among the Bantu. In addition, this Government sees the Bantu not only as a worker without a soul, without aspirations, without ideals and without his own tradition and character. No, Sir, this Government sees the Bantu as a person striving for human dignity, and that is why this Government is giving the Bantu what is due to him and what he wants in his own area.

With this government’s positive action, and this applies equally to this legislation before this House, the Government is specifically continuing to develop the ideal of establishing sound relationships between groups, eliminating areas of friction, eradicating illegal conditions—and believe me, Sir, many such conditions prevailed in United Party times—and of achieving a sympathetic approach by experts to what are at times emotional problems, experts who know the soul of the Bantu and do not regard him merely as a pair of hands performing a service, but as a person with ideals and a striving towards human dignity. Sir, I think that in the hands of this hon. Deputy Minister, who has handled this Bill with the utmost competence and sympathy and, I might add, with the utmost sincerity, and this embraces his attitude towards the Opposition, and in the hands of his Department, this Act will be safe. Notwithstanding the negativism of hon. members opposite, I think that this legislation is going to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to create, with the implementation and interpretation of existing legislation, something positive for the Whites and for the Bantu in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester has given us his impressions of this debate and he has also given us his impressions of the policy as carried out by the Government. I must say that what he has said has borne out what I have long felt and that is that hon. members sitting in this House who glibly pass legislation effecting the lives of the Africans never ever have any first-hand knowledge of the effect of such legislation on the lives of the people concerned. I want to tell the hon. member for Worcester that if he spent just one afternoon at the Advice Office of the Black Sash, watching them handling the people who are the victims of the laws which we pass in this House, he might perhaps have a different impression; he might then realize that it does not require Opposition speakers to inform the African people that they are being oppressed by Government policy. Sir, they know it better than anybody. The woman who is being endorsed out of the urban area because she is a superfluous appendage, in the words of a previous Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, the man who is not allowed to have his lawful wedded wife live with him, does not need to be told by anybody that this legislation and Government policy are in fact causing him hardship and distress. Sir, hon. members should not sit here talking about what the Africans want and legislating for what they believe the Africans want …

Do you know what they want?

Yes, because I take the trouble to talk to the people concerned.

To whom do you talk?

I talk to the ordinary Africans, not political people, but ordinary Africans living in South Africa who are grievously affected by the sort of legislation that the hon. member refers to in such sanctimonious terms.

The other thing the hon. member told us is that one of the great disasters would be if there were widespread unemployment among Africans in South Africa. I could not agree more. But what he does not appear to know is that there is widespread unemployment amongst Africans in South Africa. Has he ever visited the Bantustans, and does he know of the queues of people trying to get jobs as contract labourers?

Have you done so?

Yes, in fact I have and I know that there are hundreds of Africans in the Bantustans unable to come to the urban areas and for whom no alternative opportunities of employment have been provided in those Bantustans. That is unemployment out of sight, but it is still unemployment. The danger is as great if it exists out of sight as it would be if it existed in sight; in fact, I believe it is greater, because if it existed here under our noses we might in fact do something about it instead of shoving these people back and hoping that thereafter we can forget about them.

The hon. member also read out a speech by the late Dr. Verwoerd, in which Dr. Verwoerd said that the State determines policy and the local authorities carry it out. Well, that is true. That has been so since the passing of the first Urban Areas Act in 1923, but there are ways and ways of carrying out a policy. My contention is that in accordance with the ways of the local authorities, used to handling Africans and far more expert than any board which the hon. the Minister can set up, and far more accustomed to the local variations of which they should be taking cognizance, those policies are carried out in a far better way than can be done by a centralized board which cannot possibly take note of the different conditions existing in the different municipalities in the same administration area. I say again that the mobility of labour could have been organized without the takeover of the administration of Bantu areas which have been under the control of the local authorities for the past 50 years—this great tradition, as I say, which we always talk about in South Africa, but which we always abandon if it happens to suit the Government’s interests. Why should we think that there should be uniformity? What is so good about uniformity when it is applied to different localities which have different conditions? Surely there is some difference between Africans living in a town like Kroonstad and those living in the huge metropolitan area of Johannesburg, the largest concentration of urbanized Africans not only in South Africa but. I would say, on the Continent of Africa. There must be differences and some account should be taken of those differences. We do not want this dreary uniformity of which the hon. member for Worcester seems to think so highly.

Now, the hon. member has given us his impressions of this debate and I want to give the hon. the Deputy Minister my impressions of this debate. We have reached the last stages of this debate, and one thing I have noticed, which I think has been quite noticeable in this debate, is the anxiety of the hon. the Deputy Minister to allay all fears about the intentions of this Bill. It has been quite marked. In fact, what interested me was that he took complete charge of the Committee Stage of this Bill. As far as I can recollect, not a single other Nationalist M.P. spoke. [Interjections.] Am I wrong? How many spoke then?

It is not correct.

What has that got to do with it in any case?

I am coming to what it has to do with it. It may be that I have made a mistake and that one or two Government members took part in this debate. [Interjections.] But for the most part this debate was conducted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, who sat over there popping up and down like a rabbit out of a hutch every time anybody on this side of the House said anything. He took control of practically the entire Committee Stage. Why? I think it is because he was frightened that one of the other hon. members would do a Brakpan on him and he was determined that nothing should in any way affect the rather smooth passage which this Bill was having through the House. He was worried about what the hon. member for Barkpan said in the Second Reading debate, and he was right to be worried. As I see it, the hon. member for Brakpan again revealed the real policy of the Government in all its naked ugliness. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister now whether he is prepared to state quite unequivocally to this House that it is not the Government’s intention in future to tamper with section 10 (1), although this particular Bill, unlike its predecessor in 1969, did not affect the rights of the urban Africans under section 10 (1). I admit that I am delighted that this Bill did not do so. I ask this in all seriousness. I am not asking this for any political motives. I am asking this because I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister, by so doing, could do the finest bit of public relations work for good and harmonious race relations in South Africa.

If I do it, it will be for you and nobody else.

No, you will not be doing it for me. You will be doing it for good race relations in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister may not know it, but the urban Africans are living under the shadow of insecurity, because time and again the Government, be it in the form of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration or the utterances of the ebullient Minister of Community Development, or be it in the form of a speech such as the one given by the hon. member for Brakpan, is informing us that Africans in the urban areas are here as temporary sojourners. This applies even to those born here and those who qualify under section 10 (1) (a), (b), (c) or even (d). They are informed over and again that it is the intention of the Government to remove even that legislative protection which they presently have. This insecurity is doing us no good in South Africa. It is leading to seething discontent and anxiety among the urban Africans. The hon. the Minister now has a golden opportunity to allay those fears. I ask him to make use of this opportunity. Once and for all let us know that the Government has all the powers that it requires. In fact, I may say that the Government is probably hoping to be able to do de facto what it is perhaps hesitating to do de jure. In other words, the Government is not keen on the tremendous public outcry which the removal of section 10 (1) is going to engender. The Government would prefer, perhaps, to continue by persuasion to accomplish this de facto.

You are creating that suspicion among the Bantu. You are doing it by the very words which you are using in this House.

I am repeating Government policy. It is not I who put out this circular, Circular No. 25 of 1967, which to the best of my knowledge is being followed most religiously. It is particularly being followed in the Western Cape, where women are being weeded out of the urban areas. They are being persuaded to go. Even those who qualify are being given the option of going to the homelands with their children, or the children who may not qualify in one way or another are being endorsed out without them. Then they are told that they may be allowed to come in again as contract workers. This is an unusual thing for women, because, as everybody knows, the number of women who are allowed into the urban areas, even as contract workers, has been frozen. They are not allowed to come in. I did not put out this circular, which says that “it must be stressed that no stone is to be left unturned to achieve the resettlement in the homelands of non-productive Bantu at present residing in the European areas”.

Do you want them to stay here?

Yes, of course I want them to stay here. I want them to stay with their families. I want them to be treated the way every civilized society treats people who are old or widowed or women with young children who need care and attention. I do not want them to be shoved out to these miserable resettlement areas, where they live in loneliness and idleness. As I say, even those who qualify are being persuaded to go. There were families at Stellenbosch who qualified and they were persuaded to go, because no alternative housing was offered to them and they were put out of their existing shacks. They had nowhere else to go. The women and children were offered homes elsewhere, in Mdantsane or some other area, and the men could stay on as contract labourers. Families are being smashed up. We are deliberately creating a grotesque society for the African. I think that the hon. the Minister should take this opportunity of reassuring us that the Government has gone as far as it intends going, that it will continue only with the persuasive methods rather than the removal of the legal rights of Africans who qualify under section 10 (1). The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he was not going to coerce any municipal authority into coming into the administrative area. I wonder if there will be a single municipality not taken under the umbrella of one of these administration boards within the next three years. I am convinced that the Government will go all out to try and centralize the administration of the Bantu townships in the urban areas because they will have, as I say, this bargain. They will either enjoy mobility and come under the umbrella, or they will not enjoy mobility. It is all very well for some of these areas that will enjoy the siphoning off of funds from the Bantu Revenue Account such as Mdantsane or the area near Pretoria, or Umlazi, those areas next to an existing industrial area. They are going to have the money siphoned off and spent there. What about Johannesburg; what about the Witwatersrand which does not enjoy the luxury of having a Bantustan within week-end visiting distance? What will happen to the towns of those huge areas? This is what I should like to know.

They are all close by.

I should like to get this straight with the hon. member for Langlaagte. He says that there is a Bantustan near Johannesburg.

Yes.

Within visiting distance?

Yes, Hammanskraal.

What is the distance: 40 miles, 50 miles, 60 miles? I had to point this out in the Second Reading debate, but perhaps I should better mention again that we are not able to provide adequate transport from Soweto to Johannesburg.

I proved that that was not the case.

How are we going to provide transport for those Africans working in the urban areas to visit their families living at Hammanskraal, which, as far as I know, is at least 50 miles away from Johannesburg. (Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. member for Langlaagte think he will shorten the debate with his interjections?

As it is, Government members who did speak during the Second Reading debate were horrified to find that in Johannesburg, for instance, the Bantu Revenue Account was not self-balancing. They were horrified to find that Johannesburg was actually subsidizing the townships as far as housing and other amenities are concerned to the extent of about R1.2 million. I say, from now on, not only is the Johannesburg Bantu Revenue Account going to be self-balancing, but it will find itself in surplus. It will find itself with a credit balance, because the hon. the Minister will continue with the policy of cutting down on amenities. It will only be much accentuated now, because he will have control of not providing the amenities in the urban areas so that he has a surplus of funds which can be spent on developing the homelands presumably at Hammanskraal, for the benefit of the Africans from Johannesburg who will have to live there. The hon. the Deputy Minister made it absolutely clear to us that the Government will not carry out any policy but its own. Of course, this is correct. One accepts that. This is the policy which I, personally, think is doomed to disaster. I think it is a policy which is bringing tremendous suffering to the African people. I believe that this Bill will not make things any better.

Before I sit down, I should like to come back to the original point I made. What would help enormously is if we could at least get in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply on the Third Reading debate an unequivocal assurance that from now on the intention that he, his colleague and the Government, generally, had to remove section 10 (1) from the Statute Book has now been shelved indefinitely and that instead the hon. the Minister will continue with his policy of what I call negative compulsion, or persuasion, if you like, to persuade the Africans to go back. That, I might say, is a euphemism since many of them have never set foot in the homelands. However, the hon. the Minister should rather continue with that policy, trying to achieve de facto what, so far, he was reluctant to achieve de jure. If we can get that assurance, then this Bill may perhaps have served one purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Houghton’s speech. At this Third Reading of legislation dealing with the administration of Bantu affairs in certain areas, it is necessary for us to have a good understanding of the background to that legislation. Probably one cannot expect the hon. member for Houghton to have a very good understanding of it. Since the Deputy Minister went a very long way during this debate and gave certain guarantees to the hon. Opposition and to the hon. member for Houghton, and since the hon. the Deputy Minister handled this legislation very sympathetically in this House, we can expect to get a realistic approach from the hon. Opposition during the Third Reading about the matter of fundamental importance that is involved, i.e. the fact that throughout the years the National Party has introduced legislation in respect of the Bantu and particularly in respect of those who are going to inhabit the future Bantu homelands. With respect to the standpoint that has been maintained throughout, i.e. that the administration for Bantu affairs in White areas will be dealt with by local authorities on an agency basis, several pieces of legislation have been introduced here through the years, as the hon. member for Worcester said earlier this afternoon. Throughout the years we have also seen that it has become necessary, not only with respect to the administration of Bantu affairs, but also in respect of the administration at other levels of Government, to think in terms of overall planning and the overall implementation of authority. That is precisely what is being done by this legislation before us today. I shall come back to the overall organization and administration. I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that it is a pity that she alleged that the hon. the Deputy Minister had such a great desire to handle the Committee Stage of this legislation personally that he gave no other member an opportunity to take part in the discussion. In that case it is very clear why the hon. member for Houghton does not understand this legislation, because she must have been absent from this House on several occasions. It is not correct to allege that the hon. the Deputy Minister handled the Committee Stage of this legislation on his own.

Almost.

I can assure the hon. member that I also made a modest contribution in the Committee Stage, and there were also other hon. members on this side of the House who contributed during the Committee Stage. What does the hon. member for Houghton want to tell the world at large? She wants to tell the world that this legislation is being brought to Parliament by the hon. the Deputy Minister wearing a silken glove, as one of the Opposition members said. She wants to imply that there are many more things locked away in this legislation than there really are in this Bill. Many hon. members on the Opposition side have repeatedly asked why the hon. the Minister wants all the powers. Which powers? There is no Minister or department in this country that has more power? than a specific piece of legislation allocates. If, when this legislation is passed, there are more powers than there were when the administration fell under the local authorities, the hon. Opposition must come and point this out to us. Hon. members who served on local authorities ought surely to know, and to acknowledge honestly across the floor of the House that since local authorities at present handle Bantu administration on an agency basis, they have the responsibility of doing so under the Minister’s authority or under the authority of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Why the terrible fuss about the powers that are being withdrawn and about the fact, according to them, that the Minister is now suddenly appropriating all powers? The Minister has always had those powers. They are not suddenly being given to him now. At this stage it may appear as if there is more in this legislation, as the hon. Opposition would like to see it, but this is legislation that is consolidating certain aspects, bringing certain aspects together that were previously contained in other Acts. If the hon. Opposition had only felt like taking the trouble to look at all the other legislation dealing with Bantu administration, they would have seen this. The core of the responsibility for Bantu administration, whether in the homeland or in the local authority areas, has always been in the hands of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and not in the hands of any other department or local authority.

Unfortunately I cannot leave the hon. member for Houghton’s argument yet. The hon. member must remember that as far as the National Party’s policy is concerned with respect to the Bantu in our White areas and those now living in our Bantu residential areas, it has never been this Party’s standpoint simply to let those Bantu vanish into thin air or that those Bantu should disappear completely from the White areas. This legislation indicates specifically that we have now reached a stage where there will have to be greater co-ordination if we want to keep pace with the development in our metropolitan areas. In saying, as do the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. Opposition, that we must simply use section 40 of the Urban Areas Act in order to do this, we must also pay attention to the fact that the most important municipality concerned with these affairs, i.e. the Johannesburg Municipality, said that section 40 cannot be implemented as they would like to see it implemented. They said that that section could be used, it is true, but that one municipality must be in control and must have the say about what must be done in terms of section 40. This fact altogether contradicts the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton when she says that Kroonstad, Johannesburg and other places do not have the same Bantu. I want to ask the hon. member if she is prepared to say that the Whites living in Kroonstad and Johannesburg are different? In what respects do they differ? Basically we have here a piece of legislation dealing with certain aspect, and the hon. member cannot move so far to that side. What the hon. member for Houghton again did not want to say here today is that there is no getting away from the fact that there is no longer a scrap of difference between her party and the United Party with respect to any rule, regulation or Act dealing with the Bantu concentrated in urban areas, and she would not like to be associated with the standpoint of the United Party. What it amounts to, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg indicated, is that now, with respect to this board, the United Party also wants to allow Bantu to sit here as the hon. member for Houghton states quite frankly. This differs completely from previous approaches to this matter. We are dealing here with legislation that is chiefly aimed at handling three matters. I want to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his Second Reading speech in Hansard, column 1963 of 2nd March, 1971. He said that the object of the Bill is—

1. (a) to provide greater mobility of Bantu labour;
2. (b) to establish more effective administrative machinery in respect of Bantu Affairs over a much larger area; and
3. (c) to join in a statutory body, and on the basis of knowledge of Bantu Affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned.

One thing we must not forget. Where we are dealing with the Bantu, whether in the sphere of labour or in whatever sphere, it is the National Party’s standpoint that the Bantu is a person. This assurance has also repeatedly been given to the hon. Opposition by the hon. the Prime Minister across the floor of this House. We cannot over-emphasize it. Proceeding from the standpoint that we have here an over-all measure with the basic, pre-determined object of treating the Bantu as a person, we want to make conditions more humane for this Bantu who finds himself, as the result of circumstances, in an urban Bantu area within a White area. I have sketched the circumstances for hon. members. When we did not have these large metropolitan areas it was perhaps quite a simple matter to treat the Bantu as a person on an ad hoc basis. But it is no longer quite so easy today. Today it is much more difficult to do this on an ad hoc basis. That is why we are anxious to consolidate the specialized knowledge we have gathered throughout the years in one administrative body that will prove itself worth looking up to, one that will have the necessary knowledge to also place the Bantu as a person in the right perspective and to treat him as such, and to deal with all these other matters for the Bantu. In speaking about the mobility of labour, we arrive at the one cardinal point that I also mentioned in this House some time ago in another debate. In the second reading debate the hon. member for Transkei stood up and said that we are agreed that the administration of Bantu Affairs falls short of the mark in many respects. He then goes further and says (translation)—

This standpoint of the United Party has already become a refrain: “We agree in principle, but we differ when it comes to method”. This is a refrain that runs through all the debates. Then the hon. member for Transkei goes further and says that with respect to this measure—he said this again today—those Bantu who evidenced their agreement, did so chiefly with respect to clause 26. What does clause 26 provide? It is specifically the clause ensuring a greater area of movement and labour mobility. But this clause also concerns the sustenance of the Bantu who are in the urban Bantu areas. If the Bantu agrees with that, if it is important to him, then surely it is significant for the Bantu himself to perceive and realize that the arrangements being made here mean more to him as a person. Then the hon. member for Transkei, in this same Second Reading speech of his, says that industry will not be concerned about whether Bantu Administration affairs are handled by these administration boards or by local authorities. He says it will make no difference, that it could just as well be handled by the administration board. I want to state today that our people in the manufacturing industry and in industry in general will specifically take note of the benefits that these administration boards are going to entail for them. This is one of the reasons why there must be mobility of labour and the National Party realizes this. We are not prepared to limit our view to the old boundaries of each municipal area. We are prepared to make that labour available more readily. But what is the Opposition’s answer to this question? They agree that there should be greater mobility of labour sources. But now they say that their solution to the problem is the implementation of section 40. They speak of the municipality which has the largest number of Bantu under its jurisdiction—in the words of the hon. member for Houghton. I do not think that the word “jurisdiction” is being used correctly, because they have no jurisdiction over the Bantu—they merely have an agency. An agent has no jurisdiction, he merely acts according to his instructions. That same municipality which asked the Government to implement section 40, which appealed to the Minister to introduce section 40, comes along and says it will do so, but it still wants to be boss; it will bring in other municipalities, but it still wants to be boss. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It is of cardinal importance to our businessmen, whether we like decentralization or not. If one just thinks of the country’s metropolitan complexes it becomes clear that we cannot really settle everyone in one area. There must be decentralization. And what would the business men of the East Rand and the West Rand say if the Johannesburg Municipality were to state that it would include them all, in accordance with section 40, but that it was going to give them no say, that it was going to remain the boss because most of the Bantu happen to be in its area? Is that the United Party’s solution? They say rather section 40 than the administration board. I do not believe it is logical to argue in this way. The Deputy Minister also said that it is an object of this legislation to create efficient administrative machinery for Bantu administration over a much larger area. Now the hon. member for Houghton may leave if she wishes; she may go and have a cup of tea if she wants to.

Thank you.

The hon. member for Transkei said that the Bantu were seeing visions. In his Second Reading speech he said that the Bantu are seeing visions as a result of this Bill. I do not think the hon. member will deny this. If this is so, it means only one thing, and that is that he sees the benefits that there are for him in this legislation. I have already pointed out the material benefits that this Bill entails for him, particularly those concerning the mobility of labour which clause 26 makes possible. But there will be benefits for them over a much larger area; in fact, the hon. member for Transkei himself said that in this legislation the Bantu are seeing visions, and that is so. The Bantu, who understand the drift of the National Party’s policy, now also understand that through this legislation a better means of communication is being created between his job and his place of residence, between the White urban areas and his homeland. I want to tell the Opposition that when this Bill is placed on the Statute Book they must sit down and think about the desirability of continuing to adopt the same standpoint towards national relationships in South Africa as they have done up to now.

Sir, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Christiana. He was at great pains to point out why it is impossible under section 40 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act to implement the very objects of the Bill that we are considering here this afternoon. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister was at great pains to consult people. He consulted far and wide. He went to a great deal of trouble to bring this particular Bill to the House in as well prepared a form as possible and I think we can commend him for that. But I also believe that if the same trouble had been taken to explore ways and means of using section 40 of that particular Act, it would have been possible to achieve many of the objects of this particular Bill. But I do not think that sufficient trouble was taken to see in what way that particular section could be made to work.

The hon. member says that we suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with this Bill with a silken glove. Well, to a certain extent it is true. When I listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech he almost convinced me that he had quite a good case but he played his hand very close to his chest. Unfortunately during the course of the debate an odd card slipped out. The one card was the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, and this afternoon in the Third Reading debate another card slipped out. That was the speech of the hon. member for Worcester. In those speeches we came to see what the real object is that this Bill hopes to achieve. We on this side of the House have opposed this Bill that we are considering now for several very good reasons.

The Bill has reached this Third Reading stage. Although the Deputy Minister has accented certain amendments and introduced others himself, the amended Bill, as I see it, still contains all the basic principles against which we on this side of the House have taken such a determined stand. I believe that this Bill is just another instance of encroachment by the State in the field of local government. I believe that this is a situation that is perhaps going too far in South Africa today. The Government is encroaching into a field of government which has been the prerogative of the local authorities for very many years. One might quite rightly argue that this new tendency may well be an admission of defeat by the Government that in spite of the many laws dealing with the Bantu people in South Africa—and we certainly have many laws dealing with the Bantu—the Government has failed to achieve its objectives, and it must therefore intrude a new statutory body within the area of jurisdiction of the local authorities for the better carrying out of its will. I believe that this is really the main thought behind the measure which the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced.

The effect of this Bill is that the board’s functions and duties, formerly carried out under the various Bantu laws by the local authorities, are now vested in the hands of the Minister. I think the hon. member for Transkei gave us a very clear exposition of the extent of the powers that the Minister has. He may quite rightly argue that the boards are going to do some of the work that the town councils and city councils did formerly, but in fact these boards are appointed by the Minister and eventually they will carry out the Minister’s wishes. You see, Sir, geographically and economically the urban Bantu population remain and always will remain part of the city and its life. Whether this hon. Deputy Minister stands on his head, whether more legislation is brought forward, the Bantu who are presently in the big urban areas will remain there and will always be a part of the life of that city. But under this Bill the administration of this population is all of a sudden shifted to Pretoria.

Take the case of Port Elizabeth. In that city we have a Bantu population of some 196 000 people, and with the exception of 7 000 they all have vested interests in Port Elizabeth under section 10 (1), rights which they have earned; all but 7 000 of those 196 000 have those rights. Unless the Minister is going to change his mind about the section 10 rights, it is correct to say that this population of plus-minus 200 000 will be a permanent part of the population of the city and as time goes on and we near the end of the century, that population will probably have doubled. So many hon. members on the other side say that we stand for integration in all its forms. It is interesting to note that one of the very first Bantu locations ever established was established in Port Elizabeth in 1902, implementing at that time the policy for which this party stands. The vast Bantu complex that has today been built up by the City of Port Elizabeth had those small beginnings way back in 1902. The Xhosa people who have grown up in Port Elizabeth have probably enjoyed a longer contact with a White community than any other Bantu community in the Republic and I doubt very much whether these people will be at all happy to see the control of their destiny taken from the Port Elizabeth City Council and moved to a board controlled from Pretoria by this Deputy Minister.

Another point I must emphasize very strongly is this. All the comfort and the privileges that these Bantu enjoy today in these areas—and let us face it; they are few enough—have been provided by charitable organizations of the communities in which these people live. With the remote control which will now follow in the wake of this Bill, where all the authority moves away from the local council to far-away Pretoria, one wonders whether the comforts and the small privileges which have been built up in these areas will continue. The hon. the Deputy Minister says this board will be sympathetic. It will be interesting to see whether in future this Deputy Minister and his boards are able to give to the Bantu the same benefits that they have obtained over the years from the councils which now control their interests.

In Port Elizabeth we have school feeding schemes. Of the 29 000 school-going children in the Port Elizabeth Bantu townships, 12 000 benefit daily from the school feeding schemes. I would like to ask the Deputy Minister whether this kind of institution will be promoted as vigorously in future as they have been in the past under the new control of the boards.

Another problem one may well mention is this. There are 30 000 Bantu females working in Port Elizabeth who reside in the Bantu townships, and many thousands of these must be mothers whose children are left at home when they are away at work. To deal with these children 9 crèches are available to look after 900 children. This has all been promoted by the community of Port Elizabeth because they consider the Bantu community to be a part of the city, for which they are responsible. The need for more of these crèches and more of these facilities is urgent. I ask this question because on previous occasions the Government has spoken out on these issues. I have here a report of a speech made by a former Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. Blaar Coetzee. It reads as follows:

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to listen, because I should like a reply to this particular point. The report states:

I have raised this particular point because one of the reasons why we have so strenuously opposed this Bill is because we feel that if these Bantu boards become responsible for the future administration of these large urban townships which have been built up over many years by the councils, the facilities which the Bantu people enjoy there may taper off. I believe that one of the most important aspects of race relations in South Africa is that we should see that these people who are with us and who will never leave us, are provided with facilities to make their lot a more comfortable one. In Port Elizabeth we have provided them with swimming baths. They also have various other facilities such as sports stadiums, so that they will be able to conduct their lives in a civilized manner. I believe that it is essential that this progress should continue apace, even when this Bill becomes law.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister made his Second Reading speech he emphasized, as the previous speaker has pointed out, that the object of this measure is to provide a greater mobility as far as the Bantu are concerned. We on this side of the House have no quarrel with that. We believe that everything should be done to make it possible for the Bantu people to be able to sell their labour to the best possible advantage. We also believe that everything possible should be done to increase their productivity, for example by raising their education standards. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in his Second Reading speech, continued to outline the objects of this Bill as follows: “To establish more effective administrative machinery in respect of Bantu affairs over a much larger area”. We have no quarrel with that, or with the third argument he raised. However, when one reads a little further in this Second Reading debate, one finds the hon. member for Transkei posing the following question (Hansard, column 1973):

We then find the following reply by Mr. G. P. C. Bezuidenhout: “They are not carrying out our policy.” Sir, this immediately arouses one’s suspicions. We accept the points the Minister raised as being valid reasons for bringing a Bill of this nature before the House, but the whole story is spoilt when the hon. member for Brakpan lets the cat out of the bag, because we now see what the real end of this particular measure is.

I am grateful for the fact that we have come to the end of this extremely important piece of legislation that is now going to be placed on the Statute Book for the proper administration of Bantu Administration in our large metropolitan and other areas. The hon. member for Walmer said here that the hon. member for Brakpan had let the cat out of the bag in the speech he delivered here, i.e. that with this legislation we want to hold a knife to the throat of the Johannesburg City Council because we are dissatisfied at the fact that this council does not properly want to implement the ruling party’s policy. I want to say that that is one of the underlying reasons. I nevertheless think that the underlying reason here is to obtain proper control of the mobility of labour. That is the underlying idea. If we see the development of our metropolitan areas, of our industry, etc. it is surely logical and correct to have a sound administration and sound control over our Bantu labour, so that it can be done in a centralized way. In my Second Reading speech I also said that it should be done in a centralized way. We mentioned the example here of certain industrial areas being situated very close to the Bantu residential areas, but when those industrial areas just do not lie in the municipal area of those Bantu locations it means that those people must, at great sacrifice, travel from the far corner of that municipal area to where they are resident. If we now have control over our Bantu Administration in this way, we can make proper arrangements for transporting these people easily from their industrial area to their residential area situated very close to the industrial area. This is fundamental in this legislation. As far as Johannesburg is concerned, it is, after all, a fact that these people cannot claim autonomous powers over Bantu administration for Johannesburg. It was laid down in earlier legislation in 1923, and again in the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act of 1945, that local authorities are only agents of the Central Government for the implementation of this policy. With this legislation the hon. the Minister is not shouldering any sinister powers. No powers are being granted to him that he does not already have. The powers he had under the Urban Areas Act are the powers that he is now going to implement in this legislation.

What about all the extra powers?

What “extra powers” is the Minister adopting here?

Did you not listen to the hon. member for Transkei?

I did listen to what the hon. member for Transkei said. I think that the hon. member for Transkei was trying to make up time here this afternoon. This afternoon the hon. member for Transkei did not mention a single point to show that the Minister was adopting powers that he did not already have. The powers involved here are those which the Minister has had all the time.

What about the boards?

The only reason why he has appointed these boards is to make the control of the administration of Bantu labour very much easier and efficient. We know that there are town councils who try to make politics out of this and throw up a smokescreen to show the world how extremely liberal they are, how extremely accommodating, how they are making the utmost efforts to control the Bantu in these urban areas in a way that fits in with the liberal view of the United Party and of the hon. member for Houghton.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying. Would he repeat it?

You are wrong if you are referring to me.

This is sound legislation. Its object is to continue the sound relationship between Whites and non-Whites that we want to create in this country of ours, South Africa. If that will be the effect of this legislation, we shall be grateful. But we want to remove politics as much as possible from the administration of Bantu Affairs in South Africa. That is why the hon. the Deputy Minister said that as far as the administration of this Act is concerned, he will go out of his way to keep it as far from politics as possible.

Only the Nationalist policy will be applied.

Let me tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District that as far as this Government is concerned, we shall insure that our policy is also applied in the implementation of this Bantu Administration. But we shall ensure that Bantu Administration is not made the puppet of liberal politics in South Africa, the only purpose of which is to tell the world at large: “Look, here we are, a lot of liberalists. This is how we shall rule the country”. No, we are grateful for the fact that this legislation is now passing through its final stage in this House. This is a future milestone for the creation of good race relations here in South Africa.

I also want to say that I hope that these boards will help us to implement policy further. What the hon. member for Brakpan said here is not beyond the bounds of reality. If we are given the opportunity we shall indeed ensure that the Bantu who are at present living in the White areas and who do, in fact, have homelands not far from their areas of work, will be taken to their homes on week-ends by express transport. This can be done.

You are living in a dream world.

These are not merely “pipe dreams” as the hon. member there has just said. It is within the bounds of reality. We are grateful for the fact that this legislation will be placed on the Statute Book. As I have said, this will contribute towards creating good race relations in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter into a lengthy argument with the hon. member for Lang-laagte. But I nevertheless want to say that I had it astonishing that a man with his experience of administration wants to make this House believe that under this Bill the Minister is not getting infinitely more powers than he already has. If it is true that the Minister is not getting more powers, I want to know from that hon. member why the Minister does not leave the matter as it is. At the moment the Bantu laws mentioned in clause 3 are being administered by the local authorities elected by the public of the local areas. Now, under this Bill the Minister is taking powers to cause those powers to be exercised by a board which will be appointed by him. If anybody now wants to suggest to me that in a case where a free, elected democratic body such as a city council is being replaced by a board appointed by the Minister, the Minister is not getting more powers, I can only say that it baffles me completely. In that case one does not know why all the powers which other people had under the Acts mentioned in clause 11, and in particular under the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, are now being transferred to boards appointed by the Minister.

In looking at clause 22 of the Bill, one realizes how extremely unacceptable the standpoint taken by the hon. member for Langlaagte is. Apart from all the other powers which are being conferred on the Minister, he also has the power to make regulations on a whole series of matters.

He has always been able to do so.

No. I want to help the hon. member a little. Clause 22 (1) reads—

Notwithstanding the provisions of section …

And that is followed by a series of sections—

The board does not have that power to do it. Who has it then? Then one looks at subsection (b), which reads as follows— any such power which but for the provisions of paragraph (a) …

which I have just read out—

The powers of the boards to make regulations, i.e. the powers which are now vested in elected city councils, are now being taken over by the Minister himself.

How many are they now?

That merely goes to prove how ill-considered the arguments of our hon. friends opposite are. The cardinal principle of the Bill is to take away from the local authorities certain powers in regard to the administration of the lives of Bantu in our urban and peri-urban areas, and to transfer those powers to the boards which are appointed by the Minister and certain of the functions of which will be exercized by the Minister himself. That is the principle of the Bill. By his argument the hon. member for Langlaagte is trying to deny the whole principle of the Bill. He is welcome to deny it; I do not wish to enter into an argument with the hon. member for Langlaagte. In all sincerity I want to turn today to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Before long it will be possible to regard this Bill as a resolution of this House, and then it will be transmitted to the Other Place for approval there. At every stage of this Bill the Opposition expressed its opposition to it. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that we did so in a calm but firm manner, without becoming emotional about it. This side of the House did so in a firm and calm manner, since in our opinion this Bill is a mistake which is being made by the hon. the Minister. This is a backward step in the administration of Bantu affairs in South Africa. It has often been said, but I just want to repeat it in order to make my point, that since the Union came into being in 1910, these powers have been entrusted to the local authorities. These powers have been exercised by them under our Constitution, and they have been doing so as agents of the Government. Even their Bantu administrators and the officials of the municipalities concerned with these matters, have had to be licensed by the hon. the Minister.

Nothing is static.

I think the hon. the Minister will concede that local authorities, according to their ability and the insight they have had, have done their best to carry out this very important administration work in a humane, sensible and responsible manner. I hope that the Minister, when he replies to this debate, will not fail to express his appreciation for the fine work done by the local authorities over the past 61 years.

I have said that repeatedly.

They have acted intelligently throughout, and then I want to make particular mention of the city with which I am best acquainted, i.e. Johannesburg. In the course of this debate Johannesburg was often criticized, but anybody who views and approaches the matter objectively, knows that in the administration of its Bantu areas Johannesburg has acted responsibly at all times. The City Council of Johannesburg often found it necessary, and did so successfully, to exert a cushioning influence on the Government and on the Cabinet.

Do I have the right to differ with you?

Of course. In fact, if that hon. member agrees, I have grave doubts about the validity of my standpoint.

I only wanted you to know.

It exerted a cushioning influence, and with administrative concessions, of which the Minister was aware since it acted as the Minister’s agent, it cushioned the hard impact, the bitter impact at times, of the less sensible Government measures on the lives of the Bantu concerned. The result is that we in Johannesburg …

Who shot them in 1946?

Who shot them at Sharpeville, you bloody fool.

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must withdraw those words. I want to warn him that those are not words which he may use in this House.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

The result is that the race relations in Johannesburg are peaceful. We have in Johannesburg the largest concentration of Bantu in an urban area in Africa south of the Sahara. In Soweto alone approximately 600 000 Bantu have been concentrated, and peace has been maintained there. In Johannesburg there was no Sharpeville or Langa in 1958. Lasting peace prevailed there, thanks to the intelligent steps taken by the city council concerned and by other city councils, where similar circumstances had been created. However, the hon. the Minister is now taking these powers away from city councils and is now going to exercise them himself by means of appointed boards. In all sincerity I want to tell him today that we on this side of the House sincerely wish him success with the administration of this very important aspect of State action in South Africa. It is our sincere prayer that he will also succeed, as Johannesburg succeeded in preserving the peace for the largest White and the largest non-White community in South Africa in that cauldron, in that place of potential friction and potential trouble, especially in view of the transport position between Soweto and Johannesburg. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister will have to realize that the responsibility now rests squarely on their shoulders. The cushion between the severities of the Government’s policy and the implementation thereof is no longer there, i.e. the cushion provided by a sympathetic, humane, and sensible city council. This is now a direct responsibility of the Minister. From now on there will be direct contact in the administrative sphere between the Government with its policy and the people affected by it. We think that the Minister is making a mistake, but I nevertheless want it to be recorded today that it is our prayer that the Minister will be served with the intelligence, insight, judiciousness and humanity to implement this legislation and the policy in such a manner that it will be possible for peace and happiness to go on prevailing for the people of the cities who will be affected by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, which has now had a very long passage through this House of Assembly and which has been discussed and thrashed out clause by clause for weeks almost, is symbolic of the dynamic third decade of National Party Government. It is symbolic of the fact that the Government is fearlessly implementing its policy in the realization that it must be done in a fair and just, yet humane manner, with recognition of the intrinsic worth of the Bantu as an individual, but also with recognition of the Bantu as a full-fledged ethnic being. That is what the discussion of this Bill during the past few weeks has brought to the attention. From the Opposition we had the usual. We had a negative attitude from them, but far more than a negative attitude. We had an attitude from them, such as that evinced by the hon. member for Transkei this afternoon, which has become so peculiar to the United Party, i.e. to criticize what is fine and good and which is aimed at improving relationships and which, as I have said so clearly over and over again, is aimed at improving administration; and to say things which I take the greatest exception to. The hon. member for Transkei said that these boards would be “a rubber-stamp of the Minister”, while he as a legal man knows full well that it is a statutory board.

The Minister has all the power.

Is Iscor a rubber-stamp of this Government? My point is that the United Party, in spite of the goodwill and the good words spoken here, is out to do one thing only, and that is to break things down to their very foundations. The finer the matter is, the more the United Party is prepared to demolish it in a demoniacal way. I say that I take the strongest exception to this soap-box oratorical way of coming along and saying here in the Third Reading stage, after hundreds of explanations to that hon. member, who is a man with legal training, that these boards would be a rubber stamp of the Minister. I say it is completely and absolutely untrue.

I say it is true.

Order!

I take the strongest exception to another statement that that hon. member made, also with only one purpose in mind. This is typical of the Opposition, negative, “no” to everything.

Must we keep quiet then?

But you must not act in this negative way as you did this afternoon. I say I take the strongest exception to a second statement made by that hon. member in this House this afternoon, as leader of the United Party in this debate. He said that through these statutory boards, “the Minister will control the life of every African in the Republic of South Africa”. I take the strongest exception to that, because it is not true.

But now I come to a point which I should very much like to bring to the attention of this House, because it links up with what the hon. member for Houghton said here this afternoon. Let me say this at once now: I think the hon. member for Houghton, in my humble opinion, made an extremely virulent speech, which holds nothing good for this country. That is why I now want to make the statement that it seems to me that there are organizations and persons in the Republic of South Africa who have in recent times had absolutely no scruples about marring relationships between Whites and non-Whites as much as it was in any way possible to do, in order to achieve one object, i.e. to get rid of the National Party Government in the Republic. I now want to level a direct accusation. It seems to me—if I am wrong, I would be very grateful for that— that the spokesman of these organizations and persons who are out to get rid of the National Party Government and who have recently gone out of their way, in season and out, to mar relationships between Whites and non-Whites, is sitting in this House, namely the hon. member for Houghton. She proved it this afternoon.

It is your policy.

I shall return to the hon. member. But now a very interesting thing has happened in this debate here. Although I lay it directly at the door of the hon. member for Houghton that she is the spokesman of organizations who have no scruples whatsoever about marring the relationships to any extent, with the object of getting rid of this Government, she has now found allies. This has been proved in these debates. There they sit—the Opposition! I think it is time it was placed on record that this kind of activity is taking place in South Africa. Personally I take the strongest exception to it. Here I find myself in the position of having to try to deal with the delicate matter of Bantu affairs in White South Africa. Hon. members were all witnesses to the fact that I went out of my way in all the stages of this Bill because I wanted to prove certain things. But what did we find this afternoon in this debate? The hon. Minister M. C. Botha has already pointed out how the Opposition, the United Party and the Progressive Party, are in four ways effecting closer and closer liaison with one another. I have now mentioned here the one example where this was proved, that they are busy effecting closer liaison with one another in this field. The hon. member for Lichtenburg pointed out very successfully what happened in regard to clause 3 of this Bill. On 12th March the hon. member for Houghton had an insertion on the Order Paper in respect of clause 3 (1) (e), i.e. that the urban Bantu councils which consist only of Bantu, should nominate one or more representatives to these administration boards. The hon. member for Transkei had another amendment on the Order Paper, but not with the same purport as that of the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. Three days later, however, he added a further amendment to the one he already had on the Order Paper on 12th March, in regard to which he must surely by that time have made up his mind, and it was precisely analogous with the one by the hon. member for Houghton. I would very much like to know what happened during those three days! All that he did then—he did not only say “one or more”—was to say that one member from the urban Bantu council should be nominated to this Bantu administration board. Now I just want to read out what the hon. member said. I am doing so because I think it is important to demonstrate this. He said—

Listen carefully now. He said “By that I ensure that Bantu will not dominate the board”. Whereupon I asked him: “In other words, your idea is that the representative should be a Bantu?” and then the hon. member got the fright of his life.

I explained it.

Listen now. I am reading the hon. member’s Hansard. He said: “By that I ensure that Bantu will not dominate the board.” But surely that means only one thing—that the Bantu themselves must have representation on that board. Because I wanted to be very certain that he was on the right road and that this was in imitation of the hon. member for Houghton, I then asked him: “In other words, your idea is that the representative should be a Bantu?” Then the hon. member got a fright and said the following: “He need not necessarily be a Bantu, but he will be nominated by the urban Bantu council.” But urban Bantu councils consist only of Bantu. But then the hon. member, as I said a moment ago, who got the fright of his life, went and said that it could be a White, [Interjections.] It is recorded like this in Hansard. I know it hurts.

You are talking nonsense now.

But another interesting thing happened in this debate. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should take cognizance of what happened here in his absence, how the United Party and the Progressive Party had become absolutely inextricable from one another. I say again that as regards the marring of relationships, they must be very careful of what they are doing because it seems to me there is something new going on here in an attempt to get rid of the Government. But we had another very interesting thing in this debate. In December this Bill was published for general public cognizance in the Gazette on 15th December. I have newspaper clippings here which indicate how the English-language newspapers carried on at the time about this Bill. Their only object was to present this measure in a suspicious light in order to mar relationships. One of the headlines read—

This was the caption to a long front page report in the Rand Daily Mail—

Another banner headline read: “Take-over Bill secrecy.” Sir, I have the headlines here which appeared in only two newspapers in a matter of only three days. We found the same thing in the Natal newspapers, and throughout the country: “Will Bill split more families?” That was one of the banner headlines. Another one: “Take-over Bill. U.P. finds more dangers.” Sir, the Opposition did not present the truth; the object was purely and simply to sow suspicion. The Star of 18th December had this headline: “Hard time ahead for Africans.” Another headline read: “Take-over Gambit.” Sir, I wish I had the time to read these reports. Then another quotation from a leading article in the Rand Daily Mail of the 17th: “Whites too must ‘ja, baas’.” That point was also made by an hon. member on the Opposite side. Another headline read: “Prog, views on Bantu Affairs Bill.” Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote these reports.

What has happened then, in the meantime? The Bill was then discussed clause by clause in this House and the English-language newspapers for 10 days wrote virtually nothing about the debates which were taking place here while the Bill was being discussed. Why not? When it came to the test and they received the replies— fair, humane and just, as we would like to see the policy being applied—then they were as silent as the grave. Sir, was that fair? Are these people who can charge us on this side of the House with what the Opposition again charged us with here this afternoon? I say it is not fair. The hon. member for Houghton stood up here this afternoon and spoke these words: “South Africa is building a grotesque society.” What does she achieve by that? For whose edification did the hon. member say that? Sir, with all due respect to that member, I want to say that I think that the hon. member’s speech this afternoon was calculated only to mar relationships between Whites and non-Whites and specifically between Whites and Bantu. I shall tell you in a moment why I am saving this. Sir. interjection.] The hon. member is now forcing me to mention certain particulars here. What is the position of these people in respect of whom she says we are building a “grotesque society” in South Africa? What did the population of Soweto spend last year on liquor and Bantu beer? On Bantu beer they spent R5 529 006 and on White liquor R6 304 426, a total of R11 082 000. The estimate is that a further R2½ million —and this is a conservative estimate—is being spent by the Soweto Bantu in the Johannesburg bottle stores, a total therefore of R14 million in one year by 75 000 families, made up as follows: 65 000 registered lessees and 10 000 boarders or a little more, i.e. plus-minus 75 000 people. If one analyses the figures …

inaudible.]

I know that the hon. member does not like these figures; that is why she is making so many interjections. Sir, if you analyse these figures, you find that the average family in Soweto last year spent R186 per annum on liquor, i.e. R15.50 per month. These are now the people who, as the hon. member for Houghton wants to make everyone believe, are so oppressed and suppressed by the National Party Government. Sir, surely this is unfair. How many members sitting here, spent so much on liquor? I am just mentioning these figures to indicate that the hon. member does not have a case. But these things are being concocted for other purposes. It is being done with one object only, and it is a political object, regardless of what the facts and the truth are. That object is to try to get rid of this National Party Government as quickly as possible. That is the object. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton may not remain seated and make one speech after another. She must allow the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply.

The hon. member for Houghton said that we could improve our relationships in South Africa to a considerable extent if I were to give an “unequivocal assurance” that section 10 of the Urban Areas Act would not be tampered with now, or in the future. That is the assurance she now wants from me. Now I want to tell her this, that the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa can sleep very easily in respect of section 10. in respect of what the hon. the Minister Mr. M. C. Botha said about it, and in respect of what I have said about it on various occasions. They need not be uncertain about it, as the hon. member wanted to imply here this afternoon. They need not be uneasy about it at all, because we have given the assurance, and I am giving it again this afternoon, that we will not try to shy away from section 10 in any other way than to go candidly and openly to the Bantu and then to come to the House to remove section 10 when we deem the time for that to be necessary and when we think it may be necessary. We shall, as far as section 10 is concerned, treat the Bantu very fairly. We know that this is a delicate matter among the Bantu, and the Bantu can have that assurance the Minister gave previously and which I am again giving here this afternoon. Therefore the hon. member need not in future make any further attempts to sow disaffection between Whites and non-Whites and between Bantu and Whites, specifically in regard to section 10. [Interjection.] I have finished discussing this and the hon. member knows what I said. This is plain language, and the Bantu understand it if the hon. member does not.

Before I go further, I just want to say to the hon. member for Walmer, in reply to questions which he put to me here, that of course the school-feeding scheme will continue under these administration boards. What is more, there are strong possibilities of these school-feeding schemes being extended and expanded. That is the reply to the first question. Then there is the question which the hon. member raised in regard to crèches, and the same applies there. Clinics and crèches are ways of meeting certain needs. There are also other ways of meeting those needs, but the fact is that the administration boards will continue to meet these needs in respect of the clinics, crèches and the other ways in which these can be met, and I want to express the hope that these may even in many cases be thus better, as far as is practicable, than they are at the moment under the present circumstances.

In regard to the other question which he raised, I just want to say that I have already, in respect of Diepkloof for example, given instructions to the effect that the standards at Diepkloof must be improved to bring them into line with needs as they exist today. I want to say that we are very realistic, and we want to be very realistic in respect of this matter. We know that just as there is a process of development in regard to us as Whites, so, too, there is a process of development among the Bantu. We are continually taking this into account, and we will therefore under the circumstances prevailing at the time and to the best of our ability try to meet those needs as well; and, after all, the deed is mightier than the word, and I gave instructions months ago that this should be done in respect of Diepkloof. The hon. member can go and look at the hostels, for example, in Alexandra. If he pays a visit there he will see that I am not treating this matter lightly when I say this. With that, I have replied to that hon. member.

May I ask a question? I referred to a statement made by a predecessor in respect of sports facilities and other things to make the Bantu’s lot more comfortable.

The same applies to sports facilities and other social amenities. As a matter of fact, in the Resettlement Board area in Johannesburg, there is today one of the finest sports stadiums in the country. The reply is therefore an unequivocal “Yes”.

What about high schools?

This is another matter now with which the hon. member wants to sidetrack me.

The hon. member for Houghton must please give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to reply to the debate.

Mr. Speaker, it does not happen every day that I find myself in the position where I am able to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville, but in one respect this afternoon, I really want to do so in a heartfelt way. I have in any case already agreed with him provisionally in his absence. I am now talking about my sincere gratitude and appreciation on behalf of this side of the House for the excellent work which the local authorities throughout the Republic of South Africa have been doing and still are doing in regard to Bantu administration. As I have said, I have already done this, but I want to do so again now. I am fully informed as far as this matter is concerned, that is why I am saying this. In fact, I want to go further this afternoon. I want to praise the Johannesburg City Council for the fact that they have over a long period in the Johannesburg area maintained peaceful relations between Whites and non-Whites under all circumstances.

Hear, hear!

We praise all the local authorities throughout the country that have succeeded in doing this. As I have said, I therefore find myself in the position where I as a reasonable person can express my appreciation for that, as I have previously done in this House.

This brings me now to an important point. Whatever way we look at this Bill, it is a fact that this legislation introduces a new era as far as the administration of the Bantu in the White areas of South Africa is concerned. It is symbolic of the third dynamic decade. It is true that this Bill is evolutionary, because it is the result of gradual development out of the specialized knowledge which has been acquired over the years. This is the culmination of a process of growth in which the White employer has moved closer to the Bantu employee, in the normal process of expansion. The problems which arose out of the everyday administration of these matters, will now be solved by these boards, which will consist of experts, and which will disseminate specialized knowledge of a wide front. Let me also state now that I want to express the hope, right at the outset, that these boards of experts will make an important contribution towards preventing unpleasant incidents and unfortunate events, which are often so unnecessary, or limiting them to the absolute minimum by means of the sound implementation of our policy of multi-national development on a fair, just and humane basis. These incidents are, as I have said, often unnecessary, and they do incalculable damage to South Africa’s name overseas.

We all feel unhappy about this. I think that we should all realize that incidents of this kind should be eliminated as far as possible, and that we should all co-operate in building and creating sound relationships between Whites and non-Whites. Surely this is a very logical conclusion, and I hope that these boards will, more than anything else, be able to do so. Viewed against the background of the accepted pattern of the administration of Bantu affairs up to the present, there is no doubt that this legislation is radical in its approach, but I think hon. members on the opposite side must agree that this Bill is realistic. It gives substance to the generally recognized need for labour mobility, without separating the labour aspects from the labourer as individual, which is essentially necessary for the maintenance and extension of these sound race relations and the elimination of incidents and friction. It defines the concept “administration” in sharper outline; a Bantu’s human requirements in the form of housing, health services, recreation, a better form for the settlement of his everyday domestic and other problems, and the sale of his labour, is now vested in a central body, whose full attention he will receive, and—this is the important, cardinal point which hon. members must realize—whose exclusive task it will be to do so.

At the same time it will also give the Bantu greater labour mobility over a much wider area. In other words, very great benefits are being given to the Bantu here. What seems never to have been recognized here, is that it will be the exclusive task of specific people to work on the implementation of this matter. There is therefore a great evolutionary process in progress in respect of the administration of Bantu affairs in White areas as a result of the fact that now, for the first time, we have reached the point where we are able to say that we are now setting aside people whose exclusive task it is going to be to busy themselves with this matter. Hon. members must then realize that there are certain requirements for the successful application of this Act. Some of these requirements have been written into the Act, mainly that the people who will be appointed there, will only be appointed on the basis of their acquaintance with and knowledge of Bantu labour matters with regard to agriculture, commerce, industry and the various pastures of industry, and on the basis of their acquaintance with and wide knowledge of local authority matters.

We will do everything in our power to keep to those requirements. But, no matter how important these requirements are which have been written into the Act, there is something which is far more important, i.e. that the disposition with which these matters are going to be implemented, should be the correct disposition. I conclude by saying that, what must be recognized, is that this framework creates new prospects and new possibilities, particularly for our young people in the Republic of South Africa to equip themselves to deal with Bantu affairs. A framework is now being created in which, when they have equipped, themselves for it, there will be adequate posts with excellent salaries for these young people to be absorbed into the service of Bantu administration in White areas. And even if that is all that can be said of this new framework, it must be admitted that this testifies to a new vision.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—89: Aucamp. P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.· Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon. J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof. P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux. J. P. C.; Loots. J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Martins. H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer. P. H.; Morrison. G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller. H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto. J. C.; Palm. P. D.; Pansegrouw. J. S.; Pelser. P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer. A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch. A. L.; Schoeman. B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel. J. W. F.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Van Breda. A.; Van der Merwe, c V.; Van der Merwe. H. D. K: Van der Merwe. P. S.; Van der Merwe. W L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder. J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk. A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster. Td. P J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers. G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement in regard to the recommendations of the Bamford and Van der Horst Committee, which dealt with the emoluments of members. The United Party and this side of the House have, after due deliberation, decided to accept the recommendations of the Bamford and Van der Horst Committee in regard to the emoluments of Members of Parliament, with two amendments.

Neither the United Party nor this side of the House can accept the principle of discrimination in regard to basic salaries between members of the Senate and members of the House of Assembly. It has therefore been decided that members of the Senate will receive the basic salary recommended for members of the House of Assembly.

Both the United Party and this side of the House feel that it is unwise to discriminate between members of the House of Assembly and it has therefore been decided not to accept the recommendation that members of the House of Assembly who represent constituencies with an area of more than 20 000 square miles should receive R1 000 per annum extra. This is of course no reflection on the Committee, which was sincerely convinced that this discrimination should be made. The amending legislation will be introduced after the Easter recess.

Mr. Speaker, last night I put several questions to the hon. the Minister in regard to the relationship which exists between employer and employee. I wanted to know in particular why the people who are being dealt with under this Bill do not belong to trade unions, and I also asked him what is being done to encourage those people who are eligible, to join trade unions. I am looking forward to the answer the hon. the Minister is going to give me in regard to this question.

Now, I want to spend a few minutes on clause 5. I think paragraph (c) of clause 5, whereby subsection (3) of section 12 of the principal Act is amended, is probably the most interesting part of the whole Bill. This subsection opens up some very interesting possibilities. I do not know whether these are intentional or whether they are unintentional, but the fact remains that they are there. Firstly, the Minister, through this provision, will divide the Republic into subsections for administration purposes. He is not only having different regulations for different provinces, but he is also having different regulations for different places in different provinces. Not only is he having different regulations in different areas of the provinces, but even on the same mine, it is possible for him to have different regulations dealing with different people. I said this may be intentional, and if it is the case, and even if it is not the case, the following circumstances may arise. It may happen according to this clause that an established mine like Crown Mines, for instance, may find that the Minister wants all the workers on the fifteenth level to be Bantu, right from the mine captain down to the ordinary mine labourer. On the next level there may be a purely White group of workers. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I do not think he means this. However, this is what it says here. It says—

That is the first point and then it says—

This means that he may do one thing in the one mine and another in another. He may do one thing in one class of mine and another in another class of mine. I quote further—

Then the hon. the Minister underlines the words “or for different working places or localities in or at mines”.

Now, what does that mean? It simply means what I said before, that in one mine the Minister may have these different groups of workers at different levels. The hon. the Minister must tell us whether it is his intention to have this or not. Perhaps the new subsection (c) inserted by clause 5 (c) is inserted to enable the Minister to employ skilled Bantu in mines in the homelands. We tie this up with the fact that the hon. the Minister himself admits here that he has workers who do not belong to trade unions and that it is for these people who do not belong to trade unions that he is catering for in other matters.

There is nothing to stop him from becoming a member.

What is going to happen if a Bantu works in a mine in a homeland? He cannot become a member of a trade union and the hon. member for Stilfontein knows that. He is catered for in this Bill, however, by having regulations made for him.

Are you talking about Bantu or European mineworkers?

Both. The hon. member for Stilfontein has not studied this clause. This clause does not make specific reference to White, Bantu, Coloured or Indian persons working on the mines. It simply says that “different regulations may be made in respect of different provinces …” The clause also goes further, and the hon. the Minister must remember this, and specifies that different regulations for different classes or groups of employees may be made. Where reference is made in the Bill to “groups of employees” does that refer to, for example, a group of truck drivers or to a group of people who constitute a group as the Government usually visualizes, for example a non-White group? Are these going to be non-White groups or groups doing specific work? These are interesting possibilities and we must know what the object behind this clause is. I do not know if the hon. the Minister himself realizes what he is doing here.

Yes, I do.

Will the hon. the Minister then explain to the House what he means by all this and whether it is going to apply to one specific mine where you may have a mixture at different levels or whether he is going to have these regulations brought into being in the homelands? I think it is very interesting because it may be a new pattern of employment that is being created in South Africa. South Africa may now find itself faced with the possibility of having different—and I am reading from the Bill now—“classes or groups of employees” actually working at the same place and doing the same work separated only by some line which the hon. the Minister will create in terms of the regulations he makes.

I think you are very suspicious.

I am not suspicious about all this. I think that this might be a very good clause, because I am not against this sort of thing. What I want to know is what the hon. the Minister means by it and whether the hon. the Minister knows what he is doing here. That is all I want to know.

Are you serious in quoting Crown Mines?

I only mentioned Crown Mines, but it can relate to a number of other mines. In answer to the hon. the Minister’s question I want to ask him, what measures can be taken to alleviate the position in some of the marginal mines? What would the owners of some of these marginal mines like to see? They would like a reduction in the salary pay-packets and they can do that if they employed people in terms of this subsection as I see it. The hon. member for Stilfontein shakes his head, but I say that there is this possibility and that we must get an answer from the hon. the Minister. Those are the matters, briefly, that I wanted to deal with. They are interesting. They open up, as I said, a new possible field of employment in South Africa. There are other members on this side who will speak on this Bill. As I said initially, we will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is merely a phase in the labour legislation in regard to our mines, if we take into account that as long ago as 1911 provision was made for an eight-hour shift. In 1956 this was taken further by the Act which is now being amended, and provision was made for a 48-hour week. If one wants to prevent stagnation in the labour legislation, one sees this as a further step towards the employee obtaining further representations and a greater say in matters relating to his work. So I foresee for example that in the far distant future the labourers will have a say in the board of directors of any mining companies. This immediately gives them this advantage that they can create a better understanding, just as this legislation is at present an attempt to create a better understanding between the employees and the employer.

Before I go further, I want to comment on what the hon. member for Rosettenville said. I just want to point out a matter which has just come to my attention, i.e. that there appears to be an administrative error in clauses 4 and 5. I am referring to the side-note. On page 4, directly opposite clause 5, the following words appear—

These sections of the legislation of 1964, 1965 and 1968 refer to the transport of explosives, safety of working conditions and the cessation or abandonment of mining operations. To my mind it seems that it would be fatal to view that section in this connection and then to say that clause 5 is an amendment of those sections. This question of the transport of explosives is extremely important. For me it is quite clear that this relates to other sections in those laws, and not to these specific sections. Section 4 of Act 42 of 1968 refers to section 10 of Act 27 of 1956, as amended by section 9 of Act 46 of 1964. It refers to the determination of working hours, minimum wages and paid and sick leave. To me it appears that it should, instead of section 6, be section 4 of Act 42 of 1968. While I am now dealing with this section, and arising out of what the hon. member for Rosettenville said, I should just like to refer him to section 4 (1). They say: The Minister may, after consideration … determine different hours of work for mines and works or for different mines or works or for different classes of mines or works or for different areas or for different working places in or at mines or works or for different classes of employees or for employees of different ages, or for employees in different occupations. Sir, this provision to which the hon. member for Rosettenville referred, is in fact the same as section 4 of the 1968 legislation. I simply cannot see why he is now coming along with all these suspicions and making the statements he made here and creating the impression that there are a tremendous number of misgivings, for the legislation was accepted in principle as long ago as 1968 and there is really no difference. [Interjections.] We can consider the other provision in a moment. This is merely a question of rephrasing. I do not know whether I should read it out to the hon. member again. There is actually no difference between this clause and section 4 of the Act of 1968. The principle has therefore been accepted already as far as this matter is concerned.

Sir, then I just want to refer to another aspect. It seems to me that there is an administrative error here somewhere. I am referring here to clause 4 where it is stated in the side-note: “Substitution of section 10 of Act 27 of 1956, as substituted by section 4 of Act 42 of 1968.” Sir, no reference is being made here to Act No. 46 of 1964, which has already substituted the section. To me it seems as if section 46 of the Act of 1964 still exists. I know that legal experts sometimes have a strange way of drafting things, but if I have to interpret this according to the side-notes, then the Act of 1964 still exists. It is not being stated here that it has been amended.

†I should like to refer now to what the hon. member for Rosettenville has said here. I think the hon. member has overlooked the important fact that an unparalleled world demand for a number of South African minerals has resulted in an average growth rate of sales of all minerals, other than gold, of about 14 per cent a year over the past five years. Statistics show an average increase in activity in base mineral mining, and those in the mineral industry see the future of mining as one of opportunity and challenge for South Africa, as the dawn of mining activities with no end in sight. It is a generally established fact that some of our mineral supplies are unlimited. This brings about considerable mine and mining differentials with all the accompanying wage, social and health hazards to which our legislation will have to adapt itself.

*Sir, I just want to say this, with reference to the suspicion created here by the hon. member. It is very clear that we have to deal with a variety of problems in the processing of our base metals, taking into consideration the variety of those base metals. Particularly since there are signs of an increase in the demand and in the scope of these activities, and owing to the international nature of the marketing of minerals on a basis of supply and demand, it is of course essential that we shall have to take this development into account in future. One must, from the nature of the case, adjust one’s legislation to one’s problems. Our legislation in the past adapted itself to the mining industry in the past, which was mostly concentrated along the Witwatersrand, and we who are actively involved in the mining industry in places other than merely the Witwatersrand, have always said that any person who comes from the Witwatersrand and who becomes involved in the mining industry in the Barberton District or the Murchison Range or Leitzdorp vicinity for example, suffers from “Randitis”.

†What we meant, of course, was that he was suffering from all his years of acquaintance with the mining problems in working conglomerate gold-bearing reefs. The geological formations and the geological aspects of mineralization in these areas are altogether different from these on the Witwatersrand because there you have not got that consistency that you have in the Witwatersrand mineralogical formations.

*For this reason it is obvious that any legislation which is made, must take into account the situation which has arisen during the last four to five years, during which time we have had a growth rate of 14 per cent in our base metal industry. This outward movement from the Witwatersrand, from the goldmining industry, to base metals, or if you like, from the sandstone, the quartzite and shale formations of the Witwatersrand to the norite and the dolite and other base minerals of the Bushveld complex, the platinum and nickle mines, means that one is dealing here with completely different problems in the mining industry. I am thinking for example of the chromium, the vanadium, antimony, copper, lead, zinc, manganese, asbestos, iron and diamonds, all of them with different mother loads. Sir, these differences in scope can be tremendously great differences, and you can imagine, Sir, what bulky legislation it would require if one were to deal with all these matters in detail. That is why these powers are being given to the Minister; in fact, in principle it was already accepted in 1968. We foresaw at the time what the development was going to be, particularly in the base metal industry, and that is why that legislation was passed at the time. This legislation which we are now discussing, makes only a minor adjustment to the 1968 legislation, and what it amounts to is simply a rephrasing of that legislation.

The hon. member for Rosettenville said that he supports this Bill. I take it that he and his party support it.

†This has come to me as quite a surprise because a very important principle is involved here, a principle which the hon. member and his party have picked as a bone of contention with this side of the House. The principle involved is government by means of regulation proclaimed by the State President. Clauses 4 and 5 make provision for government by regulation proclaimed by the State President. This principle is contained in other legislative measures passed in this House and also in measures which are still under consideration. I have listened with tremendous interest to what the hon. member for Transkei had to say in this connection. He was all the time complaining, and everybody was complaining, about the bigger control which is being handed over to the hon. the Minister in connection with the provision of labour. Now this principle has time and again been rejected by the hon. member and his party. It has been hailed with acclamation as evidence of a dictatorial tendency on the part of the Government. I submit that this measure, with the important principle included in clauses 4 and 5 and supported by the hon. member and his party, puts considerable power into the hands of the hon. the Minister.

Did you listen to his explanation?

Now hon. members will note that section 12 of the principal Act, if now adopted as amended, will consist of paragraphs covering all the letters of the alphabet with the exception of X, Y and Z. According to these paragraphs—I should like to stress this—the Minister can just about manage to run the West Driefontein Mine.

No, he cannot, because there is an agreement between the employers and the employees.

I am very glad that hon. members opposite think the Minister is competent enough to run the West Driefontein Mine and other mines and that he will not abuse the power given to him in sections 4 and 5. This of course is contrary to their attitude of last year, when the hon. member of course wanted the Prime Minister to fire the hon. the Minister of Mines. [Interjections.] Now all of a sudden the Minister of Mines is such a wonderful chap.

Who said that? We didn’t say that.

But you give him all the power he wants. You said that you were supporting this measure. [Interjections.]

I would like to conclude by saying that the inconsistencies of the party opposite are just tremendous. I refer to these matters simply because the inconsistency in the arguments of the hon. members is simply outstanding. I have now indicated to the House that the principle involved here has already been agreed to in the 1968 legislation and I cannot see how the hon. member for Rosettenville can object to it. In other respects I agree with the hon. member about the anomalies in regard to the penalties in this connection, because to me it is something bordering on absurdity. Being in my time active in mining, I really feel that some good explanation should be given in this connection, and I am in agreement with the hon. member for Rosettenville here.

I am glad at the outset to say that the hon. member for Etosha has made some points with which I can fully agree and I will proceed to do so in due course. There are, of course, a few other points he made with which I am not in agreement and I will also explain my differences with him in due course.

I would like to start by saying that we on this side of the House have of course indicated through the hon. member for Rosettenville that we do in general support this legislation. We support it because the hon. the Minister has already given us certain assurances as to what his intentions are with this legislation and we have accepted his assurances. The hon. the Minister has also given us the assurance that he has consulted the parties concerned, that is to say, the employers of mine labour and the mine labourers’ unions themselves. This, at least, is how we understand the position. He has taken advice on this matter and he is satisfied that the parties concerned are themselves satisfied or will not be prejudiced by this legislation. On this basis we are prepared to co-operate with the hon. the Minister as best we can. However, we find much in this Bill which is obscure and untidy and which, in parts, lends itself to inelegant legislation. As an Opposition, therefore, we feel that we should like to assist the Minister to ensure that the Bill will become more intelligible and have greater clarity and that it will in fact achieve the purpose which the hon. the Minister has in mind.

I should like to start with the question of clauses 4 and 5. Clause 4 purports to amend section 10 of the principal Act. Now section 10 of the principal Act deals with limitation of work hours and conditions of employment. Clause 4 of this amending Bill quite rightly deals with the same subject and relates to section 10 of the principal Act, which deals with a similar subject. We find the same principle applied in other amending legislation, for example in Act 42 of 1968, where quite properly amendments relating to conditions of employment are in fact brought about as amendments to the original section 10 of the principal Act. But then we grow more and more puzzled as we go on, particularly when we come to clause 5 which purports to amend section 12 of the principal Act.

If we look at section 12 of the principal Act, we find that this is the famous section which lays down working conditions and health and safety regulations. This section has indeed been a valuable asset to the conduct of mining in South Africa. It has laid down principles for the safe working of mines. This section has in fact been amended from time to time by amending legislation which has always, as far as I have been able to discover by looking at the previous legislation, dealt with such things as health and safety on the mines. But to our astonishment we find that into this section 12 has been introduced a set of conditions or regulations which relate to conditions of work, the minimum number of days of paid leave, wage conditions, etc. This is most astonishing, because it has nothing to do with health or safety on the mines. Quite properly, clause 4, which deals with such things, contains an amendment to section 10. Section 12 deals with precisely the same sort of thing, and in fact these two clauses are closely related; the one links with the other by cross-reference in the body of the text. The one which deals with wage conditions, conditions of employment and leave is in fact introduced as an amendment to section 10, quite rightly and entirely consistently with all previous legislation. But clause 5 purports to amend section 12 of the Act which deals with safety regulations. As I pointed out, these amendments or additions brought in here are concerned with conditions of employment and have nothing to do with safety. It seems to me to be a gross inconsistency, what I have described before as most untidy and inelegant legislation. We would be grateful to hear if the Minister has special reasons for introducing this inconsistency into the legislation, but I still say it is a confusing inconsistency because the ordinary person who works and lives by this Act as his Bible, as many miners do, would look under a particular section for the conditions relating to employment of mine labour. Hidden in another clause dealing with safety regulations, he would then find the rest of the regulations dealing with that particular subject. I do not believe that this is an elegant way in which to legislate, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will have another look at this.

One then comes to another feature. We find that clause 4 of the Bill is not fully intelligible unless one first reads clause 5. I have no particular objection to that, because one manages to find one’s way through the maze as one goes on, but as I have said, clause 5 introduces certain additions to the conditions of employment. I feel that this is wrong. We then find, when we go back to clause 4, that the Minister has certain powers in relation to those new regulations. One of those powers is that the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister of Labour, and after due notice to the employers, impose certain wages and conditions of employment on certain employees on a mine, if one of two conditions applies. The first condition is that the minimum rate of remuneration and other conditions of employment are not regulated by means of an agreement between the employer and one or more trade unions. In other words, the Minister may only act, even after he has consulted these people, if he is satisfied that there is no agreement with a trade union.

That is only in the case of the smaller mines.

Yes. The clause then continues to state the other condition, namely if the Minister is of the opinion that the minimum rates of remuneration and other conditions of employment “are less favourable than the minimum rates of remuneration and other conditions of employment prescribed in terms of regulations made under section 12 (1) (u) or (v)”, the Minister may act if either of these conditions is fulfilled. That is what the Bill says, and I have construed this very carefully. The Minister may act either if. there is no agreement between the employer and one or more trade unions, or if the conditions of employment so agreed do not meet the requirements he has laid down under clause 5. That is what this clause actually says. It may not have been the Minister’s intention, but one cannot read this clause and apply a plain construction to it without coming to that conclusion. If I am wrong, I am quite sure that everybody who reads this clause after me, will also read it the wrong way. They will also come to an equally wrong conclusion. If it is intended, as is now stated in this clause, that the Minister may intervene if either of these conditions applies, then of course it does mean that he may override an agreement entered into with a trade union. Let us assume that a wage agreement is arrived at between a trade union and an employer. The Minister can then, in terms of clause 4, say: “Since such an agreement already exists, I may not intervene”. But then he reads on and he finds: “or these conditions are less favourable than those which I have laid down in terms of section 12 (t), (u) or (v)”. He then finds that that agreement in fact does provide for conditions which do not meet the requirements he has laid down. He therefore feels obliged to intervene. This means that he will have to step in and override an agreement duly arrived at after deliberation between an employer and a trade union. If this is really the Minister’s intention, I am most surprised. I do not believe it can be his intention. It would certainly undermine one of the basic principles of industrial negotiation in South Africa, if the Minister could arbitrarily do that. But, Sir, this goes even further. The new section 10 (2) reads as follows:

He does not even have to wait to consult the hon. the Minister of Labour or to send notice to the employer. He can disregard the existence of a previous agreement between the trade union and the employer, because he has found the one condition which satisfies his basic requirement, namely that the existing wages are less than those which he has elsewhere applied under the proposed new paragraphs (u) and (v) of section 12 (1). This is the logical construction one must place on these clauses as they stand. I would be very happy to accept from the hon. the Minister the assurance that this is not what he intends, but I must point out in all seriousness and in fairness to the hon. the Minister that this is how I genuinely read the clause. I was so astonished that I read them again repeatedly until I came to the conclusion that there was an error in the construction of these clauses and that the hon. the Minister could not seriously intend what the words seemed to indicate.

Like the hon. member for Rosettenville, I also have my doubts about the intentions of the Minister, not concerning his honourable intentions, but what his purposes actually are in the introduction of references to different “classes” or “groups”. These words in South African legislation have become loaded words. They have different meanings in different contexts. We would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would define precisely what he means by classes or groups in clause 5 (c) and in what circumstances these distinctions between classes and groups have been made. Are they in fact racial classes or groups, as is the case in some other legislation, or is he referring to groups or classes of employees? It would be helpful if this could also be clarified to our satisfaction.

In the course of my argument I have, of course, dealt with some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Etosha. I agree with him that the phraseology of some of these clauses is confusing. I also agree with him concerning his reference to some of the penalties. This is a matter which has already been raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. Therefore I do not propose to repeat what he has said, but I should like to introduce a new mathematical element, if I may, which I hope will simplify the matter when the hon. the Minister comes to consider some of the inconsistencies which we find in this Bill. Let us briefly run through the Bill and let me apply my mathematical factor to it. In clause 2 a penalty of £5 is converted to R30; in other words the penalty has been multiplied by a factor of three. £5 becomes R10 and, with a factor of 3, R10 becomes R30. This in itself is not exceptionable because, after all, £5 is R10 and the value of money has greatly eroded over the years. If it is necessary to increase the fine to make it equally effective, maybe a factor of 3 is right. In clause 3 we find that £10 becomes R50. So the factor there is 2½. If we read on we find that, in the same clause, one month becomes three months. Here, again, we have a factor of 3. I am quite prepared to accept that £’s are converted to R’s by doubling and that, as the rands themselves have devalued, a factor needs to be applied. I can however not believe that one month has eroded to such an extent that it is worth only 10 days. This is what seems to be implied by the equivalents which have been introduced in this particular clause. Some would say that, as the modern society evolves, one month in goal becomes longer and longer. It does not get shorter and shorter.

It is an inflation of time.

Money inflates but, I think, time in gaol deflates as society advances. If we go on, we find that in clause 6 a factor of 5 has been applied, since £5 becomes R50. We also find that half a month becomes three months. Here we have a factor of 6.

In the new clause 15 which is proposed by clause 8 of this Bill, £250 become R500. That is a factor of only one. It is static. The imprisonment period of 12 months stays 12 months, also static; and £500 become R1 000, again a factor of one, but surprisingly, although throughout this clause the monthly penalties have been static, we suddenly find that 12 months become 24 months, a factor of two. The hon. the Minister may well have reasons for this, but it seems to us to be quite illogical that the factor applied to the monetary value of these penalties should vary all over the place and that, at the same time, it should be felt necessary, where in fact the intention seems to be to apply a static standard, adapted to the changes in money value, and to keep the penalties at more or less the same level over a period of time, that nevertheless, the penalties in terms of months, should undergo these startling changes by varying these factors as well, in two cases, by the factor of three.

I will deal only briefly with the remaining remarks of the hon. member for Etosha. As I say, I agree with his earlier remarks as regards the untidiness or the obscurity of this legislation. I agree with him also as to the nature of the changes in the penalties imposed. Where I find it difficult to follow him, is when he accuses this party of having suddenly changed its tactics and, after being opposed to delegated legislation in the case of the Bantu Areas Administration Bill, that we have now suddenly veered around and become strong supporters of delegated legislation in that we are supporting the hon. the Minister in the introduction of this Bill. The kind of authority which is delegated to the hon. the Minister under this Bill, is of an entirely different kind from that which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education was assuming. In this particular Bill we have the hon. the Minister asking the House to agree that he should extend certain regulations. We have expressed doubt about a few of these regulations as to the manner in which they will be applied, particularly where trade unions agreements already exist. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will give us an explanation on this point.

For the rest, the alterations relate to safety regulations, the number of hours, the number of shifts, conditions of employment and so forth which really have been a matter of practice within the mining industry for a great many years. Minor variations take place. Not only this hon. Minister, but other Ministers too, take power from time to time to fix minimum wages and to fix conditions of employment in various trades. This is a commonplace; we find this in every industry. It does not in any way affect the principle which we fought for when previous legislation was being discussed, namely that we do not like to see discretionary powers being taken from this House and given to a Minister. I believe that the hon. member for Etosha has missed the entire point of this whole conflict of opinion about delegation of legislative authority to Ministers. We are quite happy with these regulatory powers which the hon. the Minister of Mines is claiming under this Bill, always provided that he gives us assurances on those points which we have brought to his attention. Until then we reserve our position. In principle we support this Bill, but we seek satisfaction on those points which remain obscure, untidy and inelegant in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Von Brandis said in his analytical lecture he has just given us on this entire piece of legislation. What I find quite interesting, is that the United Party gave their support to this legislation. It is the same party which, in the country districts where there are many of these smaller mines to which this legislation applies, says that it is the patron of the White workers in South Africa, but they said nothing about the White workers of South Africa today. I am speaking now specifically of those in the smaller mines for whose protection certain steps are being taken by means of this legislation today. Yesterday the hon. member for Rosettenville raised certain matters here pertaining to membership of mineworkers’ union. I shall furnish proof later that by doing this he actually showed that the United Party and he, as the main spokesman of their party on matters of this nature, have no idea whatsoever as to what the position of the mineworkers is, how they live and what their problems are. In his speech before this House the hon. the Minister of Mines made it quite clear that the amendments in clauses 4 and 5, as far as the principles were concerned, did not differ from the legal provisions of 1968 in regard to the minimum rates of remuneration in respect of overtime and the minimum number of days paid leave and sick leave. Since the Department of Mines has had to cope with certain technical problems which prevented them from giving substance to the principles and the objects of the 1968 legislation, I want to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of the large number of workers in the smaller mines in my constituency and in the Northern Cape for the amendments proposed in this legislation. These amendments merely change the modus operandi to make the objects of the 1968 legislation more easily attainable.

The hon. member for Rossettenville said in his speech yesterday that clauses 4 and 5 were applicable to mineworkers who did not belong to unions. He also made the following statement, and I quote from his speech he made yesterday—

I should like to correct the hon. member for Rosettenville in this respect. It seems to me that he does not know very much about the membership of the Mineworkers’ Union. I do not take this amiss of him either, because he and his party do not know what the needs of these people are and what their problems are. Some of the mineworkers at these smaller mines do, in fact, belong to the Mineworkers’ Union and other trade unions, but at these smaller mines one sometimes finds that there is no agreement between the Mineworkers’ Union and the employer who is not a member of an organization such as the Chamber of Mines. The result is that when the mineworker at the smaller mines has any problems, he cannot negotiate with his employer in regard to these problems. I can furnish the hon. member for Rosettenville with examples of where the mine management prohibits mineworkers from belonging to a trade union. It is for this reason that mine trade unions are requesting the hon. the Minister for this legislation. This was done so that the mine-worker in the smaller mines will also be afforded some protection against possible exploitation.

By taking these steps the hon. the Minister and the Government have proved once again that they are the friends of the mine-worker in South Africa. By that the Government furnishes proof that it is prepared to protect every mineworker. Since Kuruman is the largest producer of Cape blue asbestos in the world today and since quite a number of these smaller mines are situated in the constituency as a result, I am grateful for the fact that it is being provided in this legislation not only that the number of working hours can be prescribed but also the number of shifts that workers may work during a particular period of time. I am very glad about this, because asbestos dust is exceedingly harmful to the health of a mineworker. It is very bad for him to have to inhale this asbestos dust for a long period of time. We want to express our gratitude towards the Minister for the greater measure of uniformity which is being brought about in the entire mining industry by means of this legislation in regard to minimum rates of remuneration for overtime, the minimum number of days paid leave and sick leave, and so forth. I want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister today and express the hope that uniformity will also be brought about in the near future in regard to pensions paid to mineworkers by these smaller mines and that it will be possible to make arrangements at these smaller mines for the pensions of employees to be transferable from one mine to any other mine. There are quite a number of these smaller mines in my constituency. A mineworker may be employed at one particular mine for a period of four or five years where he builds up a pension for himself. He is then transferred to a different mine but his pension cannot be transferred. His pension contributions are refunded to him and in the majority of cases this money is spent. Such a mineworker may carry on in this way until he reaches the age of retirement when he has nothing to fall back on. I therefore want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister today on behalf of the mineworkers of the Northern Cape and I believe on behalf of all other mines, that uniformity should be effected in regard to pensions and that arrangements should be made that the pension contributions of a mineworker can be made transferable from one mine to another.

We want to thank the hon. the Minister once again for the protection in regard to remuneration, leave, security and health he is affording the employees in smaller mines in terms of this Bill. We shall always support him when he adopts measures for the protection of the mineworkers, these people who have to do their work under unfavourable and unhygienic conditions, and by doing this, render a major service to the development of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kuruman has made the point that the object of this legislation is to protect the employee on the small mines who is very often exploited by the employer who also forbids him to belong to a union. I wonder if the hon. member is fully aware of the words he has spoken, namely, that employers forbid their employees to belong to unions. We understand that that is not entirely so. I think the hon. the Minister must give us a reply in regard to this particular question. I would prefer to have the assurance from him that the reason why he appears in this role of providing for the conditions for mining employees through regulation is because they are forbidden to belong to any trade union and so have no chance of representation. One of the reasons why we on this side of the House have accepted this legislation, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Rosettenville, is because the hon. the Minister has given the assurance that the principle has already been accepted in 1968. The extraordinary thing is that—and this is why certain questions have been asked— the present section 10 of the principal Act is a section which was substituted for the original section of the Act of 1956 by the legislation in 1968. It has not taken more than two or three years for the hon. the Minister to entirely reconstruct that particular section and to incorporate a portion of such section in the regulations and a portion of it in the actual body of the legislation. For that reason it is quite natural that one would like to ask questions whilst accepting the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the principle has been accepted. For instance, in the 1968 legislation provision was made that before any of these determinations were made by the hon. the Minister he would give notice in the Gazette to all persons who are interested, so that they could make representations to him. That is not provided for here. All that the hon. the Minister has to do is to consult with the Minister of Labour and give 30 days notice of his intention to the owner of the mine. After listening to his representations, he can intervene in respect of two sets of facts, namely that the conditions of employment of this particular mine are not regulated by any agreement or secondly, are less favourable than certain minimum rates of remuneration and other conditions prescribed by regulation. He would then make certain determinations by notice to the owner. But this practice of notice, generally, to the public, or to anyone who may be interested, has fallen away. So there are certain matters on which one would like an explanation. One does not lightly oppose a Bill which we know in many respects does conform with something which was accepted some years ago.

Then we would very much like to know —this is a very serious question that has been put—has the hon. the Minister discussed the change with the Mineworkers Union itself? That is a very important matter. He might not have done so. In many senses, this is enabling legislation, and so it does not directly affect them at this stage. It might be a matter in which they would take an interest later. It might be something to which their attention may be drawn later with the necessity to make certain representations. But on the face of it, it is purely enabling legislation, and we would like to know whether this legislation was put before the union and considered by them. That is a factor which is important, because the hon. the Minister has constantly to be in touch, and to have discussions with the Mineworkers Union.

Now, I come to clause 5 (c). Here there has been a broadening of certain of the aspects in respect of which regulations may be made, strangely enough, by extracting a portion also from section 10 as it was originally, and adding it now to the new subsection (3) of section 12 of the principal Act. Now, questions have been put to the hon. the Minister, regarding which we are entitled to have an explanation. As has been pointed out, there are a number of smaller mines all over the country springing up constantly. In addition, there is a very important factor which has arisen recently, namely the question of the development of mines in the homelands. We know, for instance, of two or three important platinum mines, platinum being a very important base metal in this country, which enter into the picture. One does not know what the Minister has in mind. One is asking him not in a sense of carping criticism, but with the object that Parliament and the country should know whether the Minister is contemplating, perhaps on a much more imaginative basis, certain developments by regulation in respect of the labour problems of these various mines. I think it is a perfectly fair and honest question to ask the hon. the Minister. It is in that sense and in the sense of understanding the intention of the hon. the Minister that we are directing these questions. Beyond that, we support the Bill. I may say that there are many others factors that enter into this matter which I discussed with employees and employers on these mines, but I do not think they arise at this stage because the purpose of the Bill is to give the Minister certain enabling powers. If the Minister will give us these answers, it will make us very much happier in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support and contributions in regard to this Bill. However, I must say that the support which came from the Opposition side was of a very carping nature. The hon. member for Jeppes and other hon. members know that the legislation now before this House does not differ at all in principle from the amending legislation of 1968. On the one hand, legislation came before this House specifically after prolonged discussions with and at the request of the trade unions and the parties concerned. On the other hand it originated from our desire, with the support of the Opposition, to supplement certain deficiencies which existed in respect of our smaller mines. As hon. members know, in the smaller mines there were no trade unions which could conduct negotiations, and on the other hand the owners of those mines did not belong to the Chamber of Mines, to the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association or to De Beers. This is the reason, and therefore there is nothing sinister behind these alterations. These alterations are now being made in order to change the modus operandi and in order to make these measures more capable of application in practice, which has not been the case since 1968. I cannot take the responsibility for that, because our legal people have their own way of drafting legislation. Sometimes it appears subsequently that this creates problems in regard to its application, although its principle is not affected. These matters came to light specifically as a result of discussions and negotiations with the mine trade unions. It came to light that certain steps they would like to take in practice in regard to the determination of hours of work and paid public holidays could not be taken because the machinery was so involved and cumbersome.

In regard to the homelands, I want to give hon. members the assurance that these matters have nothing at all to do with homelands. I shall come to that later. I know it is a matter which the Opposition are very keen to raise. It is also a matter on which I should very much like to know precisely what their standpoint is, but it is not relevant now, and therefore I do not want to take up the time of the House with it.

I shall now go down the row in order to reply to hon. members’ questions. At the same time I shall reply to the questions of the hon. member for Jeppes, because other members raised the same points. I really think the hon. member for Kuruman is one of the members in this House who can talk about this with authority and great sympathy, because he in fact represents a constituency for which this legislation is of the greatest importance. It is a constituency which has small mines where the owners do not always have the interests of the employees at heart to the same extent as is perhaps the case at the larger mines. I am therefore very glad that he has participated in this debate. I have paid a visit to his constituency and I know that there is a good relationship between him and his people. His people in particular, and others as well, have been looking forward since 1968 to this legislation not only being placed on the Statute Book, but also being applied in practice. I want to say today that since we are making the modus operandi easier and since we can provide certain benefits for these people such as minimum wages and certain paid public holidays, we shall take reasonable demands into account, and shall always do so. We shall also bear in mind, however, that one must not take steps which will kill these smaller mines, because that would not be in the interests of those employees or employers.

In regard to pensions, which the hon. member also raised, I want to say that the question of transferability is a very important matter. It has nothing to do with this legislation, of course, but I am mentioning it merely because it is of importance. We in the department are already paying attention to this matter to see whether we cannot provide more assistance in this regard.

I now come to the hon. member for Von Brandis. The hon. member referred in the first place to the penalty clauses. Sir, as he outlined the provisions here, they sounded extremely involved and extremely pettifogging. The one penalty is three times heavier, the other is two and a half times’ heavier; the one is one month and the other three months. Neither I nor the Department of Mines is essentially responsible for that. All we have done here is, firstly, to convert pounds into rands and, secondly, that we have brought the fines and the sentences which may be imposed into line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1959. This is a matter on which I am certainly no authority, but I can tell the hon. member exactly how it was put to me when I made the same inquiries he made. Section 333bis of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was inserted in 1959, provides that—

Our monetary unit was still the pound at the time. I have been given the assurance that all we are doing here is to bring the provisions into line with those of the Criminal Procedure Act. The hon. member mentioned other points in this regard as well.

Look at clause 8.

I shall come to that in a moment when I reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville. I also want to give the hon. member for Von Brandis the assurance that there is nothing new here. I want to reassure him in this regard as well. He spoke about “obscurity and untidiness”. Sir, this is not untidy, but this is a complicated matter. It is complicated in the sense that one may make provision for all possible circumstances without having to come to Parliament every time. In referring to circumstances, I am referring specifically to circumstances which may bring the needs of employees at smaller mines and those of the trade unions to the fore and which may differ from one mine to another, from one specific group to another or from one specific work to another. The hon. member said that section 12 dealt with health and safety and that it was untidy to add the matters that we are adding here. This is not quite true. Section 12 already grants authority for the promulgation of regulations, and these are merely additions of further regulations which may be promulgated. They need not necessarily be regulations dealing with a certain matter, but include all regulations, and these are now being added here.

The hon. member also referred to clause 4. I can understand that he has some difficulty with it, because he did not read the clause far enough. The hon. member indicated that, as he read the clause, it was still possible for the Minister, whoever he may be, to make certain determinations, although an agreement existed. I just want to read the relevant part of the clause to the hon. member—

And now we come to the hon. member’s problem—

The hon. member said this was his problem, because it was the one or the other. But he need only read further—

These regulations under (u) and (v) cannot be made where there is an agreement. In other words, the hon. member may be right if one reads the proposed new section only up to where he stopped, but if one reads further, one sees that it is only these regulations, and that regulations in regard to matters mentioned under (u) and (v) cannot be made at mines where an agreement already exists. I can therefore reassure the hon. member that not only is it not the intention, but that according to the law advisers it is not provided in the Statute Book that existing agreements may be interfered with as far as these matters are concerned. In fact, it must not happen, because we do not want to interfere with existing agreements at all. It applies only in cases where there is no agreement. I may just add that the addition of the provision in regard to consultation with the Minister of Labour is in fact aimed at enabling the Minister of Labour to keep an eye on it in order to ensure that existing agreements are not interfered with in any way. For the hon. member’s sake I shall have this matter specifically re-examined by the law advisers and my department, so that in the Committee Stage we can once again give the hon. member an assurance in regard to this matter.

I now come to the hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member actually had one problem, and that is that in clause 8 the period of imprisonment is being increased from 12 months to 24 months. If the hon. member looks at clause 8, he will see that it provides for R500 and 12 months, while in the next case it is R1 000. In the previous legislation it was R1 000 and 12 months. This is merely an adjustment. In terms of the old Act it is £250 or 12 months, and in the second case £500 or 12 months. These provisions were not in accordance with one another. What is being done here now, is that the £250 is being made R500 and 12 months is being retained in that case. But in the second case the £500 is being made R1 000, which is the same, but instead of 12 months it now becomes 24 months, which brings it into line. For R500 it is 12 months and for R1 000 it is 24 months. In other words, it is an adjustment. Let me read this to the hon. member—

In other words, R500 and 12 months—

Previously it was 12 months; this was wrong and we are now rectifying it. I think the hon. member may now feel reassured. I have already replied to his question in regard to the matter of consultation. The hon. member also asked how the minimum rates of overtime remuneration would be determined. This entire matter naturally originated from representations made by the mine trade unions. The hon. member must not forget that some of the persons working at the smaller mines are in fact members of a trade union. There is only one way of doing these things, and that is to determine these matters by means of discussions and further consultation, provided we do not impose unreasonable requirements on the owners of these smaller mines.

In addition, the hon. member for Rosettenville stirred up some suspicion here in regard to the wording of clause 5, particularly paragraph (c) thereof. Let me tell the hon. member that the reference to classes of persons and groups of employers was contained in the previous legislation as well. It does not relate to Whites and non-Whites; it relates to different classes of work. Let me give an example. Payment in respect of overtime may be justified and it may be desirable to determine it for underground workers, but not for surface workers, for clerks. This is what is meant by this. The hon. member was totally wrong in mentioning the example of Crown Mines, because the hon. member knows that Crown Mines, like all other gold mines, falls under the Chamber of Mines, but in those cases there are agreements and bargaining. Consequently they are not affected by this Act. The hon. member may therefore rest assured that this is not at all applicable in those cases.

Somebody mentioned the platinum mines at Rustenburg as well. Those mines do not fall under these provisions either, because agreements exist which cannot be interfered with in terms of this Bill. I think these are all the question raised by hon. members, and, with the one or two undertakings I have given in regard to the Committee Stage, I shall leave the matter at that.

May I ask a question? In regard to the Minister’s last observation, where he said that these regulations in terms of clause 5 of the Bill would not be applicable to mines such as Crown Mines because they fall under the Chamber of Mines and the working conditions are therefore regulated by agreements between the Chamber of Mines and the employers, is it not a fact that clause 5 …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to make a speech now.

My question is whether clause 5, which relates to section 12 of the principal Act, actually falls under those circumstances; is it not merely a regulation?

Regulations in regard to this matter may be made only where there are no agreements.

Even under section 12?

Yes, where no agreements exist. The whole intention is not to interfere in a matter where an agreement does in fact exist. But I think we can perhaps settle this point in the Committee Stage. I want to give the assurance now that it is not at all the intention to interfere in any situation where an agreement exists.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Because of the diverse opinions expressed over the years as to the value or otherwise of the activities of chiropractors, seen from a health and scientific point of view, or both, the Government appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Dr. H. O. Mönnig, scientific adviser to the Prime Minister, with the following terms of reference—

1. (a) whether their work may be a useful and essential addition to ordinary medical services;
2. (b) whether it may otherwise constitute any danger to the health of the public; and
3. (c) if it does in fact have definite advantages, whether the recognition of chiropractors as a professional group is justified and on what conditions, if any, such recognition is to be given.

The commission’s report was released recently, and I take it that those who are interested in this matter have studied it carefully. Accordingly I shall confine myself to the main points of the report.

The first thing I want to do is to read out to hon. members the findings of this commission. I want to say in advance that everything I am going to say in this connection will not be based only on the findings of this commission, but for the sake of the record and for the sake of discussion I think it is essential that we take a very close look at the findings. The findings are the following. They appear in Chapter 15, Replies to the Terms of Reference. The first question posed in the terms of reference is whether the work of the chiropractor may be a useful and essential addition to ordinary medical services. The reply is—

This was the first term of reference. The second was to determine whether it might otherwise constitute any danger to the health of the public. The reply was—

The third term of reference was to determine, if it did have definite advantages, whether the recognition of chiropractors as a professional group was justified and on what conditions, if any, such recognition was to be given. The reply to that was—

In other words, conditional recognition is not possible either. These were the findings of the commission.

The findings of the commission are based on two main points, i.e. whether the philosophy on which chiropractic is founded does, in fact, have a scientific basis and, secondly, whether the training which is undergone is adequate. As far as the first point is concerned, i.e. the scientific basis, the commission clearly found that no scientific proof whatsoever had been advanced in support of the statement of the chiropractors that all disease conditions were caused by a vertebra which had slipped and was causing abnormal pressure or tension on the nerves. In this connection I want to emphasize that noted scientists throughout the world have conducted investigations and have always found that there is no scientific basis for chiropractic.

Now, as far as the training of chiropractors is concerned, I want to give the main findings of the commission. They found, firstly, that training schools were limited to the U.S.A. and Canada, and, secondly, that training was inadequate, for, inter alia, the following reasons: No pre-chiropractic training at college level is required before admission to a school of chiropractic. I shall return to this later. Secondly, the schools of chiropractic do not provide the same standard of training as the medical schools, and as an example it is mentioned that it is fundamental that lecturers who teach basic sciences at a professional level should at least have a bachelor degree. The finding then reads as follows—

1. (iii) the training period is too short (four years as against seven years in the case of basic medical training) to acquire a general understanding of medicine in order to be able to make a fairly accurate diagnosis.

I just want to emphasize the word “diagnosis”, because I shall keep on returning to it—

1. (iv) the chiropractic student undergoes virtually no practical, clinical training and no school of chiropractic has any affiliation with hospitals;
2. (v) teaching takes place mainly in the classroom through lectures, and practical work is done in out-patient clinics;
3. (vi) no in-patient training in hospitals is available.

The commission regards the limitation of the chiropractic students’ experience to outpatients attending chiropractic clinics (and who, from the nature of the case, will represent a fairly limited group of diseases and disturbances) as the most important shortcoming in the training as a whole, because whereas the medical student during his clinical training—i.e., during the last four years of his training—has to deal with the diagnosis and treatment of all kinds of sick people in the wards of a training hospital every day, the chiropractic student has no opportunity whatsoever of even seeing such in-patients, because there is no affiliation with hospitals.

Considering these serious shortcomings in the training of chiropractors, the commission expressed the view that the chiropractor is not adequately equipped to be able to decide which cases may be treated chiropractically by him. In this connection the commission emphasizes that “the dangers of chiropractic are contained mainly in the lack of diagnostic knowledge”.

In all these circumstances there can be no doubt why the Commission recommended, inter alia—

1. 1. That no statutory recognition be granted to chiropractic as a professional occupation in the Republic of South Africa.

2. 2.

   1. (a) That those already practising chiropractic in the Republic of South Africa be allowed sufficient time to qualify themselves either in medicine or so that they will comply with the requirements for registering as physiotherapists, and
   2. (b) that after a certain date no other person be allowed to set up a practice of this kind.

These then are the unanimous findings and recommendations of the commission that investigated the whole matter.

I may say that the composition of the commission was rather interesting. There was only one medical doctor on the commission. The commission consisted of the following persons: Dr. H. O. Mönnig, who is a doctor of veterinary science and has a D.Sc. degree; H. E. Brink, D.Sc., professor in physiology at the University of Stellenbosch; L. M. Jonck, B.CH.D., D.Sc., who is a senior lecturer in the Department of Anatomy at the University of Pretoria, the only member with both medical and dental qualifications; J. E. de Wit, who is professor in zoology at the University of the Orange Free State; Dr. Danie Craven, whom we all know, of the Department of Physical Education at the University of Stellenbosch; and Dr. W. G. Sutton, former principal of the University of the Witwatersrand, who holds the degrees of LL.B., B.A., B.Sc. (Engineering), etc. In other words, it was a scientific commission, which had only one member with medical training.

To come to the Bill itself, I want to refer, firstly, to the Press statement I released on 24,th February, in which I indicated that I had had further discussions with the duly authorized representatives of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa, from which new points of view and suggestions had emerged.

After these discussions it was decided to withdraw the previous Bill and to introduce the present one. Before this was done, the representatives of the Chiropractic Association, of which 113 out of a total of 118 chiropractors in the whole of South Africa are members, had indicated in writing that, although the new Bill did not comply with all their wishes, they supported its contents. They have now once again stated these wishes, but have not withdrawn the previous letter. In referring to the wishes which have once again been stated, I may say that they are embodied in the latest circular. I think hon. members must have fairly thick files of circulars by now. I have repeatedly discussed the wishes expressed in the new circular with them. When they stated in their letter that they did in fact support the contents of the Bill although all their wishes had not been complied with, they referred to those specific wishes. I should like to read the letter to hon. members. It is written under the official letterhead of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa and is dated 22nd February, 1971. The letter is addressed to me. It reads as follows—

Dear Dr. De Wet,

This was just after I had had discussions with them—

Yours sincerely,

R. A. N. Nicholson,

President of the Association.

I may just say that this is the Bill now before this House.

The Bill under discussion provides that from a date six months after the date of commencement of the Act chiropractic may be practised in the Republic only by persons who submit proof to an officer of the Department of Health that they were practising for gain as chiropractors in the Republic on the last-mentioned date, or that they were South African citizens studying chiropractic on that date, and that the Chiropractic Association of South Africa has recommended that their names be entered on the list the said officer shall keep. In other words, the names of persons who on or prior to that date were practising chiropractic here or who were South African citizens studying chiropractic, and who are recommended by the Chiropractic Association of South Africa, will be entered on such list and may practise chiropractic for gain in the Republic in the future. Here now, for the first time, there is official recognition of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa.

Any person who feels aggrieved because the Association has not recommended his name for inclusion in the list concerned, may appeal to the Secretary for Health who may, after consultation with the Association, order that such person’s name be entered on that list. This is to prevent the association from unnecessarily withholding people’s names from the list. This also means that no chiropractor is under any obligation to become a member of the association. This is a very important point. Any person whose name appears on the said list is exempted from the provisions of section 39C of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act (No. 13 of 1928) in so far as they relate to the performing of acts usually performed by chiropractors. I may just say that this provision has been specifically inserted at the request of chiropractors since the matter became known last year. This is how the whole matter came to notice.

It may indeed be asked why the commission’s recommendation that no person be allowed to practise as a chiropractor in the Republic after a certain period has been departed from. The reason is that it is only fair and just that the 118 persons practising in South Africa at present, as well as the young South Africans already studying abroad, should be given the opportunity of continuing their practices. They commenced their studies in good faith. South Africa allowed it, and hence it is only fair that their vested right should not be prejudiced. Last year already I gave such an undertaking to the representatives of the chiropractors, and for that reason we are now inserting it into this legislation. Although certain standpoints I necessarily have to adopt and have adopted are not acceptable to the chiropractor without reservation, and although this Bill is not exactly what they wanted, I want to make it clear that I am on the best of terms with these gentlemen and that I have been negotiating with them all these years. We understand each other. I have never misled them in any respect as regards my standpoint or the standpoint of the Government, as embodied in this Bill. On the other hand I want to say that they have always put their cards on the table and have never made any misrepresentation in any respect to me. I also wish this Bill, and consequently I am making this request, to be discussed in a spirit which will not allow the discussion to degenerate into a vendetta against the chiropractors. Their vested rights must be recognized. There must be no vendetta against them as a group. Neither can this Bill be seen as such, but this is the best that can be done, with due regard being had, on the one hand, to rights and, on the other hand, to the Government’s obligation not to expose the public to inadequately qualified persons. I want to say that in this regard it is, furthermore, my duty to give a very clear picture of how I see matters, on the basis of the information I have in front of me and as I am trying to give an unbiased analysis of it to this House. I am doing so in a spirit for which I ask the patience and attention of hon. members, because we have to do here with a major public agitation. The newspapers also made their contribution and in doing so not only created confusion, but also placed me as a person and the medical profession in an unfavourable light. There are also signs that for the first time an attitude is being adopted in regard to health matters on the part of the Opposition which, as they see it, may bring them political gain.

If you introduce this type of legislation you must expect this.

I am also doing this because there has been an agitation by means of telegrams, letters, telephone calls, interviews and the stirring up of public opinion. This has now been done in South Africa as it is being done all over the world, particularly in America, with regard to the actions of chiropractic and of chiropractors. I do not think there can be any doubt about that, and therefore I am asking hon. members to bear with me in what I still have to say about this matter. I want to deal with the matter on the basis of specific questions which I think should be answered. I think the first fair question that may be asked, not only by my chiropractor friends, but also by this House and by people who have been treated by them, is why permanent recognition is not given by the Government to chiropractic as a profession. Why is the opposite being done, i.e. that chiropractic is not being given permanence? There are two reasons for this, with which I shall deal at length. The one is that chiropractic has no scientific basis whatsoever. The philosophy of chiropractic, as seen by the whole scientific world, is false. The second reason is that the training is quite inadequate and that there is in any case no control of any kind over the training of chiropractors. Why am I now making the statement that there is no scientific basis or that the philosophy or premises of chiropractic are false? In the first place, I want to refer to their own definitions and statements. Before coming to that, however, I want to read out the definition given in Webster’s New English Dictionary. It reads as follows:

The definition of the International Chiropractors’ Association is as follows—

I must add to this, however, that even among chiropractors themselves there is a tremendous disagreement. It is said—

This is what chiropractors themselves say of the profession. In other words, it is a philosophy which is based on pressure being exerted on the nerves of the spinal column. I do not want to go into the details of the matter now, but I want to say clearly that no proof whatsoever has been found in anatomy for these definitions and for these things the chiropractors say. No visible or tangible proof has been found of such situations in any of the dissection rooms all over the world where anatomy has been studied over thousands of years. Not one single professor of anatomy, and I think the hon. member for Rosettenville will agree with me, is prepared to state that he has ever been able to see or to observe, either by looking or by dissecting, in dissection rooms in which spinal columns have been dissected, that such a thing is possible. In other words, it has never been found. By way of example I want to read to hon. members what was said by one of the great anatomists of the world—

Prof. Bensley, director of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Chicago, also a very great figure in anatomy, said the following—

Surely these are statements we should take note of. I shall now proceed to give the opinions of the medical profession, and I shall not be doing so in the air. I want to remind the House of how the medical profession has been functioning over the past 2 500 years. It is inherent in and part and parcel of the profession of the hon. member for Rosettenville and myself that any new discovery must be shared with the rest of the world. This is the difference between the medical profession and many other professions. No doctor patents a discovery. This is inherent in the profession.

May I put a question?

No, let me just finish dealing with this point. You will get your chance. Hon. members sometimes forget that it is inherent in the medical profession that whatever a doctor may discover, whatever operation he may develop, whatever remedy he may discover, it is made available, without one cent of compensation to him, to all mankind and to every country in the world, behind the Iron Curtain as well. The only way in which it is made known universally, is that it is published in the medical journals for all to see. Take the example of Prof. Chris Barnard. If this had happened in most of the other professions, it would have been patented and would have been an enormous financial asset. All that happens in the medical profession is that his operations are described in the medical journals for everyone to copy, without any compensation. Proof that this is the case in South Africa is to be found in the fact that the medical profession in South Africa is only too keen to investigate thoroughly, and to have thorough investigations conducted into, any matter which may perhaps be of assistance in curing disease. We have just established the Medical Research Council. There is not a single person in South Africa or in the world who can come forward with any matter which the Medical Research Council will not investigate thoroughly in the hope that that may provide some relief for mankind.

The Medical Council already has a list of 28 para-medical services, which specifically enter the field of medicine—but which we welcome with open arms—to perform supplementary services. That is why they are para-medical services. We have just passed legislation to legalize them so that they may pursue their own professions and so that the public may be protected against exploitation. Lists are kept by the Medical Council of para-medical services which are supplementary, but with the reservation that those services must be scientifically based, that they must really be aids to the medical profession and that there must be no danger attached to the way in which members of that profession will act, and that an absolute assurance is given that they will act only within their sphere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For most people, and even for this House, the most interesting part of any budget is the taxation proposals, and taxation is indeed an important ingredient of budgetary policy. Two years ago I introduced, in the light of the First Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa (the Franzsen Commission), a sweeping reform of our tax structure—a reform which in my view has already proved its value to our economy. The Commission has now submitted two further reports, one of which rounds off its tax proposals; the proposals will receive attention in the budget this afternoon and I shall lay the Report upon the Table immediately after the Budget Speech.

There are, however, other reports that will require attention this afternoon. First, there is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government and the Provinces (the Schumann Report) as well as the reports of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities (the Borckenhagen Reports); these reports, together with White Papers setting forth the standpoint and the decisions of the Government with regard to the reports, will also be laid upon the Table. Consideration must also be given to the report of the Committee on State Investment Media (the Lodder Committee), as well as the taxation proposals of the Riekert Committee concerning the Decentralization of Industries. If I may draw once again upon a familiar source, I should like to quote the words of Solomon: “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established”.

That all these reports have to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the Budget, is an indication that the Budget affects practically all facets of Government policy. As the House knows, the influence of the Budget extends even further, since through its fiscal policy the Government touches practically every sector of the economy and can exert an important influence —though not always a decisive one—on economic conditions. In the current economic situation, this facet of the Budget is of particular importance and I am accordingly beginning, as usual, with a brief review of the national economy.

Economic Conditions in the Republic

According to the latest estimates, the growth of the gross domestic product during the second half of 1970 was substantially slower than during the first half, probably on account mainly of lower profits, especially in agriculture and mining. Over the year 1970 as a whole, the real gross domestic product increased by slightly more than 5 per cent which in the circumstances is a satisfactory rate. Over the past decade the average rate of growth was approximately 6 per cent per year, compared to the Economic Development Programme’s target rate of 5½ per cent.

In contrast to the slower growth of the gross domestic product, gross domestic expenditure in 1970 still rose at the high rate of 14 per cent, only slightly less than the 15 per cent rate of 1969. After allowing for price rises, the increase in 1970 was about 10 per cent, which is considerably higher than the target rate of the Economic Development Programme. During the second half of the year, gross domestic expenditure rose even more rapidly than during the first half. Inventory investment was the most important factor in the higher level of expenditure, but the other components also increased substantially.

Private consumption expenditure increased in 1970 for the third successive year by between 10 and 11 per cent, or in real terms by about 7 per cent, compared with the Economic Development Programme target rate of 4.8 per cent. Sales of durable and semi-durable goods showed the most rapid rise until stricter requirements with regard to credit sales of these articles were introduced in October, 1970. These measures, which led to a noticeable decline in consumer expenditure on durable goods, were relaxed to some extent last month when I raised the sales duties on these goods.

Consumption expenditure by general government (mainly salaries and wages) increased by 12 per cent during 1970 compared with an increase of 13½ per cent during the previous year.

Gross fixed investment increased during 1970 by 17 per cent, which is also considerably higher than the Economic Development Programme target rate. Fixed investment in private manufacturing industry rose by between 18 and 19 per cent, a gratifying occurrence, since it creates productive capacity for future growth. It is also gratifying that expenditure on machinery and equipment increased by 23 per cent in 1970 (compared with 4 per cent in 1969), while the growth rate in expenditure on building and construction works declined from 18 per cent in 1969 to 13 per cent in 1970. Fixed capital expenditure of the Post Office increased by no less than 48 per cent, and of the Railways by 15 per cent. I should mention that a slight decline in total fixed investment in private manufacturing industry occurred in the fourth quarter of 1970, but it is too early to conclude that the upward tendency in fixed investment has changed.

The high rate of inventory investment was continued in 1970 and over the seven quarters to December, 1970, amounted to the very high figure of R1 087 million.

Gross domestic savings during 1970 rose by only R171 million. Personal savings especially performed poorly and over the past three years were only some 9 per cent of personal disposable income compared with 11 per cent on average in the nineteen-sixties. Consumer credit was undoubtedly an important factor in this low level of savings.

The index of the physical volume of manufacturing production over the first ten months of 1970 was 4.9 per cent higher than during the corresponding period of 1969, but the growth rate levelled out after the middle of the year.

The physical volume of gold mining production in 1970 rose by 3.3 per cent in comparison with the previous year—and, as a result of sales on the private market, a premium of R27 million was distributed to the gold mines during the year. As a result of the higher price now prevailing on the private market, the premium in 1971 should be considerably higher. The physical volume of other mineral production increased in 1970 by 14.1 per cent. Unfortunately, the prices of certain of these products, especially diamonds and platinum, declined considerably in 1970.

Declining prices also severely affected certain branches of agriculture, especially wool farmers, and certain agricultural regions, moreover, suffered serious drought conditions in 1970. Nonetheless, the year 1970 was relatively favourable for agriculture as a whole, and the total net income of farmers was relatively close to the record level of 1967. The wheat harvest was amply sufficient for local demand. In most regions the current season is more promising than the previous season, especially for maize, sugar and fruit. We may join Confucius, the great Chinese sage of the fifth century before Christ, in saying with gratitude: “Bountiful is the season with much corn and abundant rice; the blessings that have been sent to us, are manifold”. As far as pastoral products are concerned, the prospects for meat and dairy products are reasonably good, but conditions in the wool industry still remain difficult.

Employment in most sectors of the economy rose further during 1970 and unemployment among Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics remains minimal. Salaries and wages generally have risen considerably— in total more than 12 per cent.

Between December 1969 and December 1970 the seasonally adjusted consumer price index increased by 4.2 per cent compared with a rise of 3.5 per cent in 1969; for the twelve months to January, 1971, the increase was 4.3 per cent. This increase which is comparatively high for South Africa, is to be attributed mainly to a sharp rise in the prices of food and of “housing and related items”. Wholesale prices rose in 1970 by 3.9 per cent, mainly on account of rising prices for agricultural and metal products.

The balance of payments

The increasing gap between gross domestic expenditure and gross national product is reflected in a growing deficit in the balance of payments on current account, which reached the high figure of R788 million for the year 1970. Merchandise imports increased over the year by 20 per cent while merchandise exports showed a decrease of 5 per cent, mainly on account of declining exports of diamonds and wool. The net inflow of capital reached a high level, however, namely R501 million. Approximately 80 per cent of the total capital inflow went to the private sector, and of this approximately 64 per cent was long-term capital, mainly foreign loans.

As a result of all these factors, the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves declined during 1970 by R287 million and stood at some R806 million at the end of the year. During January, 1971, the reserves declined by a further R49 million, but in February the decline moderated considerably and the Reserve Bank’s foreign reserves only decreased by R8 million.

Monetary and Financial Conditions

The decline in the gold and foreign exchange reserves naturally had a considerably restrictive influence on the liquidity of the private sector. Bank credit to the private sector also grew more slowly, but this was counteracted by a decrease in the net deposits of the government sector with the banks. Nonetheless, the quantity of money and near-money during 1970 increased by only 5½ per cent, which is considerably less than during the previous two years.

During the first half of 1970 the ceiling on bank credit was raised from time to time and a further concession was allowed last month with regard to credit to the agricultural sector. I received many complaints that, despite these concessions, bank credit for bona fide productive purposes and especially for agriculture, is frequently curtailed or refused. The authorities naturally cannot intervene in the relationship between a bank and its client, but I wish to express the earnest hope that banks will use these concessions in the right spirit and for the right purposes.

There has been, and still is, continuing upward pressure on short as well as long-term interest rates. Rates on long-term Government bonds were raised in 1970 from 6½ to 1½ per cent, but nevertheless the Government could not draw much support for its local loans. Building societies also raised their borrowing and lending rates and their deposits and shares rose in 1970 by the record sum of R451 million, while their new mortgages amounted to R740 million. The declining tendency of share prices (excepting gold-mining shares) continued in 1970 and by January, 1971 these prices reached a level comparable to the level which prevailed before the strong upward movement had commenced after the sterling devaluation in November, 1967. Furthermore, the unit trusts experienced a considerable outflow of funds over the year 1970.

Economic Prospects, and Policy

That the economy still shows a satisfactory (though somewhat lower) rate of growth, that employment and production are still increasing and that the unemployment figures remain minimal, that the prospects for many sectors of agriculture presently seem promising, that the excessive liquidity of the private sector has been reduced to some extent and that the credit creating ability of the banking sector has been brought under effective control and, last but not least, that the rise in prices is not excessively high by international standards—all these are encouraging factors bearing witness to the basic strength of our economy.

Nevertheless, the rise in prices is undoubtedly more than we should like to see in South Africa. Although difference of opinion exists over the weight that should be allocated to the different factors, there is no doubt on my part that the high level of expenditure, especially consumption expenditure, and conversely the low level of saving, is the most important factor in the inflation of prices. On that account, it is essential to encourage saving and to restrain the excessive consumption expenditure.

The fundamental reasons for the rapid increase in consumption expenditure have to be looked for in a variety of factors— the rise in salaries and wages, easy credit facilities for the purchase of consumer goods, the influence of sales publicity, and the like. An important factor is that inflation feeds upon itself, in other words, consumers buy more because they fear that if they postpone the purchase, prices will rise further. I feel however that today in South Africa, as in other countries, an exaggerated demand for all sorts of luxuries is developing, especially for those serving as status symbols. Let no one misunderstand me. I wish everyone in this country a reasonable standard of living with the necessary comfort for a civilized life, but this does not call for prodigality. As Confucius put it: “With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, with my folded arm for a pillow— in the midst of these things I still have joy.” I do not expect that we should all live so Spartanly, but I do feel that we South Africans—many of us—might well in our own interest as well as in the national interest revert to a more moderate way of life. Let thrift and diligence again become the fashion in our land.

While speaking about this, I also wish to say something in connection with the exaggerated preference for imported goods that has recently raised its head. The days when imported goods were always cheaper and better than the South African article are of course long past, but we nevertheless see that imported goods, often considerably more expensive than the local article, are displayed on a grand scale in the shops and are apparently bought by an undiscriminating public on account of their prestige or snob value. I really think it is time that we broke away from this immature preference and cultivated a just pride in our own South African products.

Change in our pattern of consumption and savings is therefore of basic importance for the solution of our inflation problem and will have to receive thorough attention in this Budget.

There are others, also in this House, who believe that inflation should rather be combated from the production side and that any effort to curtail consumption expenditure will restrain the economy unnecessarily. In my opinion there is sufficient proof that expenditure, and especially consumption expenditure, has increased excessively and that saving is abnormally low, and that at least short-term measures to counteract these tendencies are fully justified. This does not mean, of course, that the production side should be disregarded; on the contrary, the Government is fully aware of the importance of production and productivity and is already doing much to promote our productive capacity.

Many people regard the Government’s labour policy as the key to the problem of promoting production. I regard this statement as an over-simplification of the problem, but I would by no means maintain that labour policy is not of the utmost importance—not only for our economy, but also—and this I want to emphasize—for our whole society. I have already mentioned the Committee on the Decentralization of Industries. This committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. P. J. Riekert, Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, has not yet completed its work, but I hope and trust that its recommendations will alleviate the labour problems of industrialists considerably—those who remain in the metropolitan areas as well as those establishing themselves in the Bantu homelands or the border areas. As I have already said on another occasion, my colleagues and I are prepared, after receipt of the committee’s report, to continue the dialogue with organized industry on this subject. In the meantime I wish to emphasize once more that industry itself can do much, by more efficient organization and methods, to relieve the manpower problem.

There are other facets of our economy that also cause a measure of concern, as for example our balance of payments. Our reserves are, however, still strong and there are already indications that they are no longer declining so sharply. With our more favourable agricultural season and with the prospect of reasonable stability in our foreign markets there is reason to hope that our exports will fare better this year. The real key to our balance of payments problem lies, however, in the effective curtailment of excessive expenditure. If we can succeed in that, we shall solve the inflation and balance of payments problems simultaneously.

Fixed investment in private manufacturing industry during 1970 showed, as previously mentioned, a gratifying revival. It is however still at too low a level and an acceleration in its rate of growth is desirable. Perhaps the recommendations of the Riekert Committee will also help to give the desired stimulus.

The other economic imbalances, such as for example the tightness of the capital market and the high rates of interest, are also mostly the outcome of the overheating of the economy. If we stem the inflation, these problems will to a large extent right themselves.

This Budget will have to take thorough account of the economic problems I have outlined, but it is in the first place concerned with the Government’s own accounts. I shall now accordingly first discuss the Government’s revenue and expenditure for the financial year that ends today.

The 1970-’71 Financial Year

Expenditure on Revenue Votes for the year 1970-’71 is estimated at R1 905 million, or R13.3 million above the original figure, mainly as a result of higher subsidies to the provinces and higher animal fodder subsidies as a result of the drought last year. After including the transfer to Loan Account (R94.8 million) and to the Road Fund (R12 million) the total amount required is R2 011.8 million. Customs, excise and sales duties are expected to yield R668.1 million, which is R19 million more than the original estimate. Inland Revenue, however, took an unexpected turn when receipts from the provisional tax of companies suddenly started declining towards the end of 1970. The reasons for this decline are not clear, but—together with a decline in receipts in respect of diamond mines, stamp duties and the marketable securities tax—it brought about a reduction of R43 million, i.e. to R1 308.1 million, in the expected collections of Inland Revenue. Over the year 1970-’71 expenditure will therefore exceed income by an estimated sum of R35.6 million. Revenue Account, which showed a balance of R85.3 million at the beginning of the year, is accordingly expected to end the year with a net balance of R49.7 million.

Of this balance I propose that R5 million be transferred to the Strategic Minerals Account—mainly to promote the search for oil—and, as in previous years, a sum of R5 million to the Loan Fund for the Promotion of Economic Co-operation.

On the Loan Account, expenditure is estimated to amount to R703.7 million, i.e. approximately R14½ million less than the original estimate. Despite a considerable increase in the rate of interest on Government loans, however, the Government could not succeed in obtaining sufficient loan funds within the Republic, and in order to balance Loan Account we shall have to transfer a considerable sum—probably about R180 million—from the Stabilization Account to Loan Account. Fortunately, the Stabilization Account remains strong enough to carry this transfer, though it will have the effect that some of the funds advanced by the Account to the National Supplies Procurement Fund will have to be withdrawn. As originally intended, the Procurements Fund will have to replace these advances by Reserve Bank loans. I propose accordingly.

The South-West Africa Account is expected also to receive less from inland revenue than originally estimated, mainly as a result of the decline in the diamond market. The estimated deficit over the year is R17.2 million, which can be covered out of the credit balance of R25.6 million on the Account.

The 1971-’72 Financial Year Expenditure on Revenue Account

The Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account that I shall lay upon the Table, provide for total expenditure of R1 737.6 million for the 1971-’72 financial year. The revised figure for the current financial year, as I have just mentioned, is R1 905 million. Unfortunately, however, hon. Members cannot deduce from this that Government expenditure next year will decline considerably, since, for reasons that will become clear presently, the printed estimates for 1971-’72 include no provision for Provincial subsidies.

If Provincial subsidies are left out of account, the provision shows a rise of R208 million above the revised figure for 1970-’71. Of this sum, R55.4 million is on account of increased provision for salaries and wages, and the accompanying higher contributions to Civil Pension and Provident funds.

As usual, Defence is responsible for a large increase—R48 million in addition to salaries; effective protection against the threat from beyond our borders remains an expensive but essential service.

Higher rates of interest and higher public debt entail increasing the provision of the Vote Public Debt by R27 million.

The Vote Industries shows an increase of R4.2 million in respect of metrication.

On the Vote Customs and Excise there is an increase of R6.6 million due to the effect of customs agreements with neighbouring countries.

The interest equalization contribution on the Vote Agricultural Economics and Marketing shows a rise of R4 million, mainly as a result of the expected increase in the subsidy on farm mortgage interest. On the Vote Community Development there is an increase of R4.1 million in respect of interest subsidies.

Provision for subsidies to universities on the Vote National Education is nearly R9 million higher than the revised figure for 1970-71.

Altogether the Budget therefore shows an increase of at least R158 million that must be regarded as either unavoidable or as in respect of services that will be welcomed by all sides of the House. The remaining increases are spread over a number of Votes. Initial requests were for substantially higher sums, but with the cooperation of my colleagues these sums have been considerably reduced.

No provision for Provincial subsidies has been included in the printed estimates, since the Government, in the light of the report of the Schumann Commission, wishes to propose a wholly new dispensation for the Provinces, and the subsidies flowing from it will be included as a budget proposal in the Supplementary Estimates.

Provincial subsidies

The House will recall that the old system of Provincial subsidies was supplanted several years ago by a new interim system which simply provided for a prescribed percentage increase of the subsidies every year. This system was intended to serve as a temporary arrangement pending a thorough investigation into the whole subject of Provincial functions and finances. A Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Professor C. G. W. Schumann was then appointed to go into this matter, and in due course submitted a thorough and comprehensive report. The report will now be laid upon the Table. I wish to bear testimony of the valuable work done by Professor Schumann and his colleagues.

The Report of the Commission covered a number of delicate and complex matters, which self-evidently called for intensive study by the Government Departments concerned. Thorough investigation brought to light that rapid change in economic and other conditions in the Republic, especially during the nineteen-sixties, called for a new approach to many of these questions. While many of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission can still be accepted, others therefore have to be adjusted to changed conditions.

In particular, the Government felt that the financial proposals of the Schumann Commission, which amongst other things entailed the taking over of all individual income tax by the Provinces, could not be accepted in today’s situation.

The Commission itself set forth the basic requirements for determining a subsidy formula for the provinces in their report, and the Treasury built on this basis and devised a system of subsidization which hopefully will meet the Commission’s basic requirements. Basically, the proposed new subsidy formula consists of the calculation of—

1. (1) the needs of the different provinces in regard to the services they have to render in the different fields under their control;
2. (2) the ability to pay of the different provinces in regard to the different sources from which their “own” income has to be obtained; and
3. (3) the deficit arising when each province’s disposable income, as reflected in its ability to pay, is subtracted from its expenditure, as adjusted according to its need.

This deficit then has to be covered by the subsidy.

The objective determination of “needs” and “ability to pay” is of course a complex task. I cannot go into detail on the matter this afternoon, but the methods that will be applied are explained in the White Paper that I shall lay upon the Table.

There is a further facet of Provincial finances that calls for attention. Two years ago I made mention of the strong recommendation by the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy (the Franzsen Commission) that a consolidated tax scale be introduced embracing all taxes on the income of individuals, namely, normal income tax, provincial income tax and provincial personal tax. I said at the time that the Government agreed with the principle of this proposal, but that I could not then implement it, since I had not yet been able to discuss the matter with the Provincial Administrations. Subsequently the proposals of the Franzsen as well as of the Schumann Commissions have been extensively discussed with the Provincial Administrations and the Government has decided to accept this recommendation of the Franzsen Commission. The White Paper that I shall lay upon the Table fully sets forth the proposals and the decisions of the Government relating to the financial relations with the provinces, as well as the other facets of Provincial affairs (as, for example, the division of functions) dealt with by the Schumann Commission.

It is my sincere hope that we have now found a solution that will serve for at least several years as the basis for the relations between the Government and the Provinces. Certainly we followed Confucious’ counsel where he said: “In all things, success depends on previous preparation and without such previous preparation there is sure to be failure. If one’s actions have been previously determined, there will be no sorrow in connection with them”.

The subsidy formula proposed by the Government, including compensation to the Provinces for the loss of their income and personal taxation, as well as the Provinces’ share of the income tax on companies, calls for a total provision of R711.1 million.

Local Authorities

The Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities (the Borckenhagen Committee) submitted eight interim reports and a main report, and here too I wish to convey the Government’s gratitude to Mr. C. L. F. Borckenhagen and his colleagues for the many valuable recommendations they submitted. The reports (i.e. those that have not yet been published) together with a White Paper setting forth the Government’s decisions in this connection, will be laid upon the Table. It is virtually impossible to summarize briefly all the questions dealt with by the Committee, and I am mentioning here only a few of the matters that affect the Exchequer directly.

First, the Government accepts the Commission’s recommendation that the State accept full financial responsibility for curative services in connection with communicable diseases. This will entail an additional payment of approximately R11 million per year to local authorities.

In terms of the Financial Relations Amendment Act of 1968, provincial authorities are authorized to levy licence fees with regard to commercial businesses and occupations, with a view to transferring to local authorities that part of the licence revenue relating to the latter’s areas of jurisdiction. This provision of the Act has not yet been applied, but the Government intends applying it from the year 1971-72. This will give local authorities, at the expense of the Central Government, approximately R4 million per annum additionally.

The Government accepts in principle the finding of the Committee that no justification exists for the payment of property rates by the Government or by Provincial Administrations. Nevertheless, it does appear that certain municipalities that have a very high proportion of government to other property in their areas of jurisdiction, are put in a less favourable financial position. The Government has accordingly decided to grant a certain measure of relief to such municipalities by compensating them with regard to one-third of the net calculated municipal property rates on government property amounting to more than 10 per cent of the value of all property within the municipal area. It is estimated that an additional R1.9 million in total will be made available to some 30 local authorities during 1971-72, i.e. in addition to the sums of R400 000 and R100 000 already paid to Pretoria and Cape Town respectively.

A number of smaller concessions to local authorities were recommended by the committee and accepted by the Government. The total cost of these smaller recommendations to the Exchequer is difficult to determine, but it will not exceed R1 million.

The total additional benefits to local authorities therefore amount to R8.4 million. of which R4.4 million will be provided in the Supplementary Estimates and R4 million (i.e. with regard to trade licences) will have to be subtracted from the Government Revenue for 1971-72.

I hope that these additional benefits, together with the considerable assistance that they already receive from the central and provincial authorities, will assist our local authorities to overcome their financial problems. I realize however that in our rapidly growing economy certain new conditions will arise and have already arisen that may create difficult problems for local authorities, and the Government is prepared to give further attention to these problems.

Social Pensions

In the economic conditions I have outlined earlier, any proposals for additional expenditure will of course have to be considered with great circumspection. I feel however that the House will agree with me that additional assistance to pensioners should not be withheld. Confucius himself said: “Those who pay no tribute to the aged—ill fortune ever fell upon their heads”.

I propose therefore that the basic social pensions and allowances for Whites be raised by R3 per month from 1st April 1971, and that settlers’ allowances be adjusted accordingly. With regard to children’s allowances payable in terms of the Children’s Act, an increase of R1 per month is proposed. Social pensions and allowances in South-West Africa will be bought into line with those in the Republic.

In consequence of the large increase in property values during recent years, many persons have been unable to qualify for social pensions as a result of the increased value of their property. This caused a measure of hardship and the principle has already been accepted in 1967 that, in the evaluation of applications for social pensions, the present value of fixed property should be reduced by 25 per cent. Since then property values have risen further and it is now proposed to reduce property values by 40 per cent (instead of 25 per cent) for this purpose.

For war pensioners a measure of relief is also justified and it is proposed to raise the bonus payable to these pensioners from 12½ per cent to 17½ per cent. The different age scales for childrens’ allowances in terms of the War Pensions Act will also be abolished and these allowances will henceforth be adjusted to the highest tariff, i.e. that for the highest age group.

It happens occasionally that a social pensioner suffers a financial disadvantage should he or she contract a marriage, as a result of the possessions of the spouse. It is proposed to continue to pay the pension to these persons after remarriage in those cases where they would otherwise be prejudiced by the assets of the spouse.

An attendant’s allowance of R10 per month is paid automatically to pensioners who have reached the age of 90 years. I propose that this age limit be reduced to 85. Persons under 85 will as now be able on merit to qualify for such an allowance.

At present, the earnings of a person reaching the age of 70 years are left out of account in applying the means test, i.e. five years after a man is eligible to be considered for an old age pension. Since a woman becomes eligible for a pension at 60 years, however, it appears fair to leave out of account the woman’s income from earnings on reaching 65 years, and I propose accordingly.

It is further proposed that, in applying the means test, the scale relating to usufruct be brought into line with other scales relating to assets, by leaving out of account the first R4 800 (instead of R3 600) of the unencumbered value of assets.

In order to encourage elderly persons who are still active to make a contribution to the national economy, a supplementary allowance is paid to persons to whom a pension is granted for the first time after they have passed the prescribed age by at least one year. The allowance varies from R48 to R120 per year and in order further to strengthen this incentive it is proposed to raise these amounts by R12.

In applying the means test for maintenance and family allowances, the first R480 of a married and R240 of a single person’s earnings is left out of account. Under present conditions, it would be more realistic to raise these amounts to R600 and R300 respectively in the case of maintenance allowances, and from R48 per child to R60 per child in the case of family allowances. I propose accordingly.

Furthermore, it has been decided to raise the per capita allowance to children’s homes and foster parents by R2 per month, to raise the places of safety allowances to private persons as well as children’s homes to 75c per day, and to raise the subsidy on the salaries of children’s home staff from R480 to R672, from R300 to R420 and from R120 to R186 per annum respectively.

The above-mentioned proposals relate to Whites, but in most cases similar concessions to non-Whites at the applicable scales are proposed.

In conclusion, it has been decided to raise widows’ pneumoconiosis pensions from R50 to R60 per month, but the cost of this compensation will be borne by the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund, on condition that the old age pensions of those amongst them who now receive also old age pensions will be discontinued, and that those who now receive more than R60 per month by way of pneumoconiosis compensation and old age pension, will have their positions protected.

The cost to the Exchequer of all these concessions, all of which enter into force on 1st April 1971, is estimated at R14.8 million.

Civil Pensions

I feel that relief to civil pensioners is also justified, especially to those who gave the State faithful service years ago and whose pensions have not kept pace with the rising cost of living. The concessions I should like to recommend in this respect are the following—

1. (1) abolition of the means test in the calculation of temporary supplementary allowances;
2. (2) an increase in minimum pensions from R104 to R112 per month (or from R52 to R56 per month for single persons);
3. (3) an increase in bonuses as follows:

Date of commencement of pension—

Before 1.10.1953: from 35, 40 and 45 per cent to 100 per cent;

1.10.1953 to 30.9.1958: from 30 per cent to 80 per cent;

1.10.1958 to 30.9.1962: from 20 per cent to 60 per cent;

1.10.1962 to 30.9.1965: from 15 per cent to 40 per cent;

1.10.1965 to 30.9.1968: from 10 per cent to 30 per cent;

1.10.1968 to 30.9.1969: from 5 per cent to 15 per cent;

1.10.1969 to 30.9.1970: from nil to 10 per cent.

These concessions will cost approximately R9.1 million per year, of which, however, R7.5 million will be borne by the Pension Funds and R0.4 million by the Post Office; the remainder of R1.2 million will be provided for in the Supplementary Estimates.

Housing

I am happy to be able to announce that certain concessions with regard to sub-economic and economic housing schemes will be introduced.

Considerable improvements in their remuneration and other employment benefits have lately caused many White families who would previously have qualified for it, to forego the benefit of sub-economic housing with an income limit of R100 per month in terms of the Housing Act. Cost-of-living conditions however justify that they should as far as possible be returned to the category qualifying for sub-economic housing and the new income limit therefore now becomes R130 per month. The applicable differentiated rent scales calculated at a 3 per cent rate of interest for the income group from R100 to R130 per month and 5 per cent for the group from R130 to R160 are being discontinued. The first-mentioned group will henceforth enjoy the benefit of full sub-economic assistance. The second group from R130 to R160 will then be treated as a transitional group between the sub-economic and full economic groups with an additional benefit that the rent scale in their case will be calculated at 3½ per cent only, instead of at 5 per cent as at present. It is estimated that these adjustments will allow an additional 23 000 families to qualify for sub-economic housing benefits and that approximately 30 000 families will qualify for the reduction of the interest rate levy from 5 per cent to 3½ per cent. Concessions are also being made with regard to income groups qualifying for economic housing in order that, for example, a family with more than four dependent children and with a monthly income of up to and including R400 will henceforth still qualify for housing in terms of the Housing Act.

My colleague, the Minister of Community Development, will make known full details of these concessions. The concessions will entail no immediate additional cost for the Exchequer.

Salaries of University Staff

In accordance with the recent increase in Public Service salaries, an increase in University salaries is now also necessary. A sum of R2 million has already been included in the estimates for this purpose, but it now appears that the additional cost will be R3.75 million; a further R1.75 million will accordingly be provided in the Supplementary Estimates.

Interest subsidies

In a statement issued last night, the Governor of the Reserve Bank announced the raising of the Bank’s official discount rate and of its pattern of interest rates for Government Stocks. The first-mentioned is a technical adjustment and, as the Governor explained, it need not give rise to an increase in the lending rates of banks. Certain rates of interest are, however, tied to the Bank rate, amongst them the rate on Land Bank bills held by commercial banks and the rate on short-term notes issued by the Industrial Development Corporation in connection with the scheme to finance the export of capital goods. In order not to penalize agriculture and the export trade, I feel that it is undesirable for the rates on these two kinds of loans to be raised, and the Government will accordingly cover any consequential increase by way of a subsidy. The cost should not exceed R1 million in 1971-’72.

Assistance to the Wool Industry

I have already made mention of the difficult situation in which the wool industry finds itself, and the House will share my sympathy with the wool growers as well as my hope that an improvement will soon occur. Through its stabilization scheme the Wool Commission helped to effect a measure of stability in the local wool market, but the Commission’s funds are becoming depleted and Government help is now urgently necessary. A sum of R7 million will be provided in the Supplementary Estimates for this purpose.

After including all the above-mentioned sums, the total expenditure on Revenue Account for the 1971-’72 financial year amounts to R2 478.9 million. Because of the new basis of Provincial subsidies and the taking over of Provincial income tax, this figure is naturally not at all comparable with the expenditure in previous financial years.

South-West Africa Account, 1971-’72

Expenditure from the South-West Africa Account for the 1971-’72 financial year is estimated at R70.5 million, compared with R62 million for the current year. In addition, provision needs to be made for a transfer of R27.1 million to the Territorial Fund. The expected revenue of the South-West Africa Account shows a decline of R5.6 million to R70.3 million, mainly as a result of lower diamond sales. There is accordingly a deficit of R27.3 million, of which only R8.4 million can be covered from the credit balance on the Account. This state of affairs is unsatisfactory and I feel that the whole position of the Account requires further investigation. Meanwhile the remaining deficit of R18.9 million has to be found.

Companies in South-West Africa pay income tax at a rate of only 33⅓ per cent against 40 per cent in the Republic. On readjustment, it was held in prospect that the rate in South-West Africa would gradually be raised to the rate in the Republic, and I believe that an increase to 35 per cent is now justified. This will yield an additional R1 million. The remainder of the deficit, namely R17.9 million, will have to be covered out of the Republic’s Revenue Account

Loan Account, 1971-’72

The printed Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Account for 1071-’7? make provision for a sum of R830.4 million. Compared with a revised figure of R703.7 million for 1970-71.

The high figure for 1971-72—which would have been still considerably higher if my colleagues had not co-operated in pruning the sums requested—includes R21.4 million with regard to a gold payment that has to be made to the International Monetary Fund as a result of an increase in South Africa’s quota in the Fund. It also includes R13 million with regard to the uranium enrichment project at Pelindaba.

Apart from these two exceptional items, there is a wide range of increases relating to basic infrastructure services. There is for example an increase of R18 million in the provision for the Railways Administration and of R3 million for loans to the Post Office for telecommunications development.

Under the Vote Water Affairs R101.5 million is requested—R5.7 million more than in the current financial year. Confucius certainly said with justification: “The wise man finds joy in water”, but in South Africa it remains a very costly item.

Share capital in the Industrial Development Corporation requires an additional R4.5 million for electricity generation in South-West Africa. The Department of Community Development asks an additional R8.6 million. There is a large increase (R20 million) in the provision for the South African Bantu Trust Fund for homelands development. Under the Vote National Education there is an increase of R4.5 million for loans to education establishments.

In addition to the sums in the printed Estimates I have to request additional provision for the Land Bank, in order to enable it in these times of capital scarcity to fulfil its tasks, without unnecessarily raising its lending rates. A State loan of R25 million is necessary, of which R15 million at normal rates for the erection of bulk grain storage by co-operatives and R10 million at the special rate of 2 per cent per annum for the Land Bank’s normal loans to farmers.

The total expenditure on Loan Account therefore amounts to R855.4 million.

In addition to that, provision must be made for the repayment of foreign loans to a sum of R76.1 million and of local loans and sundry items to a sum of R244.1 million-—a grand total therefore of R1 175.6 million.

The following sums are expected to be available to Loan Account to cover this expenditure:

The balance of R503.7 million must consequently be found out of new internal and foreign loans, loan levies and a transfer from Revenue Account.

The importance of thrift in our struggle against inflation can scarcely be over-emphasized, and I feel that the time has again arrived to promote saving in general and, in particular, to make the State savings media more popular. I have already made mention of the inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of Mr. L. V. Lodder, the former Secretary to the Treasury, which inquired into this matter. The committee’s report is a departmental document and will not be published, but it contains valuable recommendations of which the following are the most important:

1. (1) That the Post Office Savings Bank be retained and that the issue of Post Office Savings Bank Certificates as well as National Savings Certificates be continued, but that the system be improved in certain respects in order to make it more attractive to the private investor;
2. (2) That a Premium Bond be offered by the State to private investors with a minimum investment of R500, a term of 7 years, a dividend payment of 6½ per cent per year for the first two years, 7½ per cent for the following three years and 8 per cent for the final two years, and with a bonus of 2 per cent payable if the bond is not redeemed before the end of the 5th year, or 4½ per cent if redeemed at the end of the seventh year. The bond must be redeemable after one month’s notice but not during the first year. The committee recommended further that the tax status of these bonds should be in accordance with the Government’s decision in connection with the relevant recommendations of the Franzsen Commission.

The Government accepts these recommendations of the Lodder Committee in principle. Further consideration will however have to be given to the exact conditions of the so-called premium bond (which, in contrast to certain overseas premium bonds, will contain no element of gambling), and an announcement will be made in the near future. Meanwhile, the issue of the existing and attractive Bonus bonds will continue.

I feel that with the help of a well-planned savings campaign and with attractive investment avenues the State could draw considerable sums from the individual investor. For the 1971-’72 financial year I estimate this sum at R80 million.

Our receipts with regard to ordinary local stocks in the past year were particularly disappointing. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, in his statement to which I have already referred, announced the raising of the Bank’s pattern of interest rates by 1 per cent on the short term and ½ per cent on the long term. With these favourable terms, and especially if we succeed in curbing the overheating in our economy, I expect that we may have considerably greater success in the year that lies ahead, and I estimate the net receipts of local stocks (i.e. after conversion of loans redeemed during the year) at R90 million.

Excessive use of foreign loans is not desirable when inflation is not yet under control. Our credit abroad is however good and while contending with this great capital programme, we shall need to utilize these foreign sources to a considerable extent. I estimate our net foreign loans during 1971-72 at R150 million.

This still leaves a deficit on Loan Account of R183.7 million, that has to be covered from loan levies and from a transfer from Revenue Account.

Before dealing with this problem, I shall first revert to the financing of Revenue Account.

Revenue, 1971-’72

Calculating revenue for the 1971-’72 financial year is made difficult by several factors, such as for example uncertainty connected with the future course of consumption expenditure and of the share and property markets, and particularly with the unexpected downturn of companies’ provisional tax since the final months of 1970. Having regard to this downward tendency and also to the fact that certain tax concessions announced in my previous budget will only show their full effect in the 1971-’72 financial year, it would not be realistic to put the increase in yield on income tax on companies at more than 8 per cent, but bearing in mind recent increases in salaries and wages a considerably greater increase in the yield on individual income tax is to be expected. On these and other assumptions total revenue for 1971-72 is estimated at R2183.5 million.

Comprehensive Scale of Income Tax on Individuals

This estimate does not take account of the taking over of the Provincial income and personal tax. In their First Report the Franzsen Commission recommended a comprehensive scale of taxation together with a system of income abatements with regard to children and dependents instead of the existing system of tax rebates. For various reasons (particularly the introduction of income abatements of R1 000 for married and R600 for unmarried persons) the Commission’s proposals cannot be applied without qualification, but another tax scale has been designed by my department that is very close to the present scale, except that persons in the lower income group according to the scale pay slightly less tax and those in the higher income group slightly more than at present. The deduction from income that will be allowed with regard to children, amounts to R450 per child plus an additional R100 for the third and each successive child, instead of the existing tax rebate of R35 per child with a further R10 for each child after the the second. Income abatements for dependents and insurance premiums are applied on a similar basis, but to obviate that t(?e higher income group receives too great a benefit, the total of all abatements will be reduced by R2 for every R10 by which the taxable income exceeds R5 000. Furthermore, the present surcharge of 5 per cent will then become applicable only when the basic tax is R150 or more (instead of the previous figure of R100.) In most cases, the ordinary man will find that his tax according to the new scale differs very little from his present tax.

Furthermore, it is intended in future to pay over to the Exchequer the portion of the income tax on companies (12½ per cent) that is at present paid over directly to the Provinces and to raise the Provincial subsidies accordingly.

Total Government revenue for 1971-72 is expected in terms of these changes to increase by R229.4 million, i.e. to R2 412.9 million.

Of this sum R4 million has to be subtracted in respect of trade licences which, as I have already said, will henceforth be transferred to the Provinces for disbursement to local authorities. If the opening balance on Revenue Account (R39.7 million) is taken into consideration, the net sum available is then R2 448.6 million. As I mentioned earlier the expected expenditure on Revenue Account is R2 478.9 million. plus the deficit of R17.9 million on South-West Africa Account. An additional R48.2 million is therefore needed on Revenue Account, and provision must also be made to cover the deficit of R183.7 million on Loan Account.

Before I discuss methods of finding the necessary money, I should first like to deal with certain general taxation matters as well as a few tax concessions.

General taxation proposals of the Franzsen Commission

In their Second Report the Franzsen Commission reviewed several taxation matters and made valuable recommendations. I could not possibly deal with all these recommendations this afternoon but I should nevertheless like to refer to some of the most important findings.

International Aspects of Taxation

There are today few countries which, like South Africa, limit their income tax mainly to income from a local source. Over the past few years there has been a considerable increase in the flow of income from abroad to residents of the Republic and the Commission recommended that tax be levied henceforth on all income of South African residents, irrespective of source.

The Commission further recommends than an income tax be introduced on branch profits, dividends, royalties, management fees and payments for expertise accruing to non-residents, and that in double taxation agreements more favourable conditions affecting taxation on this type of income be negotiated.

The Government accepts these recommendations in principle. There are however certain facets that require further study before the necessary legal amendments are effected, and my department is giving attention to these.

The Commission further recommended that certain foreign loans entered into for long term industrial development, that are subject to the condition that the South African borrower pays the agreed interest net after tax, and that are approved for this purpose by the Minister, be exempted from the non-residents’ tax on interest. This recommendation is in the interest of the development of our economy and I accept it.

Tax on fringe benefits

The Commission is concerned about the increasing tendency of using fringe benefits as a means of avoiding the payment of tax, and proposes several legal amendments that are aimed at combating this form of tax avoidance. I wholly agree with the Commission’s general point of view and I have instructed my Department further to investigate the extent of these practices and to determine which abuses are involved in this connection. My Department is of the opinion that it will be able to act effectively against any abuses with existing powers and no legislation is envisaged at present.

Tax on undistributed profits

The Commission recommends that the distinction between public and private companies be abolished and that a uniform tax on undistributed profits on all companies be introduced, but that a plough-back of 45 per cent in respect of the source profits and 25 per cent in respect of dividend receipts be allowed.

I concur with this recommendation that the source profits of all companies henceforth be brought into the net. Despite the simplification this will entail, I fear however that the Commission’s recommendation in its present form may facilitate tax avoidance since the big investor will have his share investments held by a private company and will be able to hoard 25 per cent of his dividends in that company without tax being paid on it.

My proposal is, therefore, that source profits and dividends received from all companies be made subject to the tax and that a plough-back of 45 per cent of source profits be allowed in all cases, but that with regard to dividends received a plough-back of 25 per cent be allowed to public companies only.

The scale of the tax will remain 25 per cent and the cost price of machinery and plant used directly in a manufacturing process will as at present be allowed as a deduction from distributable income. Furthermore, distributable income will be reduced by expenditure (to a maximum of 50 per cent of distributable income) incurred by a company, whether directly, or indirectly by means of investment in another company, with regard to the prospecting and exploration of minerals. The exemption applicable at present in cases where a company has not accumulated reserves to an amount of R100 000, will be curtailed to a reserve of R20 000.

The additional revenue as a result of this change is difficult to determine but will probably be relatively small in the 1971-’72 financial year.

Tax on lump sum payments

The Commission proposed certain concessions relating to the taxation of lump sum payments payable out of pension, provident and retirement annuity funds. Considering the rise in salaries, in contributions and in annuities since the prescribed limits were determined, I agree with the Commission that the maximum exempted portion of such lump sum payments be raided by 50 per cent. Similarly, the minimum exemption limits of R40 000 and R10 000 accruing respectively from provident and retirement annuity funds on death or retirement, are increased by 50 per cent. The present maximum allowable deduction of R2 000 per year with regard to contributions to retirement annuity funds is however being maintained in accordance with the Commission’s recommendation.

In order to obviate discrimination arising against the employee receiving his retirement benefit directly from his employer, the maximum exemption in this case is also raised by 50 per cent, namely from R6 000 to R9 000.

The loss of revenue as a result of these concessions is estimated at R1.4 million.

Estate Duty

At present, estate duty is calculated on the value of an estate before deducting rebates, and tax on the total sum of the rebates is then calculated and subtracted from the first sum. The Commission recommends that this system be replaced by a more intelligible system where the rebates are deducted from the value of the estate in order to determine the sum on which estate duty is calculated. I accept this recommendation.

Furthermore the Commission recommends—

1. (1) that the deduction for each child be raised from R12 500 to R25 000; and
2. (2) that greater relief be granted in cases of rapid succession.

These recommendations are also accepted.

The Commission further proposes that the existing exemption of a maximum of R25 000 from the proceeds of insurance policies and certain stocks and bonds be raised to a maximum of R50 000. I accept this recommendation, with the reservation however that not more than R25 000 in the form of insurance policies be exempted.

Finally, the Commission recommends a new and more progressive scale of tax, rising up to a maximum marginal rate of 40 per cent (instead of the present 25 per cent). I feel that this maximum is too high for South Africa and my Department has drawn up a new scale rising up to a maximum marginal rate of 35 per cent. The new scale has the effect that smaller estates will pay a little more than under the Commission’s proposals, but considerably less than under the present scale. Only estates of R250 000 or more (considerably more where there is a surviving spouse and children) will pay more than under the present scale.

All these changes in the estate duty are expected to cost approximately R1.5 million during 1971-’72, though the loss in later years could be slightly more. These losses affect Loan Account and the sum has already been subtracted from the expected receipts that I have mentioned for this Account.

Long term insurance

I now turn to a recommendation of the Commission that may yield a little additional revenue for the Exchequer. Long term insurers are at present taxed on 30 per cent of their gross adjusted investment income, consisting mainly of rent, interest and two-thirds of the dividends received. The Commission has found that the present basis strongly stimulates investment in equities as against particularly investment in fixed interest-bearing stocks. There is also a tendency with some companies to hold investments in subsidiaries; the management fees received from such subsidiaries are not at present included in investment income. The Commission is further of the opinion that the factor of 30 per cent in the present situation of high interest rates is on the low side. The Commission does not now propose a raising of the 30 per cent factor, but recommends that the basis “investment income” be broadened by the inclusion of 100 per cent of dividends received, as well as management and secretarial fees received from subsidiaries and other companies in which at least 10 per cent of the ordinary shares are owned.

I accept this recommendation. The expected additional income during the 1971-’ 72 financial year is R2.5 million.

Other recommendations of the Commission, also those in its Third Report, are still being considered.

Tax Concessions to Industries in Border Areas and Homelands

Though it must be one of the objectives of this Budget to curb excessive consumption expenditure, it is by no means the intention to restrain production; on the contrary, we should endeavour to stimulate production and the formation of productive capacity, especially in industry. As Confucius said: “Let the producers be many, and the consumers few. Let there be activity in the production, and economy in the expenditure. The wealth will then always be sufficient”.

I expressed the hope earlier that the report of the Riekert committee could be an important incentive to industry. The report has not yet been submitted, but I have seen the committee’s tax proposals and I accept these proposals in principle.

The committee is of the opinion that the concessions to industrialists who decentralize should be granted mainly in the form of cash expense recovery grants, interest subsidies and tax holidays. The committee recommends that in order to give the necessary encouragement for industrial decentralization, the concessions should be sufficient to compensate the industrialists’ calculable cost disadvantage plus a measure of additional concessions with regard to non-calculable cost disadvantages as an additional incentive. The extent of the concessions will generally be greater in the more distant border areas and in the homelands.

The concessions that the committee recommends, are then briefly the following—

1. (1) A cash expense recovery grant to compensate the industrialist for his expenses in connection with the physical moving of his industrial equipment and personnel.
2. (2) Loans for land, buildings, machinery and working capital—in appropriate cases at low rates of interest.
3. (3) A tax holiday, i.e. a tax exemption up to a fixed sum. This concession should be utilized within seven years, but in deserving cases this period could be extended. (In the homelands a period of 10 years is recommended). The committee further proposes, that these concessions may, within certain limits, be earned by the main enterprise and/ or other branches of the same company; in the homelands they may be earned by the controlling company where the homeland enterprise is a wholly-owned subsidiary of that subsidiary of that company.
4. (4) Loans at low rates of interest for the housing of key White personnel.
5. (5) The existing railway rate and harbour dues rebates as well as the tender preference should be retained.

Furthermore the committee recommends that as far as possible a schedule be prepared indicating the extent of the concessions for the different growth points and the different industries.

In many areas the cost disadvantages are virtually of a permanent nature and the committee recommends that in such cases a continued income tax concession be granted on a differentiated basis.

The committee emphasizes the necessity of promptness in the consideration of applications and proposes certain measures to obviate delays.

These recommendations will receive urgent attention and will be implemented as speedily and as far as possible. I trust that these and other proposals of the committee will not only stimulate the policy of decentralization, but will also remove the uncertainties that to some extent retard industrial development in metropolitan areas.

Industrial Buildings

A depreciation allowance of 2 per cent per annum is allowed at present in respect of certain industrial buildings the erection of which commenced on or after 25th March, 1959 and in respect of improvements to such buildings. Improvements to other industrial buildings, i.e. buildings erected before the date mentioned, do not qualify for the allowance. It is proposed that the latter improvements should also qualify for the allowance if those improvements commence on or after 1st April, 1971. To qualify for the allowance the improvements have to be effected in order to raise or improve the industrial capacity. The loss of revenue in 1971-72 will probably be small.

Concessions to Aged Taxpayers

It gives me pleasure to propose some concessions to aged persons in the lower income groups.

A rebate for medical expenses is allowed to all taxpayers, irrespective of whether they incurred the expenses or not. The sum is R150 for married and R75 for unmarried persons. Considering the rise in medical costs and the fact that older persons as a rule have more expenses of this kind, I propose that for persons above 60 years the rebate be raised to R250 for married and R125 for unmarried persons.

A married person above the age of 60 years and whose taxable income does not exceed R1 500 is at present not liable for tax, but as soon as his income exceeds R1 500, he loses the benefit. With the raising of the rebate for medical expenses liability will now only commence at R1 600. Further, to obviate that the benefit disappears all at once, as at present, when the R1 600 limit is exceeded, I propose that a decreasing rebate which will disappear only at R5 000, be introduced. For single persons the liability notch will be raised from R1 000 to R1 075 and the decreasing rebate will disappear at R4 500.

Furthermore I propose that persons above the age of 70 years whose income does not exceed R5 000, be exempted from the payment of loan levy.

These concessions to aged persons will entail an estimated loss of R300 000.

The net result of all the changes I have mentioned, is that we still need to find some R47.4 million for Revenue Account and another R183.7 million for Loan Account.

Customs and Excise Duties

Since excessive consumption expenditure is responsible for many of our inflationary problems, and since the sales duty on many articles has been increased recently, excise duties also need to be reviewed.

Petrol and Diesel Oil

As already announced by my colleague the Minister of Economic Affairs, the customs and excise duties on petrol, diesel oil, kerosene and residue fuel oil are being raised by 1.363c per gallon. This increase is applicable in cases where the full customs and excise duties are paid. Where these products are, therefore, delivered under rebate of duty, for example diesel oil and kerosene for agricultural purposes and kerosene for light and heating purposes, the effective duties are not increased. The increases will yield approximately R15 million by way of additional revenue for the financial year 1971-72.

The reason for this increase is exclusively to strengthen the National Road Fund in order to enable it to finance the urgent need for improved national roads. In fact, an additional sum equal to 2c per gallon or approximately R22.5 million will be transferred to the Road Fund, so that the Exchequer will actually have to find an additional R7.5 million from general revenue.

Beer

The consumption of beer has risen considerably during recent years and I am of the opinion that the product is able to bear an increased tax. I propose that the duty on all beer (imported as well as local) be increased by 22c per gallon or approximately 1.8c per pint. The retail price of beer should not rise by more than 2c per pint and I expect that manufacturers will carefully consider the consumer in determining the increased price of beer in containers of other sizes. The estimated additional income for the following year amounts to R12.2 million.

Wine

Although the consumption of wine has increased more slowly during recent years, it is felt that the consumer of fortified wine and sparkling wine is able to make a contribution. I propose therefore that the customs duty as well as the excise duty on fortified wine and sparkling wine be increased by 11c and 22c per gallon respectively. The excise duty on unfortified wine remains unchanged, but the customs duty on the imported article is being increased by 11c per gallon. The additional revenue from this source is estimated at approximately R1.4 million for the financial year 1971-’72.

Spirits

Consumption of spirits has also increased substantially during the past few years and the consumer of brandy, gin, whisky and other spirituous beverages must also be expected to make a contribution together with the consumers of beer and wine. I propose accordingly that the customs and excise duties on spirits be raised by 300c per gallon i.e. approximately 1.8c per tot. The retail prices of local as well as imported spirits should not rise by more than 2c per tot. The additional revenue for the next financial year will be R42 million.

Tobacco

In the present situation the smoker cannot expect to escape my attention. I propose that the stamp duty on locally manufactured as well as on imported cigarettes be increased by 1c per 10 cigarettes, the stamp duty on cigarette tobacco by lc per 2 oz., on cigars (locally manufactured as well as imported) by 20c per lb., the excise duty on pipe tobacco by 10 per cent ad valorem and the customs duty on pipe tobacco by 10 per cent ad valorem or 15½c per lb. whichever is the greater. These increases should yield an additional R18.6 million.

Sales duties

Numerous representations concerning the sales duty on photographic equipment have been received and it has been decided after an inquiry, in co-operation with the industry, to exclude certain equipment such as for example film processing machines from the sales duty. It is proposed that the sales duty on certain cameras and projectors for use with films of a width of 8 mm. and less and certain other photographic equipment be increased from 25 per cent to 30 per cent and that a sales duty of 30 per cent be levied on assembled lenses for cameras and of 15 per cent on photographic film. Since separate statistics are not available, it is not possible to make an estimate of the loss of revenue that will be caused by the concessions or of the additional revenue that will be obtained from the sales duty on film and lenses for cameras and on the increased sales duty on other photographic equipment. It is expected, however, that the loss of revenue and the additional revenue will be approximately equal.

All the changes in the customs, excise and sales duties and the new sales duties on film and lenses that I have announced, enter into force immediately and are applicable to the goods concerned that have not yet at this moment been entered for domestic consumption. Details concerning the increased and new sales duties with regard to photographic equipment are obtainable from the nearest Controller of Customs and Excise.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of section 58 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, I now lay upon the Table for consideration by the House, the formal taxation proposals with regard to customs, excise and sales duties.

I trust that the retail prices of all the goods affected by the proposals will be raised by no more than is justified by the increased duties. Since all the increased duties are levied at the import manufacturing stage, there is no justification for other merchants immediately to increase the prices of goods purchased at the old rates of duty. I therefore appeal to these merchants to sell stocks on which the old rates of duty were paid at the ruling prices and to adjust their prices only when new stocks to which the increased duties have been added are received. The Department of Commerce will keep a watch on the situation.

Cigarette prices are frozen in terms of the Price Control Regulations and merchants will therefore not be able to raise their prices in order to recover the increased excise duty before the Price Controller has amended the existing price freeze by way of a Government Notice. Since stocks in the trade are sufficient for at least one week’s normal consumption, the necessary amendment to the existing price freeze will not be published before 8th April.

The net additional revenue for the Exchequer from these customs and excise duty increases, after allowing for the transfer of the additional petrol duty to the National Roads Fund (R22.5 million) and after deducting the portion paid over to the South-West Africa Account (R2.2 million), amounts to R64.5 million.

Income Tax and Loan Levies Individuals

The necessity of curbing consumption makes a small rise in the income tax on individuals inevitable. I propose accordingly that the existing 5 per cent surcharge on this tax be raised to 10 per cent, which will yield approximately R22 million in 1971-72.

An additional loan levy on individuals is also justified. The existing loan levy of 10 per cent on the broadened base (i.e. on the comprehensive scale which includes the old Provincial scales) will yield approximately R44.5 million. I now propose a further loan levy, but at a sliding scale that will increase as income rises. Henceforth the loan levy will be payable only where the basic tax according to the new comprehensive scale is R150 or more (instead of R100 in terms of the old scale). In addition to the existing 10 per cent loan levy individuals paying between R150 and R399 basic tax, will have to pay an additional loan levy of 2½ per cent of the tax, those between R400 and R749 an additional 4 per cent, those between R750 and R1 499 an additional 6 per cent, those between R1 500 and R4 999 an additional 8 per cent, and those paying R5 000 or more, an additional 10 per cent. The new levy is expected to yield R22.5 million in 1971-’72.

When I raised the loan levy in August last year, deductions from salaries and wages under the pay-as-you-earn-system were increased more than proportionately in order to collect the required sum as far as possible within the 1970-’71 financial year. The collection of the additional surcharge and the additional loan levy that I have now introduced, can however be spread over a longer period, and the average salary and wage earner will find that his weekly or monthly deductions do not differ much from the present deductions, in other words the money he takes home at the end of the week or month, remains substantially unchanged.

Companies

The present loan levy on companies is expected to yield R28.5 million during 1971-’72.

I hesitate to lay additional burdens on companies, but in the present circumstances this is inevitable. I therefore propose a further loan levy of 5 per cent on the taxes payable by all companies excepting gold and diamond mining companies. This additional levy should yield R36 million in 1971-’72.

In its Third Report the Franzsen Commission recommended that the basis be broadened upon which the levy on companies is calculated. The object of this recommendation is to enable the discus during inflationary times to absorb a greater portion of the liquidity of the company sector. The basis recommended by the Commission, is taxable income plus dividend receipts plus capital gains. Though I do not wish now to accept the Commission’s proposal in its present form, I am of the opinion that a loan levy of 7½ per cent of the dividend receipts of companies is justified in the present situation and I propose accordingly. Receipts for 1971-72 are estimated at approximately R20 million.

Honourable members will have noted in this budget, as in the budget of 1969, how much I have relied upon the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission, and there are many recommendations still receiving the attention of the authorities. I should like to express the Government’s appreciation of the particularly fruitful work of Dr. Franzsen and his colleagues and for the promptness with which they completed their difficult task.

Conclusion

The additional revenue from the increased customs and excise duties and the surcharge on individual income tax amounts to R86.5 million. The deficit we had to cover on Revenue Account was R47.4 million; there will in consequence be a surplus of R39.1 million available for transfer to Loan Account.

The yield of the different loan levies is estimated at R151.5 million. Together with the surplus of R39.1 million mentioned on Revenue Account, there is then R190.6 million available for Loan Account, which is R6.9 million more than is required to cover the deficit of R183.7 million on the latter Account.

On the cash basis, the total estimated expenditure on Revenue and Loan Accounts for the 1971-’72 year is R3 352.2m million. Total receipts (with the exclusion of loans) are expected to amount to R2 681.2 million. Loans must accordingly be found to cover the remainder of R671 million, together with loan repayments and sundry items of R320.2 million. We expect to take up loans to an amount of approximately R958.4 million, and it will be possible to cover the remainder of R32.8 million from the accumulated surplus on Revenue Account, leaving a credit balance of R6.9 million in the Account.

As usual, a summary of the Public Accounts on the conventional and cash bases is included here in the printed Budget Speech.

Conventional Basis.

Cash Basis.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget I have tabled this afternoon, covers a wide variety of matters and affects various facets of our national economy.

Firstly, it provides for the further strengthening of the infrastructure—transport, water, telecommunications and the like that are essential to our economic growth.

Secondly, it introduces a new financial era for the provinces, which should create a more stable and a more satisfactory basis for them as well as for the Government.

Thirdly, it offers certain concessions to local authorities that will I hope better enable them to perform their important tasks.

Fourthly, further tax and other concessions to industries in the decentralized areas are envisaged which should stimulate the economic development of the Bantu homelands and the border areas.

Fifthly, the tax reforms with which a beginning was made two years ago, are further pursued in this budget. In this way, our fiscal system will I hope be made more equitable and more efficient to adjust to our growing economy.

Sixthly, in this Budget, as in the past, care is taken of the interests of the less privileged, by way of greater pension benefits, additional concessions in respect of housing and tax concessions to the aged. Furthermore, provision is being made for assistance to those sectors of agriculture which have to contend with particular difficulties at present.

Finally, the Budget has been designed to combat inflation by curbing excessive consumption expenditure and encouraging saving. Imposing additional burdens is inevitable if we want to strengthen our urgently essential services without stimulating inflation. As I have already explained, the new tax deductions for the ordinary salary and wage earner will in any event not differ much from those applicable at present, and in themselves present no basis for new salary and wage demands.

The Budget is therefore not only a short-term plan for obtaining Public revenue and introducing short-term measures against inflation. Steps against inflation are indeed being taken, particularly if the monetary measures of the Reserve Bank, as newly adjusted by the Governor’s statement, are also taken into consideration. But the Budget is in reality much more; it creates the foundations for further stable growth in our national economy. Ten years ago our Republic came into being, and during that time of tension and uncertainty there were probably few who foresaw the phenomenal growth of our economy in the nineteen-sixties. Today there is in fact far more reason to face the future with confidence. With our rich natural resources, with our political and financial stability, with the dynamic qualities of our entrepreneurs and the sense of responsibility of our workers —with all these factors in mind I have no doubt that such confidence is fully justified.

Mr. Speaker, I now lay upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from—
   1. (a) Revenue Account [R.P. 2—-’71];
   2. (b) Loan Account [R.P. 3—’71];
   3. (c) Bantu Education Account [R.P. 4—’71]; and
   4. (d) South-West Africa Account [R.P. 5—’71]

during the year ending 31st March, 1972;

1. (2) Estimate of the Revenue to be received during the year ending 31st March, 1972 [R.P. 6—’71];
2. (3) Statistical Survey—Budget 1971-’72 (Printed) [W.P. B—71];
3. (4) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1970-’71 and 1971-72;
4. (5) Taxation Proposals;
5. (6) White Papers on Reports of the—
   1. (a) Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities (Printed) [W.P. C—71]; and
   2. (b) Commission of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government and the Provinces (Printed) [W.P. D— 71];
6. (7) Second and Third Reports of the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa [R.P. 86 and 87—70];
7. (8) Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government and the Provinces [R.P. 35—’64];
8. (9) Sixth interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities—Trading and other licences (Printed);
9. (10) Seventh interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities—

   Part 1—Housing; and

   Part II—Bantu Administration and Native Revenue Accounts (Printed);

10. (11) Eighth interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities—

    Part I—Property taxation and exemptions therefrom;

    Part II—Generation and conservation of capital resources by Local Authorities;

    Part III—Town planning and betterment;

    Part IV—Regional services and Metropolitan Control; and

    Part V—Provincial control of Local Authorities (Printed);

11. (12) Main Report (Part I: Urban Local Authorities) of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities (Printed); and
12. (13) Main Report (Part II: Divisional Councils) of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities (Printed).

REVENUE 1970/71

R1 000

REVENUE 1971/72

(On existing basis of taxation)

R1 000

Mr. Speaker, “With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink and with my folded arm for a pillow”—this expresses the views of South Africa on this Budget far better than any words I can use. Sir, the public of South Africa has been waiting for this Budget not only with interest but also with anxiety. That is one of the reasons why I asked the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister who is in charge of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation to transmit the hon. the Minister’s speech this afternoon in both official languages, and I want to express the appreciation of the people of South Africa of the fact that this was done.

But, Sir, after having listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech, the public of South Africa is left with a feeling of hopelessness and a feeling of frustration, because this is the sorriest Budget that has been introduced into this House for many years. [Laughter.] Sir, the laughter of hon. members opposite is indicative of how little they know of what is going on in South Africa and I will demonstrate this to these hon. Ministers. Sir, how many years ago is it since South Africa had a Budget which produced a deficit? Today we have a Budget with a deficit of R35.6 million. In the years gone by we built up reserves and today we have had to use all those reserves, except for a very small amount on Revenue Account, and we have had to take R180 million from our Stability Account to balance the loan account today.

The hon. the Minister says that he cannot understand why there has been an unexpected drop in the revenue from the provisional tax on companies. Sir, this explains what is going on in the country. Everybody but the Government and the laughing members opposite knows that company profits are on the decline, but hon. members opposite laugh; they find it amusing. This is what they think of South Africa and the prosperity of the country and its people. Sir, the chickens have come home to roost and the Government now stands fighting with its back to the wall. Never mind the concessions that have been given in certain sectors, concessions which we welcome and concessions for which we have pressed for years, the Government cannot disguise the seriousness of the situation, as presented by the hon. the Minister of Finance this afternoon.

You see, Sir, when all the verbiage is set aside we are left with one fundamental fact and that is that this Budget does nothing to tackle the underlying causes of our basic economic problems; that this Government persists in trying to impose an ideological system on an economy that cannot tolerate such a system. We have had another example this afternoon, Sir. We are using up all our reserves but we are providing another R20 million for the homelands. The Government may have learned that the economy will not bend to the Government’s will; I hope so, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister and his laughing colleagues that before the Government bends the economy, something will break and it will not be the economy; it will be the laughing members opposite. [Interjections.] the tragedy of the situation is that not only has the country to tolerate Ministers like the hon. the Minister of Tourism, who keeps on making inane remarks, but in the process of what the Government is doing the economy is being damaged and it is the public that is having to pay. And nothing demonstrates more clearly what the public has to pay than the Budget of the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

Since the hon. the Minister of Finance first shocked the country in February of this year with his policy of taxation by instalments, the public has been subjected to a non-stop attack on its pocket by this Government in every possible sector and on every possible ground. In point of fact, the attack did not start on 1st February, 1971; it started on 1st July, 1970.

After the election.

Yes, after the election, because on 1st July, 1970, the public was called upon to pay an additional R14.17 million in Post Office and telephone dues. In August, 1970, it was called upon to pay additional sales duty to the extent of R10 million. In August, 1970, there were increases in the loan levy of R12.5 million, and a loan levy on companies was instituted which produced another R15.5 million. Then we came to February, 1971, when an additional sales tax amounting to R47 million was instituted. On 10th March the Railway rates went up by R58.5 million. Then we had the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who did not want to be left out, and he put an additional tax on petrol which we were told was R13.6 million. Now it appears to be R15 million. And then the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had to be in on the game, so he will take another R48.89 million, as from tomorrow, and today the hon. the Minister has imposed additional taxation of approximately R170 million. So it means that in the nine months from 1st July, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, this Government has imposed additional taxes on the public of South Africa to the extent of plus-minus R400 million. [Interjections.] Why does the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation not laugh? Never in the history of South Africa have so many had to pay so much for the unbelievable, incompetent blundering of so few!

The hon. the Minister of Finance has to bear the responsibility, not only for his own actions but for the action: of his colleagues. After all, the hon. the Minister of Finance is the strategist of the Government’s financial policy. He is the man who has to give the green light to other Ministers when they want to impose taxation. The buck stops with the hon. the Minister of Finance, as Pres. Truman said it stopped with him. He cannot avoid the responsibility of R400 million worth of additional taxation. Mr. Speaker, a long, long time ago a misguided person referred to the Nationalist Cabinet as “the Cabinet of all the talents”.

That is a long time ago.

Yes, it is a long time ago. This is the Cabinet of all the taxes.

While the hon. the Minister is seeking cures for the country’s economic ills in fiscal and monetary measures, he has even at this late stage given no indication whatsoever that he will attempt to tackle the root causes of the problem. We warned the hon. the Minister, and we warned his predecessor year after year that the key to long-term economic well-being lies in the effective use of our entire labour force which is the only means of achieving optimum productivity.

We warned the Government and we warned the hon. the Minister that he will never solve his problems adequately unless he tackles the labour situation and stops relying entirely on trying to reduce consumption. But the private sector has gone a lot further. They have told the hon. the Minister quite bluntly that, if the Government continues its present narrow course, it will push South Africa over the precipice into an economic depression. These are not my words, but they are the words of the Sakekamer, which are no doubt well known to the hon. the Minister. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister has not reacted to the words of his colleagues and ex-colleagues.

We are grateful for a number of concessions in this Budget. We are grateful for the privileges and increases which will be given to pensioners. We are grateful for the change in the policy on housing. We are grateful for the adjustment in estate duty and lump sum payments under different insurance policies. These concessions are long overdue. They are matters which we have mentioned for many years. Particularly, we are grateful that the hon. the Minister has seen the light in regard to the loan levy for those people who are over 70. It is interesting to remember that in August of last year this laughing Government voted against the very proposal which the hon. the Minister is now introducing. What kind of government can one expect from such people?

However, we have additional taxation as well. I find another quotation of the hon. the Minister very apt indeed. He said: “A wise man finds joy in water.” I suppose, taking this as his text, the hon. the Minister decided to increase the taxation or excise duty on beer, wine and spirits. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister not to take the quotations he uses too literally. It does an enormous amount of damage, as he has done this afternoon.

There is additional taxation on tobacco, additional income tax, additional loan levies and, once again, an amendment in the sales duty. I do not know what the hon. the Minister is going to do when he stops amending the sales duties. That must keep him busy for an inordinate amount of time.

There is, however, much in the speech of the hon. thé Minister’s that requires a great deal of very, very careful study. Therefore I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister whether clause 5 (c) will have any effect on the workings of the mines in the homelands. I also asked him whether this was designed to affect the workers, who might be given employment in the homelands. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will be good enough to tell me what the position is in this regard.

Because circumstances differ from mine to mine and also because there are different classes of employees, the position throughout the years has been that the distinctions have had to be drawn. I shall give the hon. member an example. If there are regulations for overtime remuneration, they are not applicable, for example, to the management of the mines, to the staff working on the surface. Of course, this also applies, and quite rightly so, to mines in the homelands because, as the hon. member knows, this legislation is applicable to all mining activities in the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, when we discussed this Bill last night I raised with the hon. the Minister the question whether his remarks about the non-applicability of clause 5 (c) to mines which have agreements with trade unions, was in fact correct in respect of this particular subsection of the clause. I can quite see that it can be true in regard to the previous clause to which this type of agreement applies by the way of exemption from regulations. But the hon. Minister specifically referred to Crown Mines and said that in the case of such a mine which did have an agreement with the trade unions the regulations of clause 5 (c) would not be applicable. I do not quite see how this follows, in that the reference to the exemption where an agreement with a trade union exists only applies, as I see it, to wage conditions provided for in clause 4. I would be grateful for an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to how this applies to clause 5 (c).

Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening I undertook to have another look at this matter. Now I want to tell the hon. member that his view of the matter is partly correct. The position now is that where no agreement exists, regulations may be made applicable to a mine, regulations promulgated in terms of paragraphs (u) and (v) of section 12 (1), inserted by clause 5 (b) of the Bill. But, in the second place, and this is the point which worried the hon. member and about which he is partly correct, it may, in fact, also be made applicable to mines where agreements do exist. That is why I gave an undertaking yesterday evening to ascertain whether my view was correct. However, I want to reassure the hon. member in connection with the wording of this clause. It may be made applicable only where the conditions are less favourable than the minimum rates of remuneration and other conditions, in other words, if there is an agreement at a mine, and if such conditions are less favourable than those promulgated in general in terms of the new paragraphs (u) and (v) of section 12 (1). In such a case it may also be applicable. The trade unions asked for this and they are satisfied with this for the simple reason that it will assist them in their bargaining with a mining company in order to bargain for at least the minimum laid down in paragraphs (u) and (v). However, we foresee that this will be applied in very few cases, and perhaps only in cases where there is wilfulness. Therefore the hon. member may rest assured that this is a matter which is in the interests of the employees. In bargaining they will at least have the certainty that in their bargaining they cannot get less than the minimum already laid down in general in terms of paragraphs (u) and (v). This is the only reason why this is being inserted here, and this is also the only difference between the view of yesterday evening and the view I am now giving the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, could he tell this Committee how a minimum scale is arrived at? How is the minimum scale fixed for each one of these mines? What motivates the demand for a rise in the minimum scale and how do the people who work in such a mine come to ask for it? How does all this come about, how does the hon. the Minister receive information that miners are asking for these extra bonuses, better hours of employment, and so on?

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to refer once again to section 12 of the principal Act which is being amended by clause 5 of this Bill. During the Second Reading debate I referred to an apparent anomaly in that the sections which are being amended now, actually refer to the transport of explosives, etc., matters completely different from those referred to in clause 5, i.e. the question of wages It appears to me as if there is something wrong somewhere as regards the drafting of this clause. I should now like to have an explanation in this connection from the hon. the Minister, because those various other provisions actually have nothing to do with this provision, which deals with shifts and wages.

Mr. Chairman, I must beg the pardon of the hon. member for Etosha for the failure on my part to reply to that point yesterday evening. I made a note of it, but in my haste I turned that page over together with the previous one.

However, I want to say that in the meantime we have gone into the matter very thoroughly and have also discussed it with the law advisers. The reply they have given me is that the marginal notes next to clause 5 and clause 4 are indeed correct. What is being done here is simply to add four additional paragraphs, i.e. paragraphs (s), (t), (u), and (v) to section 12 (1) of the principal Act, so that regulations may be promulgated in connection with the matters concerned. Therefore, what is concerned here is the powers to promulgate regulations. The law advisers have given us an absolute assurance that these marginal notes are in fact correct.

As regards the question put by the hon. member for Rosettenville, I just want to say the position is that regulations will be promulgated in general. Now, an agreement may not be reached, but there may in fact be a need. How does a need arise? The employers approach the local representative of the Department and bring it to his attention. He is most probably already giving his attention to the matter. Then, according to the circumstances and according to their needs, this is applied to various people from time to time.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted last night, I was indicating what the grounds are for the statement that there is no scientific basis for chiropractic. I was dealing with the specific point that the evidence that there was no scientific basis for it, mainly came from the medical profession. I was indicating how the medical profession is a profession which is very keen to investigate all new developments and to accept medical auxiliary services of any nature, provided that they rest on a scientific basis. I indicated inter alia that no fewer than 28 such auxiliary services have already been registered with the Medical and Dental Council and that registers are being kept of them by that body. In other words, the bona fides of the Medical Council are beyond all doubt. In this process of investigating new methods of examination, new methods of treatment, and with the keenness of the profession to do so, the chiropractic cult was investigated as well. Now I want to say at once that in the whole consideration and in the whole attitude which has been adopted by the Medical Council, which I myself adopt and which the Government adopts, the financial interests of the medical practitioner are by no means relevant and are by no means a factor which may be or has been taken into consideration. I just want to point out once again that we are dealing here with the recommendations and the standpoints of inter alia the Medical Council. The Medical Council is a statutory body, and it consists of various types of members in contrast with the Medical Association, which represents the medical profession alone. The Medical Council is a body of high standing, which, since 1928, has to such an extent provided South Africa with guidance in the sphere of medicine that we find ourselves today in the front row of those medical countries in the world that are worth mentioning.

Now I want to deal with the proof for the fact that there is no scientific basis for the chiropractic profession. In the main I am now going to mention to hon. members examples and standpoints of medical practitioners and of bodies and persons in the United States of America, in view of the fact that in the U.S.A. an exhaustive inquiry was made in regard to this matter as a result of the fact that chiropractic has its headquarters there and that the majority of the training schools are to be found in Canada and America. This cult has, to my knowledge, also been investigated in all Western countries, and I shall also refer to them. However, now I want to confine myself mainly to the findings of the scientists in the United States. Dr. Harvey of Yale University, one of the great names in medicine, said the following—

Dr. Hugh Cobalt of the Mayo Clinic said—

Professor Bird, who has been professor in the Department of Anatomy at Yale University for years, said the following after he had investigated this matter thoroughly. As a result of his experience in the dissection ward, he gave the following opinion—

Professor Davies, who is in charge of the New Research Region of the University College of Medicine in Chicago, said—

Dr. Baker of the John Hopkins and Yale Universities in Chicago, said the following—

However, it works.

I am not talking about the treatment, I am talking about the theory. That is the point. In any case, how does the hon. member know that it works?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would the hon. the Minister make it clear to the House what case he is trying to make? Is he trying to suggest to the House …

No, that is not a question.

I am putting the question, Mr. Speaker …

Well, what is the question?

The question is whether the hon. the Minister is making the case that the chiropractors are a danger to the public or not.

Order!

It is a perfectly legitimate question.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I should really like the hon. member to restrain himself. It does not behove him to ask ridiculous questions. I am explaining the matter, and if he does not understand what I am saying, the problem lies with him and not with me.

†I am trying to make the point that medical men of great repute all over the world are of the opinion, after they have looked at this cult from all sides, that there is no scientific basis for the theory of chiropractic as such. This is all I am dealing with at the moment, and I will deal with that other question …

And yet the chiropractors have statutory recognition in America.

I will refer to that, but what the hon. member is trying to tell this House is not quite true. There is much more to tell about this matter than just that. I will come to that and I will give the hon. member facts which have been obtained from the Department of Education in the United States. The hon. member has been misinformed, but I will get to that question. I will give him all the information. Now I am going to be busy for another hour or an hour and a half, because I am going to deal with this matter fully after all the letters in newspapers and other discussions.

*At the moment I am indicating what some eminent medical practitioners and anatomists of the world have to say. Here we have one of them—

Then I am also going to refer to an inquiry that was made. I could mention scores of them, also in the United Kingdom and in Europe, but I do not want to take up the time of the House with them any longer. I think hon. members will agree with me that one of the leading places for research, one of the leading scientific centres of the world, is Heidelberg in West Germany. In Heidelberg a comprehensive, exhaustive inquiry was conducted with a view to seeing whether there was in fact something in this theory which might be of value in medical science. After they had conducted their exhaustive inquiry, their finding was as follows—

This is the considered opinion of a seat of science such as Heidelberg in West Germany, but I shall now leave it at that. I want to go on.

How long did it take the medical men to agree with Harvey on the circulation of blood, for instance? They also make mistakes.

Order! There is only time for one speech at a time.

I shall deal with the mistakes as well.

Now, there are also other bodies and persons I want to mention. The first I want to mention is that in Quebec, Canada, a Royal Commission on Chiropractic was appointed in 1963 to inquire into this whole matter. At the time evidence was given before this commission by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of Quebec. Now I just want to tell the hon. member what their findings were. They said the following—

Now, we are engaged here in discussing a matter frankly, and I would be pleased if the hon. member for Rosettenville or the hon. member for Musgrave could bring documents here “where chiropractors have produced original studies of scientific value”. The finding of this commission was that this was not the case. But to continue. They gave the following evidence—

They gave the following evidence—

They continued as follows—

And then I still want to quote only the last part of their evidence—

That was why the American Medical Association laid down its policy in this regard in November, 1966. This is an association of which we must take notice. The following is the policy of that association in respect of chiropractic, and was adopted in November, 1966—

That is the standpoint of the American Medical Association.

Now I come to the question of registration, a matter about which the hon. member was in such a hurry. It is true that in many states of America chiropractors are in fact being licensed. However, what is the real position? It is as follows—

This goes on to refer to the fact that chiropractors are claiming for themselves the title of “doctor”. Surely, it is not acceptable in South Africa that a person with four years’ training, no matter in what field, should give himself out to the public as being a doctor. And yet this is indeed being done. After all, basically this is wrong, and any child can understand it. The American standpoint on this matter is as follows—

What does “spurious” mean? It means “illegitimate or false”—

That is what the standpoint of the United States Office of Education is. Now I want to know whether hon. members opposite wish to see this practice continued, i.e. that permanence be granted to a person with only four years’ training giving himself out to the public as being a doctor. And I do not confine myself to the sphere of medicine only, but include any scientific subject of any nature whatsoever. Surely, this is not good enough for South Africa, and for that reason it is, after all, the duty of the Government to protect the public against it.

But what is the standpoint of our own Medical Council? In terms of the Act it is the duty of this council to advise the Government on health matters. In addition, this is a council constituted not only from medical practitioners, but also from members, a council held in very high esteem. In reply to my inquiry the Medical Council informed me as follows by letter, dated 9th December, 1969, and I am going to read certain sentences only (translation)—

Hon. members should listen to this—

That is the standpoint of the Medical Council. I may just add that on a previous occasion they also stated the following to me—

What are you reading from?

This is the standpoint which the Medical Council stated to me before 1962 already.

Now I come to the findings of the commission. From the outset I have said that I am not going to base my standpoint on the findings of the commission, but let me say at once that to my mind this House and the country owe the commission, under the chairmanship of Dr. Mönnig, a great debt of gratitude, and therefore I now want to express formally our gratitude for the work done by them and the document submitted by them in this regard. What do they say? On this commission of inquiry there was only one medical practitioner, and I have now been told that he is not even a medical practitioner, but a dentist. All the other members were scientists practising other professions. The commission said the following on page 70 (translation)—

On page 74 they go on to say the following—

On page 77 they put forward this further standpoint—

Mr. Speaker, I have elaborated at length on this aspect of the unscientific character of chiropractic, and I have done so for this reason, i.e. that I want to submit to this House the standpoints of world medical science. I tried to submit to this House the standpoint of the American Medical Association; I submitted to this House the standpoint of our own Medical and Dental Council, as well as the standpoint of the commission of inquiry. The only thing is that I find myself in an unambiguous position, and I think hon. members cannot but find themselves in that position as well, namely that after exhaustive inquiry by the scientists of the world and of South Africa, we must accept this advice, these views, and also that in connection with this matter we must also have regard to the evidence given by the chiropractors themselves, for, Sir, how did chiropractic come into being? Hon. members are aware that chiropractic came into being as a result of a certain experience which a certain D. D. Palmer had in 1895. D. D. Palmer is the father of chiropractic; he was a grocer. In 1895 a man entered the building in which Palmer was working and told him that he had been deaf for 17 years. Palmer then proceeded to manipulate his back and after that the man could hear. Now, I just want to call attention to two points. How does one conduct a conversation with a man who has been deaf for 17 years? Secondly, surely it is known to hon. members that the story that one can manipulate a person’s back in order to cure deafness, simply does not tally with the truth, for no nerve that has anything to do with hearing, is located outside the skull; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the vertebrae. Subsequently this was passed on to his son, B. J. Palmer, who made a big business out of chiropractic. I now want to read out to hon. members what B. J. Palmer said under oath in a trial case in America. When he was questioned by the judge, his evidence was as follows—

Who first put into practice the science of chiropractics?—My father.

What was your father’s profession at that time?—He was a magnetic healer prior to that.

How did he first get the idea?— Purely by accident, as all great movements start.

Would you please explain?—Yes, Sir. Harvey Lilard was a janitor in the building in which father had his office at the time. Harvey came in one day, thoroughly deaf. Father asked him …

That is, he asked the deaf person—

Then this further question was put to him—

Up to the time that the adjustment was given, he was as deaf as a post. He could not hear the rumbling of a wagon on the street, yet he carried on a conversation with your father?—By yelling, yes.

Since that time you have developed the science of chiropractics?—Well, I have developed more new thoughts in that line.

Now, that is the evidence of the son of the original inventor who subsequently carried on the chiropractic profession. In 1920 B. J. Palmer gave a lecture in Butt, and I am now going to quote what he said in that lecture—

Sir, hon. members should take note of this: That is how the Palmer School advertises; it is there for everybody to see, and this is not what I say. This is how this school, where chiropractors are being trained, advertises—

That is the way they advertise. But in America Parker seminars are also being held from time to time, and in 1968 such a seminar was held in Fort Worth in Texas, and now I should like to tell you, Sir, what happens at these seminars. This is the way the training takes place. There is a textbook as well. I have it in my possession, and any hon. member is welcome to have a look at it. It is the “Textbook of Office Procedure and Practice Building for the Chiropractic Profession”, by Dr. Jim Parker. He says the following in these lectures given by him. Now, this is how these people are being trained—

Then he goes on to say in this textbook—

To succeed, the chiropractor must L, L, L—lather, love, lavish. When you meet a new patient …

This is Parker who is explaining like this—

When you meet a new patient, L L L HIM IN. When you do this you disarm a patient who has developed sales resistance. However, Parker finds some people more lovable than others. An unlovable type, from the chiropractor’s point of view, is a person with an acute illness.

Now, this is what the textbook says—

Then this textbook goes even further. Hon. members are welcome to take a look at it. Also in these lectures the following is done. Now he gives certain advice—

Now, these are the seminars which are held and the textbooks with which these people are provided. Sir, I think that if one considers this evidence taken from their very mouths, no scientist, not even one who is not a scientist of repute, can endorse the view that there are scientific grounds for this cult.

I now want to conclude in this regard with a quotation, which is very pertinent, of what was said by Professor Ley of the Ley Clinic in Boston. He said this—

As far as that is concerned, I range myself wholeheartedly on the side of these findings in regard to the unscientific basis of chiropractic, and not for a single moment can I give any consideration to permanence being extended to such a matter by the Government.

But now I come to the second aspect, and that is the training of chiropractors. Let me begin by saying that the basic minimum training of any medical practitioner in South Africa is six years, plus one year at the hospital. There are several countries the medical degrees of which are not recognized in South Africa, because we set such high requirements. In other words, this legislation is not merely discrimination against chiropractic; it is being implemented today against medically qualified persons from all over the world. Many degrees are not being recognized, and the only reason why they are not being recognised is not to protect the medical profession, for that is not the task of the medical council, but to protect the public so that as regards the person who wants to make a diagnosis, the public may have the assurance that such a person has received a minimum training. I want to emphasize that the point at issue here is not treatment but making a diagnosis, which the chiropractors are doing today and want to continue doing. The treatment is a side-issue, for we should not lose sight of the fact that they diagnose every case that enters their consulting rooms.

Now, firstly as far as the training is concerned, there is the duration of the period of training. The period of training is four years. In their own letters, which I read out here, they express concern at the fact that that training is inadequate. But apart from the unscientific character, which I dealt with, and the duration of their training, what about the standard and the content of their training? Now, in considering the standard and content of any training, one should first of all take a look at the teachers.

†Who are the teachers of these people? I think that is of prime importance in establishing for ourselves what sort of education the chiropractor is being given.

*The following is being said in connection with the teachers, and I am going to read here from the Medical Journal of April, 1967. They had examined the lists of all the people who were lecturing at the various chiropractic schools—

I have here another analysis that was made of the faculty members at these chiropractic schools. That was done in September, 1966, and the finding was as follows—

Then I want to quote this. There is the Stanford Research Institute. I do not think any hon. members can entertain any doubts about the importance and the prestige of the Stanford Research Institute. They carried out research and found the following—

They go on to say—

In other words, at the one training centre the expenditure per student is a twentieth and at the other it is a fortieth per student of what is spent per student at the California Medical School. They went on to say—

Surely, one must take cognizance of findings and researches of this nature, especially if they come from an institution such as the Stanford Research Institute.

Let me also say that these colleges are not associated with hospitals. This was found by the commission which we appointed to inquire into the matter. They found the following (translation)—

The following shortcomings in the training of chiropractors should be pointed out—

1. (1) Only the pre-clinical training as regards hours, is comparable with that of medical science at the university in question, which they are using as an example.
2. (2) There is no clinical training at a hospital which should be regarded an an indispensable prerequisite for making a reliable diagnosis.
3. (3) There is considerable doubt about the standard of training.

Let me make the following point in regard to the training. South Africa has no control whatever over these training institutions. Nor will it ever be possible for South Africa to obtain such control. It would be the ultimate in irresponsibility on the part of the Government, on the part of South Africa or on the part of the Medical Council to allow people to continue permanently to make diagnoses and to treat people in South Africa, if there is no control or if we do not have any certainty about the standard thereof.

Then I want to say that there is also considerable doubt in regard to the requirements for admission. I want to read out an excerpt taken from findings arrived at after an inquiry had been made into the requirements for admission. The finding was as follows—

In regard to the training it is very important to take note of their training in the use of X-ray apparatus. X-ray apparatus is one of the major aspects handled by the chiropractor. Their training takes four years in all. The requirements laid down by the South African Medical Council for a radiologist is that he should receive seven years’ basic training followed by another five years, i.e. 12 years in all. After all, hon. members cannot, therefore, expect me and the Government to extend permanence to a person to handle X-ray apparatus and to make diagnoses and read X-rays after only four years’ training. Now, I know” that hon. members will argue that in this case these X-rays are only connected with the vertebral column. However, that is an entirely unscientific view, because in the diagnosis of disease, and the hon. member for Rosettenville will agree with me, the body cannot be subdivided. The body has to be regarded as a whole. In the report of the commission, on page 73, the following is very explicitly said in regard to radiology (translation)—

In this regard I should also like to refer to the findings of the commission of inquiry in Quebec in connection with this matter. There is a textbook entitled “Modern X-ray Practice and Chiropractic Spinography”, compiled by a member of the staff of the Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport. In this book attention is given to 50 reasons why chiropractic must in any case apply spinography; in other words, must take an X-ray of the verbetral column. I want to read out a few of these reasons to show up the totally unscientific approach. I am going to read the following from the said report—

Reasons why the chiropractors should spinograph every case:

1. (1) It promotes confidence.
2. (2) It creates interest amongst patients.
3. (3) It procures business.
4. (4) It attracts a better class of patient.
5. (5) It adds prestige in your community.
6. (6) It builds a reliable reputation.
7. (7) It is an investment and not an expense.
8. (8) It provides good interest on your investment.
9. (9) Its income makes it possible to arrange a better service.
10. (10) It enables one to care for more patients daily.
11. (11) It helps to eliminate the so-called starvation period that many practitioners go through.
12. (12) It discloses the other fellow’s mistakes.

I have now pointed out that the training of chiropractors is quite inadequate as regards duration, quality and content, that their requirements for admission and the qualifications of their teachers are simply not acceptable, that their radiological training is very scanty and does in any case by no manner of means even come close to the standards laid down by us in South Africa. That is why I have no hesitation whatever in rising in this House to move this Bill.

This Bill deals with chiropractors, especially—and I emphasize this—in regard to their function of diagnosing. The treatment aspect is a side-aspect. The public must have protection in regard to diagnosis. In this regard I want to quote two passages. The first quotation reads as follows—

Again in the report of this commission the following is stated at the bottom of page 72 (translation)—

In other words, the chiropractor is, as regards his training in methods of examination, not effectively equipped for being able to decide what cases are to be treated chiropractically by him.

I have now dealt with these matters, and now I want to return to the question of vested interests. There is only one more question I want to deal with, and that is a question which hon. members may justifiably put to me, namely: If that is the case, why then allow those who are practising, to continue? I want to tell hon. members why. It is because we in South Africa have always respected vested interests.

[Inaudible.]

What does the hon. member say?

I just snorted to indicate my attitude, that is all.

We respected vested interests in the 1928 legislation; we respected them in 1934. with the law agents, and in other cases. These people came in good faith. They are not bad people. In fact, after the Second World War some of them were, so I understand, granted bursaries by the then Government to study chiropractic. In other words, they did so in good faith. That is why I regard it as my duty and the Government’s duty to protect the interests of those persons who have become established, also because it is traditional. That was the undertaking I gave them, and I am not going to break my word. But now the public has been informed in this regard through various media and also in this debate. It is now for the public to determine whether they want to continue going to these chiropractors for treatment. I am sure that they will in fact go, as the public have become accustomed to them, but as far as the future is concerned, they now have the opportunity to put their own house in order. In the first place, the association is now being granted statutory recognition for the first time. In the second place, it is true that they can adjust their training basically. Any person in the world, whether he is an established chiropractor or whether he has just started out, who wants to complete the recognized basic training in medicine, can practise here and apply those very same methods. Furthermore, the physico-medical science in South Africa— manipulative treatment and massage, which are acknowledged in orthodox medical science—can be developed. I have already been in touch with the medical schools in this regard. At the same time I think that we have gone as far as we could to be fair and just in protecting, as we did before, their vested interests. That is the very limit to which we can go. Moreover, the object with this legislation is also that the future should produce in South Africa men and women who will diagnose and treat and who will comply with certain minimum requirements and with nothing else. Irrespective of whether we run into opposition from the United Party or whether we run into opposition from other quarters, the Government may not evade its task and may not recoil from it. In such a matter, whereas science has brought South Africa where it is today and whereas medical science in South Africa, which is a small country, is in a comparable position with medical science all over the world, we are entitled to the support of every member of this House for this Bill. If we do not obtain that support, we have to give account to several professions and persons. In the first instance, we have to give account to the 11 000 medical practitioners in our country, who are scientists. Then we also have to give account to all who teach sciences at the universities of South Africa, perhaps with just a few exceptions. We have to give account to the members of the nursing profession in their thousands. We have to give account to the 28 para-medical services, of which registers are already being kept, and to the others that will now be added. Above all we owe it to the public of South Africa not to make political capital out of this, but to protect the public and the patients of South Africa by ensuring that they are diagnosed and treated by persons who have received a minimum training. When he makes a mistake, we shall at least have afforded the protection that he was not treated by a person with inferior training. We owe this to the public, but, above all, I think science can expect this from us. It is without any hesitation whatever that I now move this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister. He spoke for one and a half hours, giving reasons why chiropractors should not be recognized as a profession. After he had finished., I was amazed that he was going to recognize them for at least another 50 years. This attitude of the hon. the Minister is a strange one. The hon. the Minister brought evidence from virtually all over the world, to tell us what an unscientific basis chiropractic has.

Do you agree?

I will tell the hon. the Minister what I think about it. He brought all this evidence to the House and he impressed the House with it. After he had given this evidence, he said we have to recognize these chiropractors and that we have to make sure that they are not interfered with. Finally he said that by this Bill he is going to allow them to continue to practise. Not only will they be able to practise, but the students who are now learning to be chiropractors in America at colleges which he condemns, will be allowed to come back to South Africa to practise. That sort of argument cannot be used seriously against a profession which appears to be giving a service to the public. I feel that we should discuss this measure a little more carefully. However after hearing the hon. the Minister, and after hearing his plea, I am satisfied that they should be allowed to continue to practise. I also feel that we on this side of the House are justified in moving the following amendment. I therefore wish to move as an amendment—

This amendment simply means that we will allow pupils to go overseas to be trained as chiropractors and to come back to practise.

For all time?

I shall answer you. I think the big mistake the Minister has made, and I speak as a doctor, was to compare the practice of chiropractic with the practice of medicine. You cannot compare the chiropractor with a medical practitioner who has been taught medicine at a medical school. I do not think that the present-day chiropractors intend competing with the medical profession. The hon. the Minister himself admitted that there was no competition between the two groups.

Why does a person go to a chiropractor? What is the condition which causes him to seek for help? It is almost invariably pain and almost invariably pain in the back. The hon. the Minister will bear with me for a minute. He brought up a matter with which I myself was concerned during the war. Many other practitioners and I were faced with the position of virtually hundreds of servicemen and ex-servicemen suffering from pains in the lower back. We examined them and had them X-rayed; we gave them treatment by way of physiotherapy and massage. These people did not get better. The majority of them were labelled as malingerers. I feel that a lot of people in those days who were labelled as malingerers had a genuine pain in the back, which we, the doctors, were unable to cure. Because we could not help or find the reason for the pain in the back, we said that they did not have a pain in the back, but it is impossible to measure pain; we do not have the scientific apparatus to measure pain. If a man says he has a pain in a tooth, you cannot tell him that he does not have one. We do not have a machine with which we can measure the pain in the tooth. If he has a pain in the back, we cannot measure it.

What causes pain? I do not have to lecture this House and to tell hon. members what the cause of pain is; but it must be a disturbance of some nerve ending. As the Minister knows, pain can be caused by pressure or disturbance anywhere along a nerve path, from the nerve ending anywhere along the nerve up to the spinal cord to the brain. What we are trying to do here, is to say to a group of people who apparently have helped people who are suffering pain, that they should not do so in the future. People go to chiropractors because they have been getting help. I do not know what magic they use, but if a chiropractor is no good, if he does not relieve pain, there is nothing to be said. I expressly talk about pain, and not other diseases like diabetes or other diseases which I have heard that chiropractors treat. I condemn that lock, stock and barrel. If someone says to me that he went to a chiropractor, who manipulated his back and his back no longer pains, I believe him. I do not call him a liar and say that he did not get relief.

Here we have a very important admission from the medical profession, namely that these people do do some good. I am going to quote from the South African Medical Journal of February the 13th, 1971. That is just about a month ago. I want to quote the editorial of this journal. I do not know whether the Minister has a copy of this edition.

Yes, I have a copy.

Well, look at the bottom of the first page, the last paragraph. Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. If we look objectively at the work done by these people we wonder why we have this Bill in front of us today. It says here—

Does the Minister subscribe to that? Here we have an opinion expressed in the Medical Journal. Must we as medical practitioners be a party to taking over the work done adequately now by somebody else? Sir, that one sentence in itself proves that these people are performing a service which is appreciated by people in South Africa at the moment.

We do not dispute that at all.

The Minister says that we do not dispute it. Well, let us go on. The first term of reference of the commission required them to make sure whether there was not an unnecessary, undesirable duplication of para-medical services. They have found this to be so but they go on to say—

The fault lies in the fact that we as doctors have failed to provide the necessary training for ourselves to treat certain conditions which we may have recognized but not treated properly. Sir, this is how I look at it objectively. I take the blame upon myself as a member of the medical profession for not seeing to it that our people are properly trained in physical medicine.

Sir, what are we going to do? We recognize that these people are doing good. If they are doing good I feel that we must give them a chance; we must not prevent them from practising. Surely we must encourage them to study further and to make themselves even better trained than they are now. I agree with what the hon. the Minister says: A lot of the training that is being done is absolutely unscientific; it has no real basis. But they are producing results, and from their experience chiropractors are finding ways and means of manipulating and massaging muscles and getting rid of pain. I also agree with the Minister that after four years’ training you should not be allowed to call yourself a doctor. I am sure that if we went to the chiropractors and said to them: “Look here, you are not doctors; you can call yourself ‘Mr.’ or you can call yourself a ‘chiropractor’ but you are not doctors”. They would agree not to call themselves doctors. I do not think they want to call themselves doctors, but they have to look for some sort of recognition for themselves. They do that by retaining the “D.C.” that they are given after four years’ study in America. But, Sir, this is a minor matter that we can dispose of quickly. I cannot see why the hon. the Minister will allow people to continue to practise for another 50 years if they are no good now. Surely they can only improve their work after 50 years, and who is the Minister to tell the House what will happen in 50 years’ time to the medical profession or to the chiropractor? How can we forecast? We have no right today to legislate for what is going to happen in 50 years’ time.

Sir, I want to come back to the commission’s report. The commissioners met in 1962 and it is now 1971. Eight years or more have elapsed since 1962. This report is not dated. The report tells us when the commission was instituted but the date of the tabling of the report and the date on which its work was completed are not given. I take it that for eight years this report has lain on the shelf and collected dust. All of a sudden the Minister comes along and produces this report. He must tell the House why for eight years nothing was done. What happened during the past eight years? Surely eight years ago these people were not as well-trained as they are today? Eight years ago the profession was not as entrenched as it is today. What motivated the Minister to come along with this Bill and what made him take this commission’s report off the shelf? Incidentally, he had eight years to have the report translated into English and he has not done so yet. I would like to know the reason for this from the Minister. We are dealing here with a Bill of this importance and yet the commission’s report has not yet been translated.

It is a bilingual report.

It is not. The only part of the report that is bilingual is the evidence that was given in English. That does not make it a bilingual report. Sir, I think we must stop this sort of thing. While we have two languages in this House, the other language must also be recognized.

You are talking utter nonsense, because I told the House that it was being translated, and as soon as it has been translated it will be laid on the Table.

After eight years.

Sir, I take exception to what the Minister says. He told us that he was having the report translated. He is going to have it translated after this Bill has been passed into law. Only then is he going to produce it to us. I do not want a museum piece, Sir; I want a report from the commission that I can use.

I think you are being most unfair.

After death the doctor.

How long have you had the report?

Order!

Sir, I made inquiries about the translation of this report weeks ago. The secretary of our group asked for the report to be translated.

Cannot you read Afrikaans in the meantime?

Yes, and I have done it, but that does not affect the principle that when we get a report we expect it to be in both languages.

Tell us about diagnosis and forget about languages.

Sir, there is another matter which is very pertinent, I think, and which was referred to by the Minister. I refer to the question of the use of X-rays. I am perturbed about this, because I think if X-rays are going to be used by untrained people it will be highly dangerous I would suggest to the Minister that he must make sure that people who are now using X-rays, whether they be doctors or chiropractors or anybody else, are properly trained in the use of an X-ray machine. I am afraid of accidents happening as a result of the use of X-ray machines, and I am much more afraid of that than I am afraid that any harm will be done to a patient by manipulation or massage.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

And if the chiropractors are are not properly trained, what must we do?

Sir, what would be the alternative? I would say that we in the medical profession should be prepared for the patient’s sake to allow a patient to be referred to a radiologist for proper X-rays. Let the radiologist X-ray the people. The radiologist can then furnish a report which will be legible to the patient as well.

Then they will not be able to treat the patient.

Who?

The chiropractors—when they get a report from a radiologist.

When that report comes back the patient will have an opportunity to make up his mind whether he wishes to be treated by the chiropractor or whether he wishes to be treated by a physiotherapist or a specialist in physical medicine. That is how easy it is. Let the patient make up his mind whom he wants to go to, but we cannot have chiropractors being allowed to practise and being allowed to take X-ray pictures and at the same time condemn them lock, stock and barrel as the Minister has done. We have to separate our thoughts here, and if we are going to allow chiropractors to practise here, we have to make sure that no harm is done to the patient, and the best way to do that is basically to make sure that when they are X-rayed they are X-rayed by people who know what they are doing.

The commission wanted to know whether the practice of the chiropractor was useful. There is no doubt about it. People go to chiropractors because they think they are getting help, and the hon. the Minister knows that we in the medical profession have time and again been faced with patients who suffer from psychosomatic diseases. He cannot deny it. It is one of nature’s mix-ups. The patient says he has a terrible pain in his back and he goes to some person or other who gives him a home-made remedy and the pain disappears. Perhaps some of the work done by the chiropractors is similar. They may be treating psychosomatic diseases which get better by this manipulation and by this treatment. We cannot stop that. Put I think what we must stop is the case when a man goes to a chiropractor and he has a disease of the spine, whether it is tuberculosis of a secondary deposit of cancer, or whatever it is. He has not been X-rayed properly when he goes to this man, and a chiropractor who has not been properly trained, treats this person and causes damage and causes a break-through of his spinal column. That is what I call dangerous and that is what I am trying to prevent.

Are you advocating that we stop them from taking X-ray pictures?

Any chiropractor who is not properly trained. [Interjections.] But we must make sure that the Medical Council allows these patients to go to properly trained people. That is what I say. We must not forbid a radiologist from taking X-rays of people who are referred to them by chiropractors. It is a safety measure that we, and I myself, must allow. It may not be a popular thing that I am saying, but I am thinking about the people who are now being X-rayed by chiropractors. The commission of inquiry also wanted to know whether the practice of chiropractic was dangerous and whether their diagnosis is reliable. Is every diagnosis made by a medical practitioner reliable? Is it?

Yes, if he knows his job.

If we know our job, it is, but what is happening in medicine today is that it has become so complicated, it has so many specialities, it has become so diverse and it needs so much study that the student today finds it virtually impossible to absorb everything that is needed. What happens? We must fail somewhere along the line to absorb and recognize everything and to treat everything that comes our way. The Medical Council in its wisdom decided many years ago to restrict the untrained from operating. We try to do that. We try in our own profession to restrict these things which we think some of the doctors are unable to do properly. But look at the machinery we have to use to get a proper diagnosis today. We have to take blood counts and do serum tests, and we have to do this and do that. All sorts of things are at the disposal of the medical practitioner and we should show the public the difference between what a doctor can do and what a chiropractor can do. You cannot compare the two people and say that because a chiropractor has not had seven years of intensive study, he must not be able to practise; they are different things. The best I can say that the chiropractor can do is this. He should be trained properly in anatomy, physiology, physiotherapy and the manipulations that the medical profession today want to take over and which he has found a way of doing.

May I ask the hon. member to indicate to the House what the difference is, to his way of thinking, between diagnosis by a medical practitioner and by a chiropractor?

It is a most important question. The diagnosis made by the doctor is a scientific means of telling what is wrong with the patient and what is the cause of the disease. The chiropractor cannot possibly do this. The chiropractor has to depend on his hands and what he finds on the X-ray that he takes, in order to be able to diagnose. And let me say here that I have no time for people who say they are chiropractors and treat diabetes and skin diseases and all that sort of thing. I am not concerned one bit with those people. I am concerned with those people who genuinely try to remove pain which is caused by a malignment of bone or muscle, etc. The Minister himself today acknowledges the value of a chiropractor. He brings in a Bill and he recognizes them as a statutory body.

Let me in the few minutes I have left simply say this. It is our job as legislators to recognize, as the Minister has done, that the chiropractor has a place in the treatment of people suffering from pain. Let me say it is our job now to help those people to organize themselves into a body which will be able to look after the interests of the chiropractors, which will have a code of ethics to make sure that the chiropractor does not abuse his profession, a code by which it can punish a chiropractor if he abuses the privileges of practising. Let us see that the chiropractors have facilities for proper study of anatomy, physiology massage and electronics so that they will be able to learn the workings of the body and radiology properly. If they do not have schools here, let us try to pick out which are the best schools overseas. Give them a chance, and let us then see what develops.

The hon. the Minister made one observation here which made me smile. He said that the chiropractic came into being by accident because a grocer manipulated a man’s back and by accident the man had his hearing restored. Some of the biggest discoveries in medicine have come about by accident. I know that when a certain Dr. Fleming left his window open, something got on to an agar plate and he found penicillin. That is the sort of thing that happens.

You can prove that in the laboratory.

Yes, but Mr. Palmer had a psychosomatic patient who was deaf, and when his back was manipulated he regained his hearing.

But that does not make him a doctor.

It does not make him a doctor, but it made him a chiropractor. I do not want a chiropractor to be a doctor. and virtually no doctor wants to be a chiropractor. But a certain man wrote to me and said: “Look here, I am a doctor and I go to a chiropractor.”

Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville is very thankful that he has finished his speech. I should very much like to ask him this evening where he studied, but I do not think it is fair, with such a speech this evening, to discredit the old institution where he studied. The hon. member did not think at all before he introduced that amendment. He states that all the words after “That” should be omitted, etc., because this legislation does not allow chiropractors to register. I now want to ask him this evening when a chiropractor has ever been registered in this country. Is this not the whole problem we are faced with? Is the fact that no one has ever registered a chiropractor not the problem we have in mind? In addition I want to ask him what a chiropractor is. The people went to one of the most eminent lawyers in the country. i.e. Mr. Gert Coetzee of Johannesburg, and asked him to try to work out a definition for them of what a chiropractor is. Up to now they have not yet succeeded in defining it.

The hon. the Minister uses the term in the Bill without a definition.

The hon. member has not yet read the Bill. The Minister said that they are the people who belong to the Chiropractic Association and who are recognized by the Association.

Is that a definition?

No, it is not a definition.

Well, where is the definition?

A definition is not necessary because that clause is there. The suggestion he makes there is that the person concerned must be able to register as a chiropractor. Now, what is a chiropractor?

You have not heard anything …

The hon. member says I have not heard anything.

Ask the hon. the Minister to define it for you.

All right, I will sit down and then you, “botterbulletjie”, can define it. Let me see you do it. You can define almost anything, so try and define it. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not make a farce of Parliament.

The hon. member for Rosettenville stood up here and said that he was not in favour of the fact that these people, who are not qualified to handle X-ray equipment properly, should be excluded from registration. He also admitted that they are not properly qualified to do this. Hon. members know of the qualifications one needs in order to handle X-ray equipment. When one has completed a proper course, either as a doctor with four or five years postgraduate study, or as a radiographer, one can handle X-ray equipment. The hon. member for Rosettenville said that if the Minister were to suggest that chiropractors should not be allowed to handle X-ray equipment, he would be quite agreeable to that. They must have their patients’ X-ray plates taken by a qualified radiologist who can give a proper report of it to the chiropractor. With his suggestion the hon. member, who is a member of the Medical Association and who is registered with the South African Medical and Dental Council, is encroaching upon one of the fundamental and basic principles of the medical profession, i.e. that reports shall not be given to laymen, i.e. people who are not properly trained and registered. I now ask the hon. member, and I shall resume my seat so that he can reply to me, whether he suggests that in future doctors should give reports to laymen, and while he is mentioning X-ray reports, why not any other report as well?

Mr. Speaker, I said … may I continue?

Yes, you may.

Order! Is the hon. member for Musgrave the Speaker? The hon. member for Rosettenville may continue.

In reply to the hon. member for Fauresmith I want to point out clearly that I thought that it would be best for the patient’s sake for him to be X-rayed by a qualified person. I also said that I had no objection whatsoever in that report being given to the patient so that the patient will be able to understand what the report is about. Every X-ray report should be given to the patient, because it is his property and he can have it if he so wishes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosettenville’s reply is, of course, as neat a circumvention of my question as one can get.

Who must decide whether the plate must be taken.

Yes, in the first place the hon. member must tell us who must decide whether a plate must be taken. For what reasons must that plate be taken? The hon. member now Wants to have radiologists writing their reports in laymen’s language so that any man in the street can understand them, while a person who is properly trained would probably not know what is going on. I think that this evening the hon. member for Rosettenville has truly done his profession a disservice.

However, I want to come back to the Bill now before us. I ask myself why this measure is before the House. Hon. members will recall that the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Act was before the House last year. It was in exactly the same form as that passed by the House this year. That Bill made no mention of chiropractors. What, then, was that measure about? It concerned the establishment of a register for para-medical services, so that the Medical Council is able to establish a compulsory register enabling qualified physiotherapists, opticians and occupational therapists, who have studied a certain curriculum and qualified at a certain institution, to register with the South African Medical Council, thereby placing the medical profession and all its auxiliary services on a sound ethical basis. This Bill was before the House last year, but as a result of the limited time it was only accepted by this House this year, though in exactly the same form. Last year hon. members on both sides of the House were then overwhelmed by telegrams and documents from chiropractors objecting to that legislation. Why were they objecting to that legislation? They were not mentioned in it. Their position was therefore not raised. Yet they took it that they would be affected. Why would it affect them? They, and no-one else, argued that the legislation would affect them because the Medical Council would now have to keep registers of people trained on a scientific basis. In one of their circulars they wrote—

They support all the provisions of that Bill. It is completely in order for all the other people, but not for them. Because the people felt that they could not comply with the requirements of the Medical Council they began to agitate. But now I shall be asked whether those people did not know that the Medical Council is opposed to them and did not know of the evidence the Medical Council gave about these people before the commission of inquiry. But at that stage the report of the commission of inquiry had not yet been tabled. It had not yet been made known. Why. then, did they not at that stage accent the bona fides of the South African Medical and Dental Council as every other scientist in this country was prepared to do? That is our problem. The hon. the Minister’s only object is to protect those vested rights to which he referred. There is nothing strange in those vested rights. I do not usually quote from such large books, but I do want to point out that when the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, Act No. 13 of 1928, was placed on the Statute Book, there were a number of nurses who had not been properly trained and therefore could not comply with the provisions of section 29 (b) of that Act. However, they were not deprived of their earnings. Section 29 (b) of this Act provides that any person who—

That is precisely what is happening here. People who were not properly qualified, but to whom, in terms of the Act. permission was granted to carry on in their profession because they had done so successfully up to that stage, were allowed to continue in their profession because it is a basic principle in this country that people are not deprived of their livelihood. This is also provided for in the Act. We find similar provision in Act No. 30 of 1945, in terms of which dentists are registered. Exactly the same was done under similar circumstances. People were not prohibited from continuing in their profession. They were not deprived of their livelihood. They can continue exactly as before. It is precisely for that reason, and for no other reason, that these chiropractors are now being allowed to continue in. their profession. This relates particularly to those who have been practising successfully for years and to those who are at present studying abroad. No one has ever said that those people are not successful in the work they do. I remember how the same hon. member, the hon. member for Rosettenville, stood up year after year under the Health Vote to launch attacks on Scientology.

Scientology was one of the biggest bogeys ever turned loose in this country, according to that hon. member’s own argument. At his request a commission of inquiry was appointed to go into that matter. The position is that this evening the hon. member himself will have to admit that there are people for whom the scientologists did do a certain measure of good. This evening, under similar circumstances, he goes back on his own profession because he is a United Party member in the first place and then a doctor. As far as I am concerned it is not a question of whether those people are properly qualified or not. The hon. the Minister examined that matter in detail and the commission determined this unequivocally. I also want to tell hon. members that I believe that some of these people give good service, but not all of them do, that is where the problem comes in. The other day a chiropractor visited me to discuss the matter. I also told him that I had received a circular.

Do doctors claim to help every patient?

Definitely not.

No. Doctors have never been successful with every patient, and I want to tell the hon. member why this cannot be so. In the first place any doctor will tell the hon. member that between 50 and 60 per cent of the patients he examines during his career have nothing wrong with them. I can, in fact, tell the hon. member that there is not a single doctor who is not properly qualified. If one lets his teachers down it is undoubtedly not their fault and it is undoubtedly not the State’s fault either. Some of the chiropractors came to me to plead their cause. They told me that they are properly trained. In reply I told them that that was all very well, but I had received a circular that very day informing me about that, and then I asked him whether they had a college for chiropractors in South Africa.

The hon. gentleman then told me that no such institution existed in South Africa. I then asked him whether he knew the fellow who had signed the circular and who called himself Mr. A. L. Mathews, D.C., D. Hon., principal of the South African College of Chiropractors. This Mr. Mathews said that he trained the chiropractors in Johannesburg and that they are chiropractors after three or four months. These are the people who are the object of the hon. member for Rosettenville’s plea this evening.

Your Minister has done that and you have done it.

No, I have not.

Well, why do you allow them to practise here?

They will not be allowed to practise here. I shall continue. The chiropractors lodge a plea for something in the legislation, and the reason why they want it in the legislation is the following—

That is their request. They request it themselves. They themselves say that there are some people who pose as chiropractors and exploit the public. There is an entire mechanism through which the public is exploited. The hon. member for Rosettenville emoted from the Medical Journal of 13th February. That is so. They themselves say—

Then a plea is made that this service will not be lost to the public. That is precisely what the Minister is also advocating here. Let the people who are practising at present be given the chance, with the help of their association, to practise for a number of years. Thereby they will not be adversely affected, because there are vested rights. Then we help them further by saying that the members who practise must be members of the “chiropractic Association of South Africa”. These people are benefited in a particular way. I also told those people “you must not expect me to put your house in order; you must do so yourselves”.

It is the usual practice for an association to establish itself. After it has constituted itself it can lodge a plea for registration. Here the people are being helped in constituting their association. They are being recognized and now they may proceed. Whether it is going to be called chiropractic or not, this service will not be lost to the South African public. According to section 39 (c) of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Act, it is still possible for properly qualified people engaging in manipulative therapy to register themselves. That is what we want to do, and what must be done. Let there be no doubts about that. It could easily be said, “but leave the people—let everyone go his own way”. That is all very well. Let everyone go his own way, but the State also has a duty to protect people against themselves. The State cannot simply let things take their own course and pay no further heed at all. The State is compelled to do something. It is necessary for the State to control certain services. It is necessary for the State to make certain demands. It is absolutely necessary for the State to provide that a person be inoculated, even though the person concerned does not feel like it. It is necessary for his own protection and for that of the public. It is absolutely necessary for a man to be prohibited from having himself sterilized at will. It is necessary for the social welfare of the State that the State should protect him and the community against that. That is why I consider it justified for this Bill to be brought before this hon. House.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, it has always been my experience in the past, in matters where health was discussed, either to follow, or to precede the hon. member for Brentwood, Dr. Willie Vosloo. I want to say this evening that we were shocked and distressed to hear of the accident which has befallen him, his wife and daughter. We wish him a speedy and complete recovery.

The hon. member for Fauresmith raised certain questions and seemed to be a little surprised that the chiropractic profession was anxious to be excluded from the terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Bill which went through this House earlier this Session. I should like to put one question to the hon. member for Fauresmith. If he found himself in a position where it had been made patently clear to him that in so far as the Medical Council and the medical profession were concerned, they found the profession of chiropractic to be totally unacceptable, or as they say, without scientific basis, would be, under those circumstances willingly submit himself to the statutory control of a body with those sentiments? I do not think that he would.

I want to come now to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister this afternoon in his detailed exposition during his Second Reading speech painted I believe a partisan picture. He referred to many aspects of chiropractic. He gave the House details which he had given in 1962 when he spoke in a similar debate. I am sure that the hon. the Minister must have received many letters, both as Minister of Health and also as a Member of Parliament in which opinions are expressed which are different from the ones which he placed before the House this afternoon. I take it that there were letters also from people with a scientific background, people from among the clergy and others who have put before the Minister and before members of this House their feelings in regard to this particular Bill. The hon. the Minister may make science the norm but I should like to tell him that one cannot always be perfectly satisfied with science. We have the case where medical science apparently cleared thalidomide whereas practice showed that thalidomide was a dangerous drug which caused tragedy in countless homes. I therefore ask whether perhaps the reverse cannot be true, namely where a thing has not necessarily been proved unequivocally scientifically it can in practice be to the advantage of mankind.

I believe that the hon. the Minister is not the first person to pour ridicule on people who are seeking to deal with the health of individuals. I will come to that later on. I think that there are many names famous to medicine who underwent the same experience at the hands of their own medical colleagues.

The hon. member for Fauresmith did refer to the editorial in the South African Medical Journal, and I feel that it is worthwhile to refer to this briefly once more. I quote—

Sir, these are procedures which have apparently been condemned on the basis of philosophy, because they allegedly have no scientific basis. I want to ask the House whether this same concept did not apply to William Harvey when he propounded his theories about the circulation of blood, to Lavoisier in connection with his thoughts on respiration, to Semmelweis when he dealt with antiseptics, to Pasteur, when he referred to the theory of bacteriology, and to Lister when he dealt with aseptic surgery. Today these theories are milestones in the medical profession, but at the time the concepts and theories of these people were disputed and ridiculed. I say that the science of medicine was already more than 75 years old when these famous individuals were ridiculed and criticized, and chiropractic is still in its infancy.

I want to come to a further extract, because I believe it is only just that the other side of the picture should be put. This, too, is from a report in the South African Medical Journal, dated 13th March, 1971. It appears in the “Letters to the Editor” column, and this is what it says—

Then, this particular correspondent, who is a medical man, refers to a motor accident. He says—

Then he went on to say something which I feel was very significant—

Sir, if we want confirmation to these sentiments outside South Africa, we need only refer to the thoughts of Dr. L. Zuschwardt. Writing in Neuromedizin in 1953, he stated—

I am informed that chiropractors can present various pathologies that exist at the site where the nerve emits from the spine. If we take the position in 1969, 16 years after the article I have just referred to, one finds that Drs. Matthews and Yates say that X-rays reveal a new pathological finding. They then refer to a page in the British Medical Journal dated September, 1969, which states—

“Rotation manipulation”, I believe is a technique of the chiropractors. Then we have Dr. Dalgleish writing in the South African Medical Proceedings on the pathology of the 110 synovial joints throughout the spinal column. Sir, the hon. the Minister has referred to the findings of the commission. He has indicated that as far as he is concerned it is not medically orientated, that it carries no medical overtones. He referred to the fact that there was one medical man as such on the commission itself, but, Sir, I think it is fair to put on record that besides the one medical man, there were two professors who were attached to universities to which medical schools in South Africa are also attached.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing at all. But at least it shows a medical orientation. But what I believe to be regrettable is this: this was a commission to investigate and to decide upon chiropractic but no chiropractor was present there to present the specialized knowledge and information which he may have had. To the best of my knowledge, when the chiropractic profession suggested that they should bring an academician or academicians from the United States to present an up-to-date idea of the philosophy of chiropractic, this offer, unfortunately I think, was not accepted by the commission. The commission refers in its report to training, and they say, as the Minister has emphasized, that the training is not adequate, but the one report which emanated from New Jersey is dated 1949, 22 years ago, and chiropractic was born roughly 75 years ago. Then there is another reference, to the Stanford Research Institute. I have not been able to establish on what date that report was issued. Sir, the Minister in a previous debate and today again indicated the extent of the training of chiropractors. He contends volubly that it is inadequate. The chiropractors themselves have indicated that it is their intention to extend the training, and I believe that they are considering the introduction of a year’s compulsory externship. The hon. the Minister said in a previous debate—and I feel that here I should join issue with him— “we have no control over the quality of training in schools of chiropractic which are situated in the U.S.A. and Canada.” Sir, that may be so; I do not argue with the hon. the Minister, but I ask him what control did South Africa have over the quality of the training of medical practitioners and dentists who were pioneers in South Africa in days gone by? They were all trained overseas, in Western Europe and to a lesser extent in the U.S.A. The Minister went on to say—

But, Sir, we have been doing this for years in the medical and dental professions and in other professions as well.

But we know what their standards are.

Is it impossible to get to know what the standards of the chiropractors are and to lay down certain standards? This is my point, Sir. We can lay down minimum standards, which is not done at present; this Bill tries to do it, but it does it in a limited extent; it tries to do too little, and in my opinion too little to protect the public.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, Sir, I do not have very much time. You see, Sir, the effect of this Bill, as has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville, is virtually to phase out chiropractic in South Africa and ultimately to ban it. I would like to refer to this Bill as the Law of Diminishing Services. The demand grows, the public seeks the services of the chiropractor, but the supply diminishes because the Minister tends to limit it by means of this Bill, and ultimately the public, who in their wisdom see the necessity for the services of chiropractors, are going to be deprived of them. Sir, if public reaction counts for anything, I say that this Bill is not what the public of South Africa wants, and that evidence comes from not only ordinary members of the public but from people who are qualified to express an opinion, people who have taken scientific degrees, people who are working and are active in the church and others, and I think it would be a great pity for us in South Africa to know that we are the first country in the world, as far as I know, to ban chiropractic when other countries are granting the chiropractors some form of recognition. It may not be a full form of recognition, but they are being recognized and what is even more important, I suggest, is that they are being controlled. We find in Illinois, for example, that they are issued with a licence and the licence issued in Illinois refers to “the diagnosis and the treatment of human ailments without the use of medicine, drugs, and operative surgery”. Sir, I believe that the State has a responsibility to protect the health of its citizens, but I also believe that health must be sought where it can be found. This to me is fundamental and I believe that the State should only intrude to the extent of laying down standards and of effecting control. I do not believe that control should be exercised or sanctions exerted by an interested body, and this has happened, Sir. If one goes back to 1964, one finds that sanctions were applied by the Medical Association which eliminated chiropractic benefits supplied by more than 52 medical aid societies involving many thousands of members. Sir, it is known that many members of medical aid societies still seek the services of a chiropractor but they have to do it now at their own expense. This applies to a certain extent also to the Workmen’s Compensation Act where chiropractors are not included. Workmen who wish to be treated by chiropractors avail themselves of their services, and it is on record that ex gratia payments have been made for those services rendered.

Sir, a great deal has been said by the hon. the Minister in regard to diagnosis, and in passing I wish to refer to the comment of the commission in respect to advertising, in relation to diagnosis. The commission said—and we must remember that this was said roughly in 1962—that brochures and advertisements were issued by chiropractors which implied an ability to diagnose. The facts as I know them are these: In 1954, eight years before this statement, the Pan African Chiropractor’s Association sought to put its house in order on a voluntary basis, the only basis at its disposal, and it laid down certain things. It laid down stringent regulations regarding advertising; it laid down eight prohibitions, and I am led to believe that the requirements laid down by the P.A.C.A. were almost as stringent as those laid down by the medical profession, which lays down conditions regarding the advertising of professional services.

Now, Sir, I want to come to the editorial in the S.A. Medical Journal of the 13th February, 1971, which, inter alia, says this—

Sir, I want to pose a question to the House and to the hon. the Minister. If there are three patients with certain symptons and each one of them was seen by three medical practitioners, what certainty have we that the diagnosis would be the same in each case; and if medicinal treatment were prescribed, would it be identical; and if exactly the same drugs were prescribed, would the response be identical? I say that the answers to these questions is “no”. But I will go further: I believe that the same patient receiving identical treatment from two different medical practitioners would respond in a different way due to the patient’s personal preference or liking for a particular medical practitioner, and so I say that when it comes to the question of diagnosis, there are top many variables to lay down fixed behavioural patterns. The hon. the Minister of Health in a previous debate laid down certain conditions in regard to diagnosis, and I want to quote what he said because I think it is significant. He said on 25.2.1971 in Hansard, column 1667—

Are you attacking the medical profession now?

Not at all. I am actually quoting the hon. the Minister of Health! But what I do want to say is that even a correct diagnosis—and some diagnoses are effected by telephone and not by personal visit—does not always result in a cure. People regrettably still die, in spite of a correct diagnosis, and I say with respect, that after 2 500 years the medical profession is still reaching out for new treatment and seeking cures. We can say that an incorrect diagnosis does not always have fatal or far-reaching or harmful results. Let me say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Newcastle, that I am not opposed to the medical profession; I am only too well aware of their members’ service to mankind, and mankind’s complete dependency on them in many respects. But what I am opposed to is a medical profession being invested with what amounts to a “Divine Right of Kings” in so far as disease and illness are concerned, because I repeat that I believe that health services must be sought where they can be found.

If one looks at this objectively, I think we can say that in the main, chiropractors work in a limited field and often their patients are those who have not found the relief they sought through orthodox medical channels. In the report of the commission of inquiry evidence was given by the chiropractors, and they made this quite clear. They said: “Chiropractic is not a panacea for all conditions”.

The commission’s report also refers to certain claims from a chiropractor who is the president of an association purporting to represent chiropractors. Sir, to the best of my knowledge—and I have tried to ascertain the facts—this particular association which is referred to in the report, has a total membership of four or five chiropractors only.

The question of X-rays has been dealt with in this debate and I must say that I am fully behind my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville, when it comes to the question of X-rays. I believe that nobody should be vested with the responsibility for X-rays until the State or the Department of Health is satisfied that they have been adequately trained to do such work. This is fundamental. But then I say that a chiropractor needs the benefit of X-rays and it should not be withheld from him by those people competent to give him expert advice, because the commission itself concedes that chiropractors are aware of the dangers of ionization and some of the problems arising out of the use of X-rays.

Other important matters which arise from the report of the commission into chiropractors are the evidence and the questions addressed to the Medical Association. This was one question as it was framed in the report—

And then they are listed. The first one refers to the dangerous factor, the second one to the delay factor, the third to the useless or pointless factor, the fourth to the mischievous factor, and the fifth to the wilfully deceitful factor. Now I submit that all these factors may apply to individuals, but surely these problems raised by the Medical Association, point to a very important factor, and that is control, and control by legislation. Because, I submit—and I believe the hon. the Minister will be with me here—that no body constituted on a voluntary basis is able to exert adequate and sufficient control over the members of a professional body. And this is where this Bill fails in my humble opinion. As I understand the position, once the name of a chiropractor has been accepted by the Chiropractors’ Association of South Africa, and passed on as having been approved, to the official in the Department of Health, there is nothing to stop this chiropractor, if he so wishes, subsequently resigning from his association. Once he resigns from the association he falls outside of any discipline, however slight it may be, which may be exerted by a voluntary body. I submit that on the basis he can do virtually what he likes. He could advertise to the extent which the commission condemns, and I do not believe that such a situation is in the interest of the public. Surely we in this House are basically concerned with the interests and the welfare of the public.

The commission referred several times to the fact that chiropractors advertised, but how can one stop that if there is not some statutory discipline, however advisable it may be to do so? Since the legislation last session, chiropractors have been headline news and I believe that my experience is in line with that of the majority of members of this House. They have had from the public of South Africa very little criticism and very little evidence of harm which chiropractors have caused as the result of their activities. There have been many reports of good, Sir, from all spheres, from people who stem basically from a scientific background, who admit what they regard as the indispensability of chiropractic. r[Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point is helping me in my speech; I am very grateful to him, but my next note says that this evidence comes from Cabinet Ministers, Senators, Members of Parliament and many thousands of members of the public who have sought the advice and the help of chiropractors, so have sportsmen. There are many thousands of such people and I do not believe that there has been adequate evidence submitted to this House that there has been an appreciable degree of harm caused as the result of the activities of chiropractors.

So my plea to the hon. the Minister tonight is not to be hasty over this legislation. Do not expect in 75 years a profession to achieve the standards that medicine has achieved in 2 500 years. After all, medicine is still advancing; medicine has not the answers to many of the things which modern civilization demands of it. I say to the Minister also, that he should not put South Africa out of step with the rest of the civilized world. By all means, let us have control, and stringent control, over chiropractors. Lay down the conditions under which their training will be accepted and the conditions under which they practise, but do not deprive the public of South Africa of the services of chiropractors, as this Bill will do.

Mr. Speaker, at the start I just want to express the appreciation of this side of this House for the words of sympathy expressed by the hon. member for Durban Berea in regard to the tragic accident in which our colleague Dr. Vosloo from Brentwood was involved. We appreciate the gesture. But I am afraid that is as far as my appreciation for the hon. member goes, because if I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister pointed out to him in a previous debate that he had insulted the Medical Council by implication by saying that the standpoint adopted by them was influenced by their own financial considerations. I had expected the hon. member to take this opportunity to offer his apologies to the Medical Council.

Were you present during the Third Reading? Did you listen to what I said then?

I was present during the Third Reading and heard the hon. member trying to give an explanation of what he had allegedly said. However, I did not hear him apologizing to that council for the false motives he had imputed to them. Let us take a brief look at the amendment moved by the hon. Opposition. I can deduce from that that if the Opposition had been in power, they would have given holus-bolus recognition to these people. I think I have the right to deduce that from their motion. In the course of my speech I want to refer, as the Minister did, to the philosophy which is basic to chiropractic and which the hon. Opposition wants to recognize.

I first want to say something to my hon. friend for Rosettenville. I was very sorry for him this afternoon, because he really had to perform here an egg dance in two directions. He had to take into account what his medical colleagues would think of his speech, and, on the other hand, he had to adopt a contrasting point of view for political expediency. It was a very difficult task. It is a long time since I have seen the hon. member suffering the way he did this afternoon. I want to enter into an argument with him, especially in regard to one statement he made here, namely that he agreed that the chiropractors were not adequately trained to be able to work with Rontgen apparatus. He proposed that in order to meet the dilemma of the chiropractors, these people should be referred to radiographers in order to have X-rays taken, and that the radiographers should then report to the chiropractors on the X-rays taken. When a patient is referred to a radiographer, he is, of course, obliged to attend to such a patient and to take the Rontgen photographs. He would then be obliged to send the report to the person who had referred the patient to him, and also to refer the patient back to him. Supposing a radiographer determined that the lesion in the spinal column indicates tuberculosis, I want to ask the hon. member for Rosettenville whether he expects the radiographer to refer that patient back to the chiropractor and whether he expects that chiropractor to be able to cure that patient. Was this what the hon. member for Rosettenville advocated this evening? He admitted they could not do it. The hon. member expects the radiographer to refer the patient back to the chiropractor, in spite of the fact that the hon. member does in fact know that the chiropractor cannot treat that condition. What sort of solution are the Opposition offering us here?

Furthermore, the hon. member admitted that chiropractors were not able to treat diseases such as diabetes, tuberculosis, polio, etc. The Minister proved it here, and I am again going to provide proof in the course of my speech that these people maintain they can in fact cure these diseases. As far as I know, no chiropractor has ever stood up and said that he was not able to endorse the full philosophy of chiropractic. No chiropractor has ever said that he would confine himself to those ailments he could treat. As the hon. the Minister put it, they endorse the philosophy of chiropractic in its entirety, without any exceptions. We cannot tell the chiropractors that they may only do certain work. It is all or nothing, because these people are disciples of a specific philosophy, of a specific cult. As yet they have not dissasociated themselves from any part of that cult. Why do the chiropractors not get up and tell us exactly what their philosophy in this country involves? Hon. members know that when the report of the Mönnig Commission appeared six weeks ago, the main criticism levelled at this report by the chiropractic profession was, in the first place, that it was a prejudiced report. We reject that. The second major complaint was that this commission had allegedly not afforded chiropractors the opportunity of inviting their so-called academics from America to come over and testify before the commission. After all, six weeks have already passed since this report appeared, and therefore they have had time to obtain guidance from their academics and to give us statements by their so-called academics, statements which could refute this report. Those reports have not been forthcoming.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Berea. He questioned the fact that the Minister had accepted science as his norm. I want to ask the hon. member what his norm is. If we in the year 1971 question science as a norm in terms _ of which we judge people, and as our criterion for weighing the scientific character of one profession with that of another, what other norm is there? In that case, the hon. member may just as well advocate that cancer quacks be allowed. We all know their methods are unscientific, but, if we do not apply the scientific norm, what right do we have to prohibit them?

You allow witchdoctors.

What did the hon. member say?

You allow witchdoctors under certain circumstances.

The hon. member has qualified his statement now, but why did he not qualify it in the first place?

At the start I want to say that I have no axe to grind as regards chiropractors because I consider them to be a danger to the medical profession as such or to the doctor. As rivals on the level of healing mankind, they really are no factor to take into account. Indeed, I am convinced that in cases where manipulation of some or other part of the body is medico-scientifically indicated, they are well equipped and capable and can make a contribution. I want to emphasize that this applies only in cases where it is medico-scientifically indicated. The hon. member for Berea referred to a specific condition and wanted to create the impression that it was a condition which had been discovered by chiropractors and subsequently endorsed by an orthopaedic surgeon. It has been known for years already that lesions of the intervertebral cushions may be cured by means of manipulation as well. This is practised by any orthopaedic surgeon.

Unfortunately, because their premise is based on a fallacious philosophy which is not scientifically justified or proven, I regard them as a danger in the field of medicine. The Opposition waxed very lyrical here this afternoon about the right of an individual to be able to choose the medical treatment he wants to make use of. I now want to quote from a report which appeared in the American Medical Journal of 17th April, 1967, where the following was said:

They made the following statement:

With reference to the statement made by these two chiropractors, the writer of this article came to the following conclusion:

I want to add here that such medical services should at least be scientifically based.

I repeat that chiropractors are not a competitive factor which medicine should take into account. But they are a definite danger to sick people. This is very clearly reflected in the Mönnig Report. If chiropractors were to see and realize their limitations and confine themselves to their manipulative procedures which are medico-scientifically founded, I would have found no fault with them. But because their philosophy is farfetched and unscientific, I dare not approve of their activities. Because there is doubt about this aspect, I just want to repeat the definition which the International Chiropractic Association gives their cult. It reads as follows:

But these people go even much further. They want to eat their cake and have it. Some of them say:

In other words, these people claim that disease is caused by a subluxation in the spinal column. But they take the matter further by claiming that if a particular organ contracts a disease, one may also find a reflexive subluxation of the vertebra. In other words, their diagnosis must always be correct. Everything may then be corrected solely by manipulation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? May I ask the hon. member why, if these people are so dangerous, if they are such a menace, it is proposed to allow them to continue for 40 or 50 years in this dangerous practice.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the hon. member was not present in this House late this afternoon, because this question was put to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister replied to it very clearly. But if the hon. member is patient, I shall reply to it in the course of my speech.

In America, as has been done here in South Africa, the work of these people was very thoroughly investigated. The hon. the Minister also pointed that out this afternoon. Even independent bodies such as the courts of law were interested in the activities of the chiropractors. As the Mönnig Commission plainly stated in its report, these bodies, too, could find no proof that chiropractic has a scientific basis. No conclusive proof has ever been submitted that all diseases are caused by vertebral pressure on nerves. I want to read to hon. members from an article which appeared in the Medical Journal of Australia on 26th November, 1966. I quote—

This is true. This afternoon the Minister referred to the Health Education and Welfare Department of the United States. These people also instituted an investigation into chiropractic. They came to the following conclusions. I quote—

This is the report compiled by a committee of the United States Department of Health Education and Welfare. What was their recommendation?

What is the date?

It was published in the Journal of American Medicine on 14th April, 1969. They made the following recommendation—

That is the position in the United States. The hon. member for Berea waxed very lyrical here a moment ago about how many states in America allegedly license these people, but the Federal Government of America does not recognize them and they are not accepted for medicare purposes.

The legislation now before this House must be seen against the background which I have outlined now. It is and remains the primary task of the authorities to watch over and protect the health of its citizens, and to take measures whereby the citizen may be safeguarded against exploitation and harmful influences. Furthermore, the professions which practise their craft in terms of scientific principles and norms, have a right to the protection and blessing of the authorities. Therefore, what is involved here, is the principles and not the threat these people constitute to doctors. The principle involved here, is whether this so-called medical service is scientific or not. This is the only norm and the only criterion which this hon. House may apply in its judgment of this matter. It is interesting to note the words of the Department of Education of the American Association of Chiropractors as they appeared in a brochure entitled “Planning a Career in Chiropractic”. It was actually published as a handbook for vocational guidance. The following is a passage taken from it:

Sir, these people pretend that they are doctors of a specific type; that they simply practise another form of medicine. Thus there can be no question of implementing the proposal of the hon. Opposition that we may as well allow them to perform certain actions only. They accept that they render a comprehensive medical service. In terms of their own definition, they regard themselves as doctors who are treating and preventing diseases according to a certain theory, which states dogmatically that human diseases are caused primarily by pressure on spinal nerves as a result of dislocation or subluxation of spinal vertebrae, and that health can be regained only by manipulation of the vertebrae concerned in order to restore them to their normal position. In contrast to that, we have the standpoint of the Medical Council, which was put here very clearly this afternoon by the hon. the Minister. The medical profession simply does not accept that chiropractic is based on scientific grounds. The ethical norms of these people are not always above suspicion either. I now want to refer hon. members to an article that was written. It is a handbook entitled “The Parker School of Practice-building Question and Answer Book”, by James W. Parker, D.C. Ph.C. What does it say?—

In the preface to this book the editor wrote:

These people are running a business. To them medicine is not a calling, as we know the doctors of South Africa. These people are selling their services to the public. I want to read to hon. members from another magazine of the chiropractors. It is another handbook and is entitled “Jim’s & Pals’ Treat of ‘Potatoes & Meat’ ”, whatever that may mean. The book deals, inter alia, with “spiritual and psychological principles of success” and “basic rules of salesmanship for the chiropractor, receptionist and wife”. I quote:

When the patient first comes into the office, he naturally is sick or he would not be there. He has faith in sickness and is concentrating on sickness and knows he is sick. We have to agree with him and reaffirm him that he is the sickest man we have ever seen and must convince him that we feel as he feels.

Sir, what sort of ethical norm is this? But I shall quote more from the same book. This chapter is entitled:

Now I want to quote in reasonable detail. In this booklet it is prescribed how the interview should be conducted. The heading of this chapter reads as follows: “Re-X-raying old patients to stimulate referrals.” I quote—

He is still dealing with Mr. Bentley and continues as follows-—

Then the following is published under the heading: “How to X-ray patients with extremely acute complaint or where a poor financial condition is evident.” Now hon. members must note the subtle psychology these people use. I read—

Reply: Okay.

Reply: Okay.

This is the sort of advertising method. These are the ethical norms these people apply to their work. It is recommended to them in this way in an official booklet distributed by their associations. But there is much worse to come. Under the heading “How to get new patients in insurance cases”, the following appears—

Reply: Okay.

Reply: My wife.

Okay!

That is obvious. We must not allow ourselves to be misled by these people any longer. In as far as chiropractic has any value, this value is contained simply and solely in the fact that in regard to the implementation of their manipulative procedures, they are capable and have been thoroughly trained. Medical science readily acknowledges that such procedures do in fact exist, but then they must be motivated on the basis of medico-scientific evidence. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for “O.K.”—I mean Cradock—has failed in his half-hour speech to do the one thing which we on this side of the House would have liked him to do, and that is to tell us, his constituents and the country as a whole whether he is for or against chiropractic. I hope that in the course of this debate we shall hear from one of the hon. members on the Government side whether in fact they are for or against chiropractic. Because a Bill is now being introduced by the Government to give statutory recognition to certain chiropractors, and at the same time we have had the spectacle of hearing the hon. the Minister for 1½ hours condemning and belittling chiropractors, the hon. member for Fauresmith in a ½-hour speech condemning and belittling chiropractors, and the hon. member for Cradock in a ½-hour speech condemning and belittling chiropractors. Now, what do they want, Sir? Do they want to recognize chiropractors, or do they regard chiropractors as being a danger to the public? I want to tell the House exactly where we stand, became we are not prepared to equivocate on this matter. In doing so, I want to deal with an allegation made by the hon. the Minister in the course of his speech. He accused this side of the House of opposing this Bill for political reasons, and in order to achieve political gain by doing so. I see him nodding his head.

I said “doubtful political ends”.

In other words, Sir, the hon. the Minister, as usual, is trying to be just a little too clever. The sentiment is exactly the same. He is accusing us of opposing this Bill in order to make political capital. I want the Minister to appreciate that this is typical of the growing arrogance of this Government. This Government seems to think that because the public generally is not prepared to accept everything they want to font down their throats these days, anybody who opposes them is doing so for political reasons. I want the hon. the Minister and Government members to understand quite clearly that we are opposing this Bill for two very good reasons. We are opposing it, first of all, because we believe in protecting the rights of chiropractic as a profession, subject to proper control measures being laid down and subject to proper training procedures being laid down, and neither of these is beyond the ingenuity of man. The suggestion that because they are today not controlled, and that their training may not be entirely adequate, they should not be given permanent recognition, we reject with the contempt that that deserves. I make the point, therefore, that our object in opposing this Bill is, firstly, to protect chiropractic as a profession and to see that it obtains permanent recognition, subject to the two things I have stated, namely that proper control is established …

By whom?

… by a proper controlling body, and that proper training facilities and a training programme are provided. The second reason for our opposition to this Bill is that we believe in protecting the right of the public to consult chiropractors if they wish to do so. I challenge members on that side of the House to tell us precisely where they stand on this issue. Do they, or do they not, wish to protect the right of the public to consult chiropractors if they wish to do so? Does the Government believe that in all these years that chiropractors have been practising without protection by this Government, the public has been exploited? If that is so, there would have been agitation from the public to the Government to ban chiropractors, or at any rate, to control them. But what have we had? From the moment that it has been clear to the members of the public that chiropractors may be interfered with in their practice—last year first of all and this year again—there has been a swarm of telegrams to Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, asking the Government to preserve the chiropractic profession. I believe that there have been very few telegrams from members of the public who have been dissatisfied and have wanted to have chiropractors banned. I challenge the hon. the Minister, if he disputes this statement, to prove the contrary. I have had 100 telegrams, Mr. Speaker, and I am by no means the only one. Here I have a batch of telegrams and the hon. the Minister can have a look at them if he wants 100 telegrams. Not one of them asks for chiropractors to be banned, every single one of them praises the work of chiropractors in the past and urges that they be permitted to continue to practise.

Mr. Speaker, let us hear once and for all from hon. members on that side of the House where they stand on this issue. Do they want the members of the public to have the right to consult chiropractors if they wish to do so or not? We say unequivocally that they should have that right. Sir, in support of this I want to quote merely one or two statements made. I will end by quoting a statement made by a medical practitioner in only one of the letters that I have had—

What are you reading from?

I am reading from letters that I have received from constituents. Sir, in regard to this letter I would point out to the House that this comes from a group of attorneys.

That is not surprising.

Why?

Have you been briefed?

Sir, let me quote from another letter, also from a group of people—

Of course.

The Minister says, “Of course”. That is interesting to hear. “I am completely satisfied with the work they are doing”—and the Minister says “of course”. Presumably he agrees with that.

He means “okay”.

I take it that the hon. the Minister agrees that the work that they are doing is satisfactory?

Some of the work. Do not ask me; ask the hon. member for Rosettenville.

Mr. Speaker, we are making some progress because in the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech of one and a half hours, he did not give the chiropractors any credit for doing any good whatsoever …

That is not true.

… so we are making some progress. Perhaps by the end of this debate we may find that he and other medical practitioners on the Government side, who have been speaking so strenuously against the chiropractors will admit that they have been doing good work, because the members of the public believe that they have.

All the members of the public or only some?

I believe that the constituents of the hon. member for Cradock are not going to be pleased when his Hansard is read out to them at public meetings.

I have not had a single letter of protest.

When were you last in Cradock?

Sir, I do not want to bore the House with quotations from telegrams I have received.

Sit down!

I have no intention of sitting down just yet. I can assure that hon. member. I do not want to bore the House with quotations from the telegrams I have received because hon. members on the Government side know just as well that they have had as many telegrams of the same type and I challenge them to get up and to read out some of the telegrams that they have had from their constituents. I challenge that hon. voluble member on the back benches, and I challenge some of the hon. the Ministers sitting here on the front benches to read out the telegrams they have received. Sir, let me conclude my quotations by referring to one from a doctor. I believe that this is not isolated. There are many doctors in South Africa who would be prepared to make the statement that I am about to read in regard to chiropractors.

How do you know?

They are honest doctors.

Sir, I am indebted to my colleague for that comment with which I agree, but there is a further reason why I am able to say this, because I know of my own knowledge that there are many medical practitioners in this country who send their own patients to chiropractors for certain treatment. Will the hon. the Minister deny that?

Yes, I do.

Does the hon. the Minister deny that medical practitioners send patients of theirs to chiropractors for treatment?

There are such practitioners but to say that there are many is a complete falsehood.

The hon. the Minister says there are some. Sir, once again we are making some progress. Perhaps the hon. the Minister in his reply will tell us in his opinion how many of his colleagues do that, because I think he would be very surprised to know that the number is much greater than he realizes.

How do you know?

Sir, I challenge the hon. the Minister to make inquiries from his colleagues.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, I do not wish to answer any questions at this stage. If I have time I will deal with questions later. The quotation with which I wish to close my list of quotations is this; it is from Dr. A. G. T. Fisher, M.C., M.B., Ch.B., F.R.C.S. The hon. the Minister will accept that these are high qualifications.

Is that the hon. member for Rosettenville?

No, but I am sure that the hon. member for Rosettenville will share these sentiments—

The hon. the Minister and members on that side of the House know that this is in fact correct, that there are many medical practitioners who would endorse that sentiment. Sir, why do we have this nonsense that we are having from the Government over this Bill? I believe that this is one of the most extraordinary debates that we have had in this Chamber for a long time. We have before us a Bill—and this must be quite unique—which on the one hand provides for the first time a measure of statutory recognition for the chiropractic profession, and in the very same measure it is provided for that body to be legislated into extinction. What a most extraordinary state of affairs! In the very same measure we have recognition of the profession for the first time and in the same Bill provision is made for their extinction. Sir, if this is not one of the most extraordinary bits of legislation to be presented to this House, I would like to hear of a more extraordinary one.

Sir, then we have the curious speeches, to put it at the lowest level, from hon. members on that side starting with the hon. the Minister, who took one and a half hours, as I have said already, to present a Bill giving statutory recognition to present practitioners and yet spending the whole of his speech condemning the profession, belittling them and running them down. The same applies to the other members on that side. Sir, has there ever been another Bill of this type introduced by a Minister in which he spends his whole speech condemning the body to which he is giving statutory recognition?

You have no case.

I should like to hear a reply from the hon. the Minister if he thinks I have no case. He may think I have not, but I can assure him that there are thousands of members of the public in South Africa today who believe that I have a case and that the Minister himself has no case.

What is the Government trying to do here? This Government is trying to tell us on the one hand that they cannot give permanent recognition to chiropractors. This is important; the reason why the Minister and his colleagues claim they cannot give permanent recognition to chiropractic as a profession is firstly, because they claim that it is not scientifically based. The hon. the Minister went to great lengths to attempt to prove this. Secondly, he claims that they are inadequately trained. In fact, if we listen to the speeches made by Government members; we must come to the conclusion that Government members believe that they are totally inadequately trained, to the extent that they are almost a public danger; and yet they are proposing to give recognition to persons who are in the same category, persons who are presently practising this profession which the Government members claim is unscientifically based and is based on totally inadequate training. The hon. the Minister laughed at that statement of mine and shook his head. I would like him to tell me in what way my argument is wrong. I wish he would give some attention to my remarks.

I am listening very attentively.

If the arguments raised by the Minister for not giving chiropractic permanent recognition is correct, he has no right to give present practitioners any statutory recognition whatsoever.

Why not?

Because he claims that chiropractors practise a profession which is not scientifically based. In fact he went further than that; in his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said the following. I cannot find my note and I will have to come back to this later. The Minister used even stronger words than that in condemning the whole philosophy and basis of chiropractic. The words he used—I wrote them down, Sir—were that they stem from premises which are false. That is what he said. Those are the very strongest terms he could possibly have used, and yet he is giving recognition to some of the practitioners of that profession which he condemns as being based on false premises.

To their vested rights.

Sir, this is completely illogical. If the Minister considers that this profession is based on false premises and that their training is totally inadequate, then he must believe that they are a danger to the public; and if he believes they are a danger to the public then he cannot possibly in the public interest recognize even the practising ones; and to suggest that he is doing so because of vested rights is no argument at all. It is a false premise. [Interjections.]

Order!

I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister about something else, too. This Government claims to rest on one other principle, and that is the principle of being opposed to monopolies. But is this not exactly what the Government is doing in this Bill? It is giving to the present practitioners of chiropractic and those who are still studying a monopoly to perform chiropractic as a profession in South Africa for a period which could be very long because it could continue until the last of them ceases to practise. This is a monopoly, Sir, and I would like to hear from the Government what they have to say about that aspect of this Bill, since they claim that they are so concerned with principles which they have accepted throughout the years.

What utter rubbish!

The whole thing can be shot down full of holes because the hon. the Minister relies on the report of the commission appointed to investigate chiropractic. He relies to a great extent for the legislation he is introducing today on this report. Now, first of all, there is this criticism to be levelled against the report that it is already hopelessly out of date. The Minister must not shake his head, Sir. He knows that this report was brought out in 1962, eight years ago, and in eight years the chiropractic profession has improved its position beyond what it was at that time. That is the first criticism. The second criticism I have is that if in fact this profession is as bad as the Minister claims it is, relying on the commission’s report, why did this Government do nothing in the intervening eight years to protect the public? But the most hypocritical aspect of this whole approach …

Order! No, the hon. member may not say that. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw the word, and use the word “insincere”. The most insincere and possibly sanctimonious approach to this report is that while relying on the report, by the very fact that the Minister introduces this legislation, he ignores completely the very first recommendation of the commission, namely that chiropractic should not be given statutory recognition. What is his explanation for doing that?

Vested rights should be protected. That has always been done since 1928 and I am not deviating from it.

We entirely agree with the hon. the Minister in regard to vested rights. We go further and say that unless the chiropractic profession is shown to be a danger to the public, they are entitled to be recognized and the public is entitled to consult them if they wish to do so. They are entitled to permanent recognition, subject to the conditions that I have already mentioned. This is what we believe to be the true approach based on the basis of the principle of vested rights, not the approach of the hon. the Minister to give recognition to the people who are in the fortunate position today of practising in South Africa and to exclude everyone else.

I would like to know this from the hon. the Minister. What is his objection to chiropractic? As I understood it, it was merely because he considered that they are not sufficiently qualified to diagnose. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the commission refused to allow chiropractors to present the evidence which they wished to present to the commission to prove that their profession is in fact scientifically based. I have neither the time nor am I qualified to discuss this evening whether or not their profession is scientifically based. What I do say is that, if they are not scientifically based, it is most extraordinary that highly developed and civilized countries such as the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand, to mention some, have in the past granted autonomous recognition to chiropractic as a profession. What exactly is it that this Minister is against with regard to chiropractic? Let him come out and tell us. Is it simply … No, I will not make a suggestion. Let him tell us.

Your colleague next to you did the same thing in a previous debate. He said what you were going to say now.

What was I going to say? I suspect that the hon. the Minister is quite correct in his diagnosis of what was on my mind. Well, if he is, he must have a guilty conscience. What I want to say is that it has been reported by the commission that—

If doctors can perform manipulative techniques, why is it that the hon. the Minister is against chiropractors performing manipulative techniques, provided that they do so subject, as we have suggested, to a proper controlling body and after submitting themselves to a recognized training curricula?

Tell me, which body should that be?

The hon. the Minister must not be so naïve. It is not beyond the bounds of human ingenuity to establish a controlling body. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we had the usual demonstration from the hon. member for Musgrave again this evening. It was his usual, emotional approach where he stands there jumping about like a cat on a hot tin roof. Sometimes it looks as if he were going to sit down, but just when I want to rise to speak, he carries on. I think that the speeches of the United Party this evening once again proved to us the double standards which that party always applies. The hon. member for Rosettenville stated here that he as a doctor accepted that there was no scientific basis for chiropractic. Directly afterwards he, as well as his party—probably on his advice—defended chiropractic as hard as they could. The one moment they say there is no scientific basis for it, but immediately afterwards they defend chiropractic as fiercely as they can. I should like to remind the United Party of the grounds on which they condemned the other quacks in this country when we were dealing with the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act here. After all, those people also achieve very good results. They can bring hundreds of cases of people whom they have cured. Where do these double standards of the United Party come from then? It is clear from their speeches that they are even prepared to pillory the medical profession here. That is why I made an interjection when the hon. member for Berea was speaking. The United Party is making objective criticism difficult, and is even condoning, through the hon. member for Rosettenville, unethical conduct. I want to make it very clear that this side of the House is not pleased about this. I hope the medical profession outside takes note of the standpoint of the United Party in this connection. That side of the House, in 1947, even promulgated an Act in the Gazette which was to have determined the future of chiropractors. However, they are saying absolutely nothing about that measure now. We had double-talk on the part of the United Party in respect of professional medical standards as well this evening. I just want to ask them why I as a doctor, or any person who wants to practise as a doctor, must undergo a course of seven years’ study in order to acquire the right to diagnose and to treat diseases while the United Party maintains that a profession in regard to which a limited period of training is required, i.e. four years, should be allowed to have the same function as the one I perform as a doctor. Surely that is not right.

†The hon. member for Musgrave is also a member of a profession of high standing and with high ethical standards. I am surprised that he is prepared to apply one principle to another profession while it is doubtful whether he will be prepared to apply the same principle to his profession.

I said there should be a proper controlling body and proper training.

We are living here in a democratically organized country and for that reason this Government will see to it that human rights are not in the normal course of events subjected to restrictions. In a well-ordered country there is always a need for discipline and control. Virtually all the professions in this country have over the years controlled and disciplined themselves. The history of this practise goes back a long way. Each profession has for many years now laid down its own minimum standards. This Government also has a responsibility towards the public to ensure that minimum standards will be applied in respect of the protection of professions in this country, whatever these professions may be. Hence the necessity for this legislation.

I want to dilate briefly on the question of the history of control, particularly in regard to the medical profession in South Africa. It is very interesting to note that as far back as the 15th century, certain professions themselves applied control in the Germanic states of Europe. This principle was introduced into Holland through the medical profession. In the time of the Batavian republic in South Africa it was already an established principle in South Africa. Here in Cape Town and vicinity it was also, under the Batavian republic, a legal requirement that medical personnel and nurses should be registered. After the British occupation of the Cape in 1806, these provisions were repealed, but in 1810 Dr. Wehr, a German doctor, urged Lord Charles Somerset, through the mediation of a certain James Barry, to make certain concessions in respect of the training of nurses and the proper control of that profession in South Africa. It is interesting to learn that the so-called “block system” of training for nurses was already being applied in Cape Town in 1810 and that at that time, too, there was registration. The so-called “first midwifery school” was established here in the Cape. As long ago as 1877 there was compulsory registration of nurses in South Africa, under the protection of Sister Henrietta in Kimberley. In 1891 we really made history in South Africa in that we then had the first compulsory registration of medical staff in the world. As long ago as 1917-I9 various attempts were made to give statutory status to the medical associations in South Africa and to introduce compulsory registration again. In 1928, we had Act No. 13 of 1928 which for the first time gave statutory substance to registration here in South Africa on the Statute Book. The United Party is kicking up such a fuss this evening about the fact that we are now allowing chiropractors to continue practising in future. Are they not aware of the fact that in 1928 quite a number of doctors who were not qualified were placed on the registration list and that those people were given the right to practice as doctors until their death? The same applied to nurses. Now we have come to 1971 and it is definitely high time now that all professions, and as well as the professions of the medical science—this includes chiropractic—should be placed on a properly controlled basis.

This matter goes back a very long way in the history of South Africa. But let us also consider for a while the history of chiropractic. It is important that we as laymen—and many of us are perhaps laymen —should know something about chiropractic as well as its history.

Manipulative treatments are as old as the hills. The Hindu, the Aztecs, the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Tibetans applied manipulative procedures. Even Hippocrates, in one of his treatises, goes so far as to say: “Structure is the basis of medicine.” I should like to point out here that D. D. Palmer, who is generally regarded as the father of chiropractic, was preceded by several years by other persons in the United States who also practise manipulative treatment. As long ago as 1897 D. D. Palmer supposedly cured someone from Ontaria in America, a certain Harvey Lil-lard, from deafness with his famous manipulation. Chiropractors regard this date as the beginning of their era. In 1899 D.D. Palmer established his so-called School of Chiropractic in Davenport.

However, it was his son, B. J. Palmer, who expanded this school and finally established chiropractic. He is in fact regarded as the father of chiropractic. It is interesting to know that B. J. Palmer, then son of D. D. Palmer, was an assistant to a travelling magician. At that time mysticism played a very great part in chiropractic. In 1906 the Palmer School of Chiropractic was established in Oklahoma City. They also published a journal, and this journal still appears today, under the name The Chiropractor. In 1910 the famous book of D. D. Palmer appeared, which in my opinion cannot be regarded as anything but a thousand pages of rubbish. He called the book “The Chiropractors Adjustor, a textbook of Science, of Philosophy and Chiropractic for Students and Practitioners”. One of his own supporters subsequently described this book as follows: “It lambasted many he believed to be his enemies, or at least luke-warm friends, including his own son, and contained page after page of mysticism, poetry, maxims and satire”. This book is regarded as one of their original standard works.

In 1913 the first legislation in regard to chiropractic was introduced in Kansas in the United States. All the subsequent legislation tried in the first instance to define chiropractic, but definitely did not succeed in doing so. It did not succeed in doing so, because I can read out to hon. members tonight approximately 30 to 40 different definitions of chiropractic, of which not one has any bearing on another. The second aspect of legislation, is of course certain training standards, and these are very vaguely defined. As a result of that the position has been exploited. In addition it laid down certain conditions in regard to character and ethics for the issuing of licences. Lastly, the penalties relating to this matter, were stipulated.

Today there is in fact legislation in regard to chiropractic in most states of America, with the exception of New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Mississippi. But the laws which do exist, are so divergent that it is quite clear that no one really knows what this whole matter is all about. Now we must pause for a while and consider the theory of chiropractic. The theory of chiropractic is based on the supposition, which is anatomical in the first instance and physiological in the second, of a pressure of nerves in the area of intervertebral foramina. This pressure causes an unknown factor to malfunction. This unknown factor they call the “innate intelligence”. Some writers call it the “internal nerve force”. This factor is responsible for the natural self-recovery of the body. This natural self-recovery is absolutely dependent on the stimulations of this so-called “innate intelligence”, which is conduced by the nerves. I should like to quote here what McClusky says this “innate intelligence” actually is. He says:

This “innate” is described as the “internal God”. I shall later on in my speech try to find a scientific basis for the existence of this so-called “innate intelligence”. Then it is important that we should know on what principles, according to chiropractic itself, the practice of chiropractic is based. I am quoting them here as they were formulated by Dr. A. T. Still as long ago as 1874, several years before the time of Palmer:

Now it is necessary for us to make very certain on what basis we are going to form an opinion of chiropractic. According to what principles must we put chiropractic to the test? We state the first criterion, i.e. that of the United Party, that wants to test chiropractics by means of the public opinion. The second criterion is to test chiropractic by its results. The third criterion is the established scientific principles.

Let us just consider for a moment this question of public opinion. I think any person will concede that emotion plays a very great part in the public assessment of any matter. We cannot, in these modern times, allow emotion to play a dominant role in our decisions. Then there is the important question of ignorance. We cannot expect the normal public, who are exposed to the advertisement campaigns of chiropractic, to have a healthy judgment in regard to this matter. Over and above that, there is still the political agitation which is in progress here at the moment. I just want to indicate how organized this reaction to the Bill is. I have here a whole pack of telegramms. Do hon. members know that the wording, strangely enough, is precisely the same in every case? In other words, this is an organized attempt on the part of one or two persons who are simply trying to inundate the House of Assembly with telegrams.

Read them; let us hear.

It reads-

The next one reads—

So it goes on. I can read them all out. The wording is precisely the same.

Are those all you received, or are there more?

It is not important whether this is all; the point I am making, is that this is an organized movement on the part of a few individuals to try to influence the Government and to create the impression that this is a mass demonstration.

How many are there?

I have quite a lot here. In any case, Sir, the next basis on which we can form an opinion of chiropractic, is the so-called successes of chiropractic. It is interesting that the chiropractors themselves say that 90 per cent of the patients who consult them, have previously been to doctors. In other words, we can reasonably say that a very large percentage of the patients are people who fall into the category of psycho-neurotic patients. Many patients who consult doctors, are not suffering from any organic disease; some researchers put the figure as high as 70 per cent. It is this type of case in particular which can be “successfully” treated by a chiropractor, because a patient who is suffering from a psycho-neurotic condition, is very susceptible to the psychotherapy which he receives through unusual methods, as well as the sympathy which accompanies it.

The cases that really find relief from pain as a result of successful manipulation, are usually not suffering from any organic disease. It is important that we differentiate here between organic diseases and ordinary organic conditions, because the chiropractor claims to be able to cure ordinary organic diseases as well. Sir, I think you will admit that any person who goes to a chiropractor and does not obtain satisfactory treatment will not easily talk about it; he will be ashamed to admit that he had been to see a chiropractor or a quack. We must accept that the cases which are so freely quoted, cases where successful results were achieved, must be attributed to the fact that any practitioner can expect to have a reasonable measure of success.

Sir, let us consider the scientific objections to chiropractic. I should like to subdivide these objections into anatomical objections, physiological objections, the psycho-somatic aspect and the medico-scientific objections. About the anatomical aspect a great deal has been said in this debate, and I am not going to say very much about it. I think the hon. the Minister indicated very clearly that they have been unable, in any dissecting theatre in the world, to find any anatomical proof to support the claims of chiropractic. As far as the physiological basis is concerned, I shall confine myself tonight to the possible existence of the “innate intelligence”, the so-called “God within”.

The physiology of the nervous system is one of the most highly specialized subjects in science. The functions which the so-called “innate intelligence” is supposed to perform, are known in detail; that is, the protective mechanism against disease and the electrical impulses of the nervous system can be measured with instruments. Sir, I want to mention to you a few examples of all the numerous known physiological processes which exist in the physiology of the nervous system. We think for example of the immuno-antigen reactions, the natural reactions which arise in the body against diseases, which have absolutely nothing to do with any other factor, such as “innate intelligence” for example. Then we think of the auto-anti-gen processes.

There are numerous enzyme reactions, the biochemical processes of the tissue, the cell, the nucleus and even the chromosome in the finest detail. Then there are numerous electrolytical processes and the mechanism of conductivity, in regard to which there is no doubt whatsoever. We also think of the process of ionisation in respect of the membranes of the nervous system, and how the impulse originates there. As far as the knowledge of the differential functions of the brain is concerned, there are no further problems today. The brain has been studied in great detail. We know what the differential functions of the brain are. The physiology of the hypothalamus of the brain and the amygdala is well known. We know how this, through states of tension and through certain stimuli, can have an effect on the emotions. We know how these processes can be the cause of psycho-somatic conditions. These psycho-somatic conditions are very close to chiropractic. This is the case to such an extent that the states of tension could to a certain extent be made to correspond with similar processes, if such processes were present. The process through which the state of tension of the psyche can influence functions of the organs through the persistent stimulation of the para-sympathetic system, may lead to organic conditions.

The whole theory of chiropractic is based on the pressure on the spinal nerves. That is why I say that if this process could be traced back to the brain one would perhaps have a reason to take a closer look at chiropractic.

I want to conclude by saying that chiropractors are, with this measure, being afforded the opportunity of determining their own future, by disciplining and controlling themselves, laying down minimum requirements. pursuing their theories further and maintaining high standards. Then they can return to this Government and I am certain that this Government, as well as the Medical Council, will then listen to them, when they can justify their own case in this country. We want to make it very clear that we cannot allow double standards in South Africa when it comes to the control of the professions. Hence the need for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the hon. member for Newcastle an erudite and no doubt scientific treatise on the development of the control over the medical profession and the development of chiropractic. As the first layman and non-professional man to enter this debate, I regret that I cannot answer him. I am sure that the hon. member will understand if I do not react in any way to his scientific discourse here this evening.

Cobbler, stick to your last.

That is fine. But I must say that the hon. member reminded me of a story I heard the other day. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will permit me to share that story with the House this evening. This is a story of three professional men who had an argument. A doctor, an architect and a politician had an argument as to which was the oldest profession. The medical man said that, as woman was created from a rib taken from a man, his profession must be the oldest. The architect replied, admitting that the doctor had a very strong case, but basing his argument on the first line in the Bible, he said that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Therefore he must have been an architect before a surgeon. The politician conceded that both had strong cases, but he said that if one continues with that quotation, it says that God created the heavens and the earth “out of chaos” and somebody must have created that.

That is what I think the politicians are doing here tonight. A professional politician, professionals in the medical sphere, an attorney, what I shall call a medical-orientated man and a pharmacist have all discussed this. I want to talk tonight from the point of view of the man in the street, who is most affected by this legislation which is before the House tonight. The interesting part of what the hon. member for Newcastle said tonight is that part which was not so scientific that I could not follow it, namely that if the chiropractors would now put their house in order, he will reconsider this legislation. This is an interesting thought. I wonder if the hon. the Minister adheres to that thought. If he will stick by certain undertakings …

I said so in my broadcast on the 24th February.

He might have said it in his broadcast on the 24th February, but I did not hear the hon. the Minister say it before this House. Of what comfort is that to the people of South Africa that the hon. the Minister mentions it in a broadcast?

I said it here as well.

When?

This afternoon.

If the hon. the Minister said it this afternoon, I want to thank him very much and tell him that I appreciate it. I missed the point and it appears that I am not the only one who missed the point. I am, however, glad to have it on record that if the chiropractors will put their house in order, this whole measure will be reconsidered. I presume that we will then be able to say to the people of South Africa that they may continue to have chiropractic treatment.

This rasises a further point. What are we arguing about? Why do we have this legislation? I thought that the whole reason for this legislation was that the hon. the Minister, having considered the report of the commission, decided that the practice of chiropractic was dangerous to the public of South Africa and that he felt it was his duty to protect the public of South Africa against it. Then he wants to phase it out. He does not have the courage to go the whole hog, and say that, because it is dangerous now, it must be stopped now. He says that it is dangerous but they can continue performing this dangerous practice for the next 40 or 50 years. I cannot see this argument at all.

When one considers this matter, one wonders why this Bill has come before the House. The hon. the Minister digs out the report of a commission which is nearly ten years old, dusts it off, resuscitates it and brings it to this House. Why did he not go back to another commission? We have referred a lot to telegrams which had been sent to us. Here is one which I received which is addressed by someone from Musgrave Road in Durban which says—

I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us why. Does he not think that there have been advances in the last ten years? The hon. member for Newcastle seems to accept that there could be advances in the future. Why has he not re-examined the whole question? The hon. the Minister indicates that he will reply. While I am dealing with this I want to raise another question which has not been answered. Why were the chiropractors not permitted to bring their experts from the United States to give testimony before this commission? It is all very well for the hon. member for Cradock to say that they should have come now, that the chiropractors knew for at least six weeks that this measure was coming and that they could have sent for their experts before now. What good would that have been?

Do you know that there was never any such request before the commission?

I do not know whether such a request reached the hon. the Minister.

It never reached the commission.

I cannot answer that point either, but all I can say is that I have been assured by office-bearers of the old and the new chiropractic association that such a request was made and that they did ask that such expert evidence should be brought in. The commission, however, indicated that it was no good at all bringing them. Another point is why the hon. the Minister does not reinvestigate the whole matter before coming with this legislation. This legislation is based on a report which must be out of date. One of the members of that commission said at the beginning of this year—

Who said that?

One of the members of the commission who has obviously changed his mind.

I do not take notice of him, because he signed the report.

Yes, he signed the report, but that was 10 years ago. Additional things must have changed his mind. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he should speak to any leading sportsman or sportswoman in this country in any sport he likes and ask them what they think about chiropractors.

You are exaggerating.

No, I am not. Let alone the hundreds of telegrams received by members. While I am talking about that…

That was organized.

It was not organized. I am prepared to concede that a number of them were organized, but I do not accept that they were all organized. When you look through these telegrams and see the divergence there is in these telegrams you cannot accept that they were all organized. I do concede that certain of them bear resemblance to others and that it is obvious that there was a degree of organization behind them, but I feel that whether they were organized or not if members of the public take the trouble to send telegrams and write letters, such as those which have been received not only by members on this side of the House, but also by hon. members on that side as well, then surely some notice must be taken of this the only outward manifestation of public opinion. Surely the hon. the Minister must take note of public opinion. This is not playing politics; it is public opinion which is being expressed here.

I now want to come to the question of this legislation. The hon. the Minister said that he has had extreme difficulty with it. Whenever hon. members on this side of the House say that chiropractors should be subject to control he and other members on that side keep asking “by whom”? In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister went to great lengths to quote many authorities on many points, but on one point he never quoted any authority at all. I now want to ask him if he has consulted in any way legislation which exists in other countries controlling chiropractors. If he has consulted it, surely he could have found therein some way of controlling these people. They are being controlled, in other countries. In fact, I believe that legislation has been passed by 80 legislative bodies to control the practice of chiropractors. The hon. the Minister nods. He therefore has plenty of precedent from which to get some advice. As the hon. member for Musgrave said, it is not beyond the wit of human ingenuity to devise something in this regard. I believe that in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland, chiropractors fall under autonomous bodies. There they control themselves.

Do you want the same thing here?

This is what the chiropractors have asked for, and in this country it has been denied them.

Do you want the same position here?

Yes.

Outside the Medical Council?

Yes, outside the control of the Medical Council. This is the position in the five countries I have mentioned. The Department of the hon. the Minister can control them as well. This is already being done to a certain extent in this Bill. They are already outside the control of the Medical Council in this Bill. They are not being controlled by the Medical Council in terms of this Bill. They have an autonomous controlling body of their own.

They are not being controlled at all.

That is right, because they are controlling themselves.

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

Sir, my time has been limited by the Whips. We find that after legislation dealing with chiropractors has passed through 80 legislative bodies, this now is the first legislative body which is setting out to ban them. If this was not so tragic, it would be laughable.

It is not the first time we are giving a lead to the world.

Really and truly, Sir, I heard somebody earlier say something about the arrogance of the Government. Is this not a typical example of arrogance? Everybody else is out of step, and this Nationalist Government is the only one in step. As I have said, if this was not so tragic, it would be truly laughable.

I should now like to come to the question of the scientific grounds. I have already said that I am no scientist, but I should like to quote two statements in this regard. I should like the hon. the Minister to give me an answer to these arguments, so that my simple mind will understand. The first is a statement issued by the Pan-African Chiropractic Association. It reads as follows:

For one year?

Yes, for one year. The statement continues:

Now the Minister asks: “What board can control them?” Here we have the American National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Surely that board must have some norms that it has set down? Those norms can either be accepted or extended. The hon. the Minister knows that the chiropractors themselves and their college have now indicated that they realize they must go a bit further with their training. Is he not prepared to meet them, Sir? The second quotation I should like to make is from a letter which I received from a practising chiropractor in Pietermaritzburg. He writes:

The chiropractor writes medicines …

Do you know, Sir, this handwriting is just like a doctor’s. He says:

I do not believe that a chiropractor has the wide general knowledge of a medical practitioner.

Take it from me that that statement is untrue.

This is a leading personality …

If that is true, he can register tomorrow morning with the Medical Council.

How can the hon. the Minister say that it is not true, Sir?

Because if that is true, he can register tomorrow morning with the Medical Council.

Yes, but is he compelled to register? Perhaps he has registered …

Then he has no problem.

… and he is practising as a chiropractor. He is not practising as a doctor. He is practising as a chiropractor.

I have no objection to that at all.

Sir, why does the Minister then want to phase that sort of man out?

I am not phasing them out.

But you are phasing this sort of man out …

Do not be silly.

… because he is practising as a chiropractor. He is not practising as a general practitioner at all.

Can a general practitioner be a chiropractor?

Yes, that is a very fair question. I think I must put it to the hon. the Minister. Can a general practitioner be a chiropractor?

But of course. He can practise any treatment he likes.

And you do not believe that a general practitioner would be as dangerous, practising chiropractic …

No, because he is competent to make a diagnosis.

This is symptomatic of the muddled thinking of the hon. the Minister.

Why don’t you talk about something about which you know something?

This same chiropractor whom I quoted just now raised a point about which the hon. the Minister must know. He said that after the war the South African Government, and not only the United Party Government but also the Nationalist Party Government, assisted students to go overseas in order to qualify. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us when the last assisted student was sent overseas. I wonder if he could tell us whether they have all repaid their loans.

We are protecting them all.

Is it possible to get that sort of information? Surely this was recognition of the chiropractor. What is the test and what is the proof which is applied? We have had the medical men of the House tonight telling us that there is no scientific basis for the chiropractor. I cannot argue about that, but the point that I made earlier is that if this is dangerous, they must be banned right now. The hon. the Minister did reply to that question. I will concede him that. He did reply to the question why he was not banning them all now. He raised the argument about the vested rights of those who are practising chiropractic today. Since when has this Government been so sensitive about vested rights? Just take the hon. the Minister’s neighbour, the hon. the Minister of Community Development. Does he worry about the vested rights of the Indians or the other people that he moves away?

Order! That is not under discussion now. That point about vested rights has also been made repeatedly.

My reply to the hon. the Minister’s reply that he is hiding behind “vested rights” is that he knows the procedure of this House. He knows it is quite competent for this House to take away those vested rights. I believe it has been done before. But I want to say that the hon. the Minister was not prepared to take that step for one reason, the reason being that this would have meant a hybrid Bill which would have had to be referred to a select committee composed of both sides of this House. It would have reopened the whole question of the commission. He was not prepared—this comes back to where I started—to re-investigate the whole question today. He has hidden behind a report which is nearly 10 years old. I want to say something else about that report. It was a report which I believe was conceived in haste. There is no date on it, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Rosettenville, but I believe that this is the quickest commission ever appointed by this Nationalist Party. It was not six months from the time that they were appointed to the time that they reported. At the same time they denied the chiropractor the opportunity of bringing expert evidence from America. Why this haste? After the haste it was pigeon-holed for nearly nine years. Then all of a sudden it was produced here.

Before I sit down I want to deal with the question of public opinion. I want to say that I also have received something over 100 telegrams and nearly 30 letters.

I received 150.

That is exactly what I wanted to hear from hon. members. I hope that hon. member is going to get up and support us. I hope he is going to accede to the wishes of those people.

I am not stupid.

I am not saying that that hon. member is stupid, but I do not know whether he knows what he is talking about. I hope he is going to accede to the wishes of his voters and I hope he is going to do as they have asked him to do, and that is to oppose this measure of the hon. the Minister. They have all received these telegrams and these letters and I do not know why they are so shy to mention them. I want to say this …

Who paid for those 150 telegrams?

I wonder who paid for these telegrams.

They all have the same wording.

Every one of them?

Yes.

I challenge the hon. member, because I know it is not true, to produce 150 telegrams with identifical wording. I challenge him now. This debate will go on until tomorrow. I hope, if he wishes to uphold his good name, that he will produce here 150 telegrams with the same wording tomorrow. I want to say that he impeaches people of integrity in this country. When I read some of the letters I have here, it is obvious that these are not people from the back streets.

Who said so?

That is what is implied by that hon. member. But listen to a letter such as this one—

Here is another one—

He is a scientific man himself—

Here is another one—

Here is one from a professor at the University of Natal. He says—

Is that from Horwood?

No, not professor Horwood. Here is a telegram from another professor—

This is from a professor, an intelligent person. This is not somebody who has been duped by some charlatan. I am the first one to concede that there are charlatans in this profession, the same as there are in every profession. It is up to the profession itself to control them and get them out. Here is one from a leading educationist. Here is one from a general. But I must read this one. It reads—

This is a telegram. This man went to considerable expense. I read on—

I hope the hon. the Minister is listening to this—

And this hon. Minister says that we want to lead the world! We cannot lead with the world with this sort of thought.

May I see it?

Certainly. We cannot lead the world with the sort of thought which that hon. Minister is bringing here today. As I said when I started, I am not a scientific man. I am not qualified to pass an opinion. I want to say that I have never been treated by a chiropractor. I have had back trouble; I underwent an operation; I was flat on my back for four months. Today, thanks to the medical profession, I am free from pain: I can play sport; I can get around. But I believe that it would be entirely wrong to pass legislation through this House, denying the democratic right in this democracy of ours, of any person to go to such a person if he is properly controlled. On the question of control I want to repeat to the hon. the Minister, if he looks at the legislation which has been passed in other countries, that he will find a way to control chiropractors.

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

I want to thank hon. members on both sides of this House for the contributions they made during this Second Reading debate, to which I am now replying. I must say the debate was conducted in a calmer atmosphere than I had anticipated. As far as hon. members on this side of the House are concerned, I want to convey my special thanks to them for the searching study they have made of the subject, something which is reflected in the quality of the speeches they made. What we had from the other side of this House, however, was a weak, political attempt. In the 18 years I have been a member of this House, we have never had any debate that has convinced me more than this one has that the Government is doing the right thing.

But before I continue, I should like to say that we on this side missed the contribution of the hon. member for Brentwood. In a debate of this nature we missed his knowledge and we missed his affable and restful presence. Our prayers, like those of hon. members on the opposite side, are that the care which he and his wife are receiving in the Karl Bremer Hospital will lead to their complete recovery so that he will be able to take his place here with us once more.

†In my reply to this debate I should like to address a few remarks also to the hon. member for Houghton and, consequently, I hope she will find it possible to listen to my reply. That will not be very long. The remarks I have to make are not based on political grounds but on the merits of the case. Perhaps she would after that vote with this side of the House. After all, it is today the 1st of April!

But before I come to that, I should like to comment on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville. This reads as follows—

Hon. members should note the words “now recognized by the Chiropractic Association of South Africa”. This amendment could easily have read equally well without these words. So I take it that these words were inserted on purpose. If that is so, I can only say that it is not only unwise but also ill-conceived, in addition to being most irresponsible, because it would be a retrograde step to do what the hon. member asks in his amendment. That can mean one thing and one thing only, i.e. that either another body must control matters pertaining to chiropractic, a body other than the Medical Council, or the Department of Health must usurp the functions of the Medical Council. That would constitute a major change in policy, a change which is not at all acceptable to us. In this connection let me say immediately that the one principle to which we will adhere, and to which we have to adhere, is that health services in all facets should be under the umbrella of one body and one body only, i.e. the Medical Council—not only for the protection of the public, but also for the further enhancement of the quality and status of health care in South Africa. I shall certainly not be a party to undermining the authority of such an august body as the Medical Council.

Will the Medical Council take the Chiropractors Association under its wing?

Of course not. The Medical Council is not prepared to do that; that is why I am making this statement that the hon. member’s amendment can only mean another body or the Department of Health, neither of which is acceptable. If the hon. member likes to undermine the authority of the Medical Council I am not prepared to join him in that.

If the views and this amendment are the considered views and amendment of the official Opposition …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. the Minister misread the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville. The word “now” read by the Minister and emphasized by him does not appear in the amendment of the hon. member.

Very well, let us leave out the word “now”; it does not mean a thing. It then reads: “Who qualify at a chiropractic institution recognized by the Chiropractic Association of South Africa”. What difference does it make? Mr. Speaker, I say that if this is the considered opinion of the Opposition, the men of science in South Africa should take note and, I am sure, will take note with dismay of this attitude that the official Opposition is adopting. If it is a case of playing politics—and I am sure it is nothing else but that in the case of the hon. member for Rosettenville —then it is an ill day for South Africa that politics has been brought into health matters for the first time as far as I know. It seems to me it is both, and I am afraid that if it is both the indictment against the Opposition is even stronger.

Sir, the hon. member for Rosettenville and other members made the point that chiropractors do help people, that they do relieve pain and that they do do good. Of course, I agree with that. As a matter of fact, this was the case before 1928 when we registered doctors. Many quacks did some good; they relieved some pain and helped some people. That applies equally here, and let us be generous and say that perhaps it applies in even greater measure as far as chiropractors are concerned. But, Sir, that is not the criterion to apply in this particular matter. It is not a criterion which has ever been applied. We refuse to register medical men from medical schools from many parts of the world who could do a lot of good in South Africa, but their standard of education is not up to the standard that we require in South Africa. So I say immediately that although they do good, their basic training is inadequate and is not scientifically based to enable them to make a diagnosis. Let me say immediately also in reply to the hon. member for Musgrave that doctors make mistakes: specialist make mistakes — many mistakes — like other people. But they make mistakes with a safeguard to the public of the whole of South Africa that if they do make mistakes those mistakes are made by people who at least have the basic training that is required of a medical man, of a person who is called upon to make a diagnosis.

There is the same test of negligence for all.

No. I am coming to that. I am glad the hon. member raised that point because I will deal with that specific point in a moment. I am sorry that I have to deal with that point but I must do so.

This report which was laid upon the Table also had an annexure, annexure III, which sets out certain cases where chiropractors did harm to individual patients. That was not published for the simple reason stated in this report—

That is the reason why it was not published. But without mentioning the case number and without mentioning the name of the patient or the doctor in this House, I am going to read out a few instances, and I will tell the hon. member for Pinelands afterwards why I do so. I did not do so in my introductory speech because I thought it might not be necessary but hon. members have made it necessary for me to do so. The first case I want to mention is this—-

Then the second one—

The third one—

Another case—

The next case—

The next case—

The next case—

Let us give hon. members one or two more cases—

Tuberculosis of the spine manipulated by a chiropractor …

If it is so bad. why do you let it continue?

I will come to that. Just let me finish this and I will answer every question. The next one is—

And the last one—

Sir, why am I quoting these cases? Not to condemn the chiropractors as such, because I have already admitted that doctors also make mistakes. But I am prepared to say, without fear of contradiction, that these sorts of mistakes cannot possibly be made by a person who has had the basic training to be able to make a diagnosis. That is the only point I am trying to make. I want to give another instance. One of our great scientists in South Africa took his wife to a chiropractor because she had a stiff neck. After one or two manipulations she was much better, and has stayed better up to this day, so he did some good. But whilst he was away overseas at a scientific conference his son developed a sore neck. His wife naturally also took this child to the chiropractor. He did one manipulation and the child was worse. He did a second one and then the child was really ill. They called in the doctor and he said he could not tell what was wrong with the child; “Let us give him an aspirin and see what happens by next morning”. The next morning he came out in mumps. The point I am trying to make is that all we in South Africa can see as far as the future is concerned is that we do not allow new people to come in who are not qualified to make a diagnosis. That is the only point I am trying to make.

But the existing ones are allowed to continue.

[Interjections.] The hon. member for Musgrave said that if these people were so bad—and I did not use the word “bad” — there would have been a public outcry and an agitation from the public to ban these people. But that is utter nonsense, and the hon. member knows it. That is not a norm that he ever applies in voting in this House. I will tell him why. Only two or three weeks ago he voted totally to ban cancer quacks. Did he get a single telegram asking for the banning of cancer quacks? Was there a public outcry? On the contrary. I received stacks of petitions that high not to ban cancer quacks. So that is not a valid argument. People who benefit by treatment are inclined to tell the world about it. People who go to a doctor do not refer to that visit as a pleasant one if it was not.

*They are not ashamed to say that they have been to a doctor, but people who go to chiropractors or to quacks are. One does not hear of the people who have not benefited [Interjections.] My colleague here is a fair man, but really, I have all the text books here and I have not read in one of them that they claim they have the power to make hair grow. [Laughter.] But, in the second place, there are successes, of course, as I have said, but we must never forget that the psycho-somatic cases form a large part of this practice and that the training as a whole is intent on that.

†But I want to come back to the hon. member for Musgrave. When he started speaking it was my intention to listen to him very carefully and to take note of him, as a barrister, but I am afraid that I cannot pay him the compliment of saying that I could take very serious notice of what he said, for the simple reason that he is a most unreliable witness, and I want to tell you why.

The hon. member got up and said this: There are many …

I want to emphasize the word “many”—

A little further on he said:

He then goes on. I say that he is a most unreliable witness, because how does the hon. member know that there are many such medical practitioners. What does “many” mean out of 11 000? Does it mean 500, or does it mean 1 000? What did the hon. member have in mind? If he were defending a case in court, did he have 20 per cent, 15 per cent or 10 per cent of the 11 000 in mind? How many is “many”?

You must have a pretty bad case to use that as an argument.

No, I want to ask the hon. member to let me have all the letters and telegrams which he has received from medical colleagues supporting his view. Furthermore, how many doctors does the hon. member know personally? 20, 30 or 50? To test his sincerity and his reference to “many” doctors, I am prepared to pay for every telegram sent by that hon. member—not by me—to all the doctors he knows personally to get their views. Let us see what happens then. I say that he is a most unreliable witness.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Does the hon. the Minister deny that his colleagues in the medical profession do refer persons to chiropractors?

I gave the hon. member the answer to that question. He is not only an unreliable witness, but he has a very short memory. The hon. member is getting old.

What is your answer?

I have the hon. member’s Hansard here and I will read it out. The hon. member asked me:

Does the hon. the Minister deny that medical practitioners send patients of theirs to chiropractors for treatment?

That was asked yesterday evening. He has forgotten about it. What was my reply? My reply was—

There are such practitioners, but to say that there are many is a complete falsehood.

How many are there in your opinion?

I challenge the hon. member to send telegrams on his own, which I will pay for, to all the medical men he knows and to bring the proof to me. I say that he is a most unreliable witness.

A reasonably valid point was made by different hon. members when they said that the report of the commission, which is before the House, was rather outdated. I think that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District and others made that point. In all fairness I must say that, on the face of it, it is not an unfair remark. In years it is reasonably outdated, but the situation we are handling has not materially changed.

How do you know that?

I will come to it in a minute and then the hon. member must listen carefully. Perhaps the hon. member will go back and get the sort of treatment that my hon. colleague wants him to get. I say that the position has not materially changed. The findings of our commission are as valid today as they were the day the report was made. Furthermore, the views of our Medical Council are their views in the year 1971 and not of the year before that. I will come back to this question in a minute.

Another fair question that was raised is why we only introduce this Bill in 1971 and not before? Hon. members know that this was precipitated by the public agitation, and telegrams and letters sent by the chiropractors as a result of the para-medical Services Bill of last year. It was precipitated by them. That is why we are only coming with this legislation in 1971. But it was also tied up with negotiations which took quite some time. I must say, in any case, it has never come from the Opposition that we should have come earlier with a Bill in regard to para-medical services, or for that matter, any Bill with which I have come to this House, except for one exmember of this House, namely Dr. Radford. He was a member of that party but was also a member of the Medical Council whose views I have quoted. I am sorry that he is not in this House today to discuss this matter with us.

The hon. member for Transkei asked me why the position has not materially changed and why I say that it is still as valid today as it was when the report was written. I have here the journal of the American Medical Association dated 22nd February, 1971. In this journal we have a synopsis entitled: “What the health care consumer should know about chiropractic.” I have brought to the notice of this House the views of the medical profession, especially in my introductory speech. I now want to bring to this House, in reply to the different questions put, the evidence, not of medical men, but of people outside the medical profession. This evidence was, as I have said, published on the 22nd February, 1971. It is fresh; it is new; it is updated and authoritative. The article reads as follows:

Why am I quoting from the United States? I do this for the obvious reason that they have the most experience of chiropractic of all countries in the world. In 1966 President Johnson appointed the National Advisory Commission on Health Manpower. This commission reported in 1967 as follows:

It goes further and says:

The position is the same in South Africa. Ideally, we should stop it today. But, as I have said before, it is not the tradition in South Africa to make inroads into vested rights which have been there in all good faith for many, many years. This was the report of the Johnson Commission in 1967. It was not a medical commission.

But there is a second report to which I should like to refer. In 1967 the American Congress ordered the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare to make a study of chiropractic. They submitted their report to the congress in December, 1968. The following are their findings:

It recommended as follows:

The question that was asked by hon. members is why tutors were not allowed to be brought from America and elsewhere to give evidence before our commission. I will give hon. members the reply. I should like to refer hon. members again to this 50-page report from which I have just quoted the findings and recommendation. I quote—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that this commission should have considered the evidence of such a report rather than hear it first-hand for themselves from such experts?

The hon. member has it all wrong. They never considered this. I am now giving the information to the hon. member, because they could not have considered this. This report only appeared in 1968.

You are implying that it was not necessary to bring those experts over.

I imply that this report is acceptable to me and that the tutors and everybody else in the United States, had the opportunity to give their evidence. I have given two examples from outside the medical profession. In 1969, two years ago, a Blue Ribbon task force was appointed to study the problems of Medicare. The Blue Ribbon represents the medical services in the United States. I quote—

So far I have named three bodies from outside the medical profession. I am giving the hon. member the fourth. I quote—

This is what they said in 1969—

Then the American Public Health Association, which is constituted “of the administrators of the nation’s public health programs”, and they strongly endorsed excluding chiropractic from the Medicare program. They went further and I quote—

Then I want to refer to a consumer organization, which is “the nation’s largest labour organization and perhaps the nation’s most influential consumer group”. They submitted to the Congress in September, 1970, a “fact Sheet on Chiropractic”. They said the following—

In August, 1970, the Consumer Federation of America, representing 184 local, state and national consumer-orientated organizations, said the following—

The last thing I want to quote is quite important, because this was said by people who speak from experience. The National Association of Letter Carriers, which incorporated chiropractic into its health insurance plan in 1960, said five years later in its report which was based on this five years of experience—

I have quoted these as recent investigations. They are up to date. Yesterday I said that if we have to give a lead such as we have in other cases to America and the rest of the world in regard to this particular matter, we will do so. These are the findings in America and this is what should be done there. We are doing it in South Africa for the good of our people.

*There is a final point I should like to mention. It was mentioned here that any patient had the right of making his own choice and going to whomsoever he wishes for treatment. I want to say at once that this is not so, nor has it ever been the case nor may it be the case. If this were the case all our legislation in South Africa laying down minimum requirements for certain professions would be wrong. For example, we specify that no one may be represented in any court by any person unless such a person complies with certain requirements. He cannot go to just anybody. We provide explicitly that a person may not go to a medical practitioner unless that practitioner complies with certain requirements. As a matter of fact, we say that under certain circumstances a person may not be nursed by someone who does not comply with certain basic requirements. Therefore the right of free choice is not absolute, because if this were to be the case, it would place an enormous burden on the State and on the taxpayer. It would also be a burden on the families of such persons and on sick funds. For that reason this right cannot be unrestricted.

They may not give out that they are advocates and doctors.

No, what I am speaking of now is the right of the patient and not the question of people giving out to be doctors, etc. In the report of the commission that investigated chiropractics, this matter is stated very clearly. I want the hon. member to pay close attention to this. The following is stated in the report—

It is as clear as daylight. For that reason it is very clear to me at this stage that we are doing not only the right thing, but also the sensible thing by not giving permanence to people who have four years’ training and who are then called doctors, and by not giving permanence to something which is not scientifically based. In the second place I also think it is the sensible thing to do not to make inroads on vested rights and to maintain them as such, as was the tradition in 1928, again in 1934 as well as at other times, and to lave these people who are practising today and who are earning their living in good faith, in a position to continue doing so. I think that we have adequately informed the public through this debate and that the Government has done its duty. Secondly, I also think that because of the fact that I am on the best of terms with chiropractors in South Africa, I have the right to make an appeal to them to realize full well their shortcomings as regards the matter of making diagnosis, and in future to act perhaps more carefully so as to assist us in that way in placing the health of our people on the best footing. As far as the future is concerned, they should also avail themselves of this opportunity to put their house in order. The medical schools of our universities must give more and serious attention, especially in respect of pre-graduate training, to manipulation and physiotherapy. I believe that this matter is to the good of South Africa and that it will place science, and especially medical science, in our country on an even higher level than it already is.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—72: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, I N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman. H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens. J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Actually, this Bill is self-explanatory and very simple. It seeks to make the Legal Aid Act of 1969 also applicable to South-West Africa, including the Caprivi Strip. When the original Act was placed on the Statute Book, the administration of justice of South-West Africa still came under the Administration of that Territory. Since then, however, it has been transferred to the Administration of the Government of the Republic.

I may just add that this measure is being supported by the Law Society of South-West Africa by the Association of Law Societies as wen as by the Legal Aid Board.

In principle we on this side of the House have no objection to the extension of the Legal Aid Act also to South-West Africa. As a matter of fact, the only difference with regard to the Legal Aid Act between us and the other side is when and on what scale it is going to be implemented. The Minister now comes with a proposal that this Act also be implemented in South-West Africa.

But I find it unusual—to put it at the lowest—to find in the Estimates published yesterday that only R50 000 has been allocated for legal aid, despite the fact that this Bill is now going to extend still further the functions of the Legal Aid Board. I find this to be inexplicable and, consequently, I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to explain it. One appreciates that the board is negotiating with the profession, and that these negotiations take time. In the circumstances, I should like to know whether there are any prospects of this scheme being implemented within the next year? Furthermore is it not the Minister’s intention to obtain extra money to cover the extension of this scheme to South-West Africa? My difficulty is that the R50 000 in the Estimates is a column 2 item, which means that it may not be exceeded, nor may it be used for any other purpose.

So, I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to bring us up to date in regard to the progress that has been made with these negotiations. Does he expect to come to an agreement within the course of the next year in so far as the implementation of the principal Act is concerned? All we have had up to now was only a pious statement of intent while nothing concrete has been achieved. This matter is rather urgent and the Minister ought therefore to take us into his confidence.

As I have already said, we have no objection to the Bill at this stage.

I think that I can reassure the hon. member for Durban North and at the same time give some good news. From the nature of the case the negotiations which the Legal Aid Board had to conduct, were very protracted. With the passing of the principal Act in 1969 we did, so to speak, throw the whole problem into the lap of that board by asking them to work out a scheme. But at the time the board was still to be appointed, and for that purpose nominations were still to be received from the various associations and from the Bar Council. After the board had eventually been constituted, staff had to be appointed. This, too, was done—a director was appointed. In the meantime the board had to obtain offices as well. In due course a typist was also appointed, and it was only then that it could start negotiating with the profession. First of all it negotiated with the General Council of the Bar. These negotiations were successful, for complete unanimity was reached as regards the fees that would be paid. Subsequent to that the board started negotiating with the Association of Law Societies. These negotiations have not yet been completed; up to now it has not been possible for them to reach complete unanimity. But as the board wanted to put the scheme into operation as soon as possible, it was decided last month to give instructions to attorneys. Attorneys may now submit their accounts. If these are reasonable, payment will be effected; if not, the accounts will be taxed. Therefore, the scheme is in actual fact in operation already. In the meantime agents have been appointed all over the country, persons who will act for the Legal Aid Board. They are officials of the department in magistrates’ offices and Bantu Affairs Commissioners. Therefore, the scheme is in actual fact in operation already. Instructions have already been issued to attorneys and advocates, and also to their agents, on precisely what is to be done.

The hon. member also referred to the small amount of money voted for 1971-’72, or which is about to be voted. However, the hon. member must bear in mind that the principal Act provides that any moneys allocated or donated in the course of any year may be retained by the board. In 1969 R50 000 was voted, and in 1970, when we expected the scheme to come into operation, we voted R150 000—R200 000 in all. Add to that the R50 000 which we still have to vote, and one finds that the board already has R250 000 at its disposal, minus administration costs, of course.

Will that be enough?

That is difficult to say. The board has laid down its rules in which it is stipulated who will be assisted; it has set income limits as far as assistance is concerned, and this matter is now in an experimental stage. At this stage it is very difficult to say what it is going to cost. Of course, the board will at the end of this financial year submit its report and its statement of accounts. Then we shall see how things are, whether the fees decided on are reasonable and whether we should come back to this House for further arrangements in this regard.

It would have been millions.

The hon. member expects it to be millions, but as yet we have no evidence of that. The amount which is at their disposal for the particular year is to my mind quite adequate for seeing out the trial period.

Sir, I think this explanation ought to satisfy the hon. member, and I take pleasure in moving the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second

Time.

The Bill before the House is only intended to make the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 applicable in South-West Africa. This step is the result of a recent congress decision of the South-West African Agricultural Union and problems that could possibly be experienced in the payment of subsidies to farmers, because the Promotion of Farming Interests Ordinance, 1952, is being repealed by the Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1970, with effect from 1st April, 1971. Problems may also crop up in the administration of the livestock withdrawal scheme if the necessary legal provision is not made. Unfortunately these facts were not known when the amendment of the Soil Conservation Act was before the House earlier this Session.

We on this side of the House are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill because we think it is a good suggestion that our Soil Conservation Act should also be made applicable to South-West Africa. Sir, if one studies the 1952 Ordinance about soil conservation in South-West Africa, one comes to one conclusion, i.e. that that ordinance is chiefly modelled on the old Soil Conservation Act that we had on the Statute Book in South Africa after 1946. When the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 is implemented here it is necessary that it should also be implemented there. The hon. the Deputy Minister sketched the background for us and indicated why this is necessary, i.e. because the S.A. Agricultural Union took such a decision, but let me say at once that it perturbed us when we read the amendment that the Deputy Minister placed on the Order Paper. We feel that it would definitely be a wrong step for him to want to exclude the non-White areas in South-West Africa from the implementation of the Soil Conservation Act. At the time we regarded it as a wrong step that our own Bantu areas in South Africa are excluded from the application of this Act. Sir, I do not want to anticipate the Committee Stage, but I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows why we felt at the time that the Bantu areas should also fall within the scope of our laws when it comes to soil conservation. The simple reason is that these Bantu areas all border on White areas, and if the best soil conservation methods are applied in the White area and not in the bordering area, this must of necessity have an effect on the conservation works in the White areas. Whether we want to admit it or not, there is no doubt that the Bantu areas are altogether overstocked as far as livestock is concerned. It is also true that the best farming methods are not being applied there yet. The result is that the effect is immediately going to be felt there in the White areas, and a similar position is going to develop now in South-West Africa.

Order! That is an amendment that is intended for discussion in the Committee Stage.

I do not want to take this too far, but I want to make the point concerning the position of the White farmer in South-West Africa. If, for example, one looks at the South-West Africa Survey published a few years ago, one finds the following interesting figures about the cattle stock in that area. For example, in 1965 there were 1 500 000 cattle on farms belonging to the Whites. As soon as one has livestock on any piece of land one will get a certain measure of soil erosion. It is usually in the extensive areas where one would get the greatest amount of soil erosion. But in the Native areas, for example in the southern sector, there were at that time 126 000 cattle, while in the northern areas—and these are among the best areas of South-West Africa—there were 664 000 cattle. In other words, a fantastic portion of the cattle stock of South-West Africa does not belong to the White areas; they fall outside those areas. I do not even want to mention the numbers, for example, relating to the Bastard area and other non-White areas. But that is the situation and I must tell the hon. the Minister that in spite of the fact that this is a good suggestion, we on this side are disappointed because the best soil conservation methods he may apply will not be very successful because the entire area is not being included in this legislation. As far as the White areas are concerned, I must say that the hon. the Minister can be assured of the wholehearted support of the White farmers in that area. They have already proved over the years, with the implementation of the 1952 Ordinance, that they are conservation conscious and that they realize that in South-West Africa, which is subject to similar climatic conditions as we have in many of our extensive areas, they must protect their natural vegetation. They are subject to the same thunderstorms as, for example, the Northern Cape. Therefore this legislation can only result in considerable future progress being made in the White areas with respect to soil conservation. In this respect we want to support the hon. the Minister in the passage of the Second Reading of this Bill.

In order to make any ordinance applicable in South-West Africa, a principal Act must also exist in the Republic, and that is why Ordinance No. 28 of 1952 is, in fact, Act No. 45 of 1946, which was made applicable to South-West Africa. This Soil Conservation Ordinance binds the South-West Africa Administration and is applicable to the territory of South-West Africa and the Walvis Bay area. The Rehoboth Gebiet and the other non-White areas were specifically excluded, for good and understandable reasons. This Act of 1946 was re-drafted in 1969. This Act of 1969 is now being made applicable to the territory of South-West Africa. The main object of this Act is to make provision for the combating of soil erosion and for the protection and conservation of our soil. This is of the utmost importance. I am grateful to be able to say here that the farmers of South-West Africa are conservation conscious. If one travels through South-West Africa, going specifically from farm to farm, one finds everywhere that farmers are combating erosion on their own initiative. Last year I made the interesting discovery on a farm, where there had been furrows for years, that by the erection of contours the farmer had reclaimed soil and now cuts hundreds of bales of hay there annually. It is no wonder that the South-West African Agricultural Union wholeheartedly supported this Act and asked that it should be made applicable to South-West Africa. However, they had one reservation, i.e. the request that this Act should not become applicable immediately, because they feared that it could adversely affect certain farmers.

It is perhaps necessary for me just to point out briefly to the House that up to yesterday two ordinances existed in South-West Africa. The one was the Soil Conservation Ordinance, No. 28 of 1952. The second is the Farming Interests Ordinance, No. 29 of 1952. It was possible for a farmer to qualify for subsidies under either of these two ordinances. The Agricultural Credit Act now repeals this Act No. 29 of 1952 with effect from 1st April, 1971, in other words from today. It will therefore not be possible for certain farmers to obtain a subsidy now, since this ordinance will now lapse. For that reason it is now necessary for this Soil Conservation Act to be made applicable to South-West Africa from 1st April.

I just want to impress upon the House the benefits the South-West African farmers are now going to obtain, which previously they either did not have or had less of. The subsidy on cattle fences and water installations was previously 33 per cent. It now becomes 55 per cent. All soil conservation and all erosion works qualify for a subsidy of 55 per cent. If the farmer requires no State aid, he can proceed with his own planning and his own arrangements without interference. If he wants to be considered for a subsidy he can do one of two things: he can either draw up his own plans and submit them for approval, or he can request planning. A further benefit is that all earth dams of 24 morgen-feet can now be undertaken by the farmer himself, without prior permission. An additional benefit is that ploughing furrows on floors qualify for subsidies as in the past. I just want to mention to hon. members that there are large floors in the south of South-West Africa where there is no vegetation. By ploughing up these floors, moisture is retained and grass is established there again. An additional benefit is that plans for standardized cement dams are now being made available to farmers for their use. If they make use of these they only need to furnish a sworn statement when the dam has been completed, after which they can apply for a subsidy. The livestock reduction scheme is now also being made applicable to South-West Africa. I cannot help mentioning that these benefits are really considerable for the farmer of South-West Africa. That is why I should like to give my wholehearted support to this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the bulk of what was said by the hon. member for Omaruru. We agree that the farmers of South-West Africa are extremely conservation conscious. They have a record of having taken the initiative in applying soil conservation methods. It pleases, too, to know that the South-West African Agricultural Union supports this Bill. In all, it does bring a better deal for farmers, especially those good farmers who are keen to apply good farming methods.

I only wish that the hon. member for Omaruru had expanded on something he said a little earlier in his speech when he said that as far as the ordinances dealing with soil conservation are concerned, the Bantu areas of the Territory and the Rehoboth-gebiet have been, so far, excluded for good and understandable reasons. We do not go along with that approach and I shall come back to it a little later.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Newton Park, indicated, we propose to vote for this measure at the Second Reading. We are naturally pleased to support a move to apply the basic principles of our Soil Conservation Act to the Territory of South-West Africa. As I indicated, I shall deal presently with one major reservation we have about the approach of this Government. We foresee that if the approach adopted in the Republic, is applied in South-West Africa and, indeed, the amendments of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture on the Order Paper, indicates that this is to be the case, the Bantu areas of South-West Africa, Namaland and the Rehoboth-gebiet are to be excluded from the operation of the Act. Our belief is that in matters of soil conservation water affairs and all allied matters affecting our country, there should be no fragmentation of approach as is apparently envisaged by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We believe that soil conservation measures can only succeed if there is an overall co-ordinated plan centrally devised and comprehensively executed.

The Soil Conservation Act of 1969, the present Soil Conservation Act, that we are seeking to apply in South-West Africa, was a far-reaching measure as we all know, which placed immense powers in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It enabled him to assume control wherever necessary, in the interest of conserving our soil, over virtually all farming operations. This Act, when it came before Parliament in 1969, was supported by us in principle, because we believed that we were justified in giving such powers to the hon. the Minister. But again, on that occasion, we did record our objection to the exclusion of the Bantu areas from the operation of the measure. We supported the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 because we agreed with the Government that the old Soil Conservation Act of 1946 had been perhaps democratic in its conception but it had been found not to have the teeth necessary for the effective enforcement of soil conservation measures, measures that necessarily have to be stringent, when the occasion warrants it, to succeed. It is still too early to gauge the full effects of the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 on the Republic. We shall probably not know how successful it has been for some years to come. But this Parliament can at least rest assured that it has taken all reasonable steps to see that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is adequately equipped to apply effective soil conservation measures.

Indeed, with soil conservation and the protection of our environment generally, two matters that cannot be divorced, there is no reason why there should be any divided approach between the Government and the Opposition. Both sides of the House and all others with the true interests of our country at heart as regards preserving our natural resources, should be at one in wanting to conserve everything that is humanly possible and to improve wherever improvements can be brought about. South-West Africa—and here I am referring to the whole territory, including the Rehoboth Gebiet, Namaland and the northern Bantu areas—presents us with particular problems. These are problems of a magnitude and of a type which are not encountered in most areas of the Republic. Overall, South-West Africa is a territory which is poorly endowed with water resources. This naturally has a profound effect on the vegetation and the suitability of the land to support dense animal populations. Rainfall is extremely variable, and if the territory and its climate is characterized by anything at all, it is by unpredictability. There are droughts and floods, which occur without any cyclical regularity, although the drought periods are naturally much longer than the flood periods. The Weather Bureau, for example, has described South-West Africa as belonging to those desert or semi-desert parts of the globe where the rainfall is particularly changeable and unreliable. The report of the Long-term Agricultural Policy Commission on South-West Africa in 1948 put the position very succinctly. It said-

To the people of South-West Africa and particularly to those who are in the forefront of conservation work there, this is a matter of stark reality. The massive floods which occur from time to time in the normally arid southern sector of the territory, bringing with them washaways and erosion on a fairly large scale, are a conservationist’s nightmare. The problem is not confined solely to the southern sector, as our colleagues who know South-West Africa will accept, but applies throughout the territory. Coupled with the unpredictability of the climate, is the sparsity of vegetation over vast areas, although the territory has fertile areas and fine grasslands as well. There is a variety of soil types that are predominated by stony wastes, the areas of the “torreveld” formations, the KalahaR1 with its finely textured weak cohesion and high absorptive qualities and a variety of lesser soil types that vary from sandy loam to hard-baked pans.

The territory’s water, which we cannot divorce from soil conservation, comes from rainfall over the interior, underground water sources and boundary rivers or oshanas which bring in water from the neighbouring territories. Storage dams, large and small, are valuable to the life of the territory, but much reliance is nevertheless placed on the subterranean water resources and the sandy river-beds or “omarambas”.

Therefore, in the rigorous climate of South-West Africa, with its dramatic changes, lies a challenge to all people who have a regard for conservation work of the type that is envisaged by the Soil Conservation Act. The question that arises is whether this work can be done piecemeal and successfully. We believe that it cannot. One has only to look at the Fish River to see some of the difficulties which arise when there is not a centralized, cohesive overall approach, for the Fish River rises in the Rehoboth Gebiet and flows into the Hardap Dam outside Mariental, the area which is reserved for Whites. It then flows the length of Namaland from north to south before re-entering the White area due west of Keetmanshoop and flowing southwards to join the Orange River. If the principles of the Soil Conservation Act of 1949 are applied in toto to South-West Africa, in other words, if the non-White areas of the territory are excluded for soil conservation purposes, this area of the Fish River will probably fall under three different authorities, the White authorities in the White areas, in other words the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Department, the Department of Rehoboth Affairs, which will have jurisdiction over the Rehoboth Gebiet until such time as other constitutional changes might come, and the Department of Coloured Affairs which would presumably have control over soil conservation in Namaland. Elsewhere in the territory control over soil conservation would be vested either in local Bantu legislative councils in the case of those Bantu areas which have developed to that constitutional stage, or generally in the Department of Bantu Administration where local self-government has not been granted or will never be granted.

A thin dividing line can be drawn between soil conservation and water conservation. In other respects the two matters overlap and I think it is important to deal with these two aspects of the preservation of our resources together. It is interesting to note that in its recommendations the Odendaal Commission, in the case of each Bantu area destined for local self-government and ultimate independence as well as the Nama homelands when it achieves local self-government status, proposed reservation of control over water affairs to the Central Government, along with such things as defence and foreign affairs. We are aware that there is a conflict within the Nationalist Party in South-West Africa …

Order! The hon. member is going far beyond the scope of this Bill.

There are aspects I would like to canvass. We are examining the situation in the Republic and surely we are entitled to look at the application of the Soil Conservation Act here and the principles on which it rests in examining how it might apply to South-West Africa. I submit that we are entitled to look at it along these broad lines.

The hon. member is going too far.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. There is some conflict in the field of water affairs over whether the approach should be one of fragmentation or whether it should be centralized.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss water affairs under this Bill.

My submission is that this Bill applies to water affairs too, but I will abide by your ruling. We do hope that as far as the application of soil conservation measures is concerned we are not going to see the type of approach that we have seen in regard to water affairs. We hope, in fact, that the hon. the Deputy Minister might well be persuaded not to press his amendment at a later stage and that he might agree with us that if soil conservation is to be applied successfully in the territory, it should be applied over the whole area.

Order! That point has been very adequately made by the hon. member.

In examining the whole question of soil conservation in South-West Africa I think one must examine some of the legislation that has a bearing on soil conservation. If one looks at an Act which has already been passed by this Parliament, namely the Development of Self-Government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, 1968, one will see that this measure provides amongst other things that the following will fall under the control of bodies other than the central authority. These measures include the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, furrows …

Order! The hon. member is going too far and must come back to the discussion of this very simple Bill.

Yes, it is a simple Bill, but I do feel that for the benefit of this House one must examine …

Order! No, the hon. member is going far too far. All those matters have been thoroughly examined before and have been included in measures passed by this House.

It is presumably the idea to bring the situation in line with the position in South Africa that the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes to come with an amendment at a later stage. I do not want to deal with this any further. I do want to say, however, that we are opposed to the principle of what he envisages, we take the attitude which we regard as the only sensible one, namely that soil conservation must be dealt with by the central authority.

Order! The hon. member himself has made that point on several occasions and it has also been adequately made by the hon. member for Newton Park.

In taking this attitude we believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is in spirit with us, and we know that he would not be the only senior member on his side who adopts this attitude. Last year the present hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, before he was appointed, made it quite clear that he was unhappy about the manner in which Bantu in some of the tribal areas were treating land under their care.

This is a point which can be discussed during the Committee Stage. We are not dealing with the amendment now.

Yes, but we are dealing with the Bill as a whole, as it applies in the Republic. I submit that we are entitled to examine how it operates in the Republic in considering how it might apply to South-West Africa. I will then not deal with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry introduced the Mountain Catchment Areas Bill last year, and he then made it clear that its provisions were going to apply to the Bantu homelands, even though he went on to say during the passage of the Bill, that the actual administration would vest in the Department of Bantu Administration.

Order! The hon. member does not want to follow my guidance. If he continues on those lines, I am afraid that I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Yes, I will come back to the Bill then.

So you admit that you are going very far away indeed?

I admit nothing. If the principles that are applied to soil conservation in the Republic are applied to South-West Africa, we shall be confronted with a most extraordinary situation. When one looks at the Rehoboth Gebiet, one sees that it lies in the very heart of South-West Africa as does Namaland. In both of these areas stock farming is practised and the state of the countryside there must necessarily have a profound effect on the surrounding areas which are the areas of White farmers. That should be reason enough to apply the important and stringent provisions of the Soil Conservation Act to these areas. It seems that we are about to pass a Bill which in effect will contain no statutory provisions for proper control over soil conservation at all in these non-White areas. We, the Opposition, realize that there are many dangers inherent in such a situation. We must therefore examine what has happened within the Republic to see how a fragmented approach can render us a disservice …

Order! That point has already been made half a dozen times. The hon. member must either follow my guidance or resume his seat. All he does is to make the same points over and over again, points which, as it is, have already been more than adequately covered by the hon. member for Newton Park.

I should like to go further than the hon. member for Newton Park has gone. I refer to this example in an endeavour to persuade the hon. the Deputy Minister to adopt a slightly different line of approach. For instance, if one looks at the situation in Natal, one has only to recall what the hon. member for Mooi River reported to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration about the shocking state of some of the Bantu Trust land in Natal, to realize that it is not sufficient just to say that everything should be handed over to the Department of Bantu Administration …

Order! I am sorry, but I shall have to ask the hon. member to resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we have before us today is good legislation. It applies the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 to South-West Africa. We on this side of the House support the legislation in its present form. At the same time I want to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that if his amendment had been included in the legislation we would have opposed the Second Reading. However, at the moment we give this legislation our full support because we feel that it is good legislation as it stands. As I have said, it applies the Soil Conservation Act to the whole territory of South-West Africa. We are strongly in favour of that and we therefore fully support the principles. It is important that we should have not only the Republic but also for South-West, overall planning for soil conservation —in fact, for everything involving our soil —according to which an ecological survey of the whole country can be done and a plan worked out to ensure that we preserve our soil for the succeeding generations. That is why we are making a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Cabinet to think very deeply about this legislation before we get to the Committee Stage. It is our fervent hope that the legislation in its present form, as it is here before us in the Second Reading debate, will go unchanged and that no amendment will be accepted in the Committee Stage. The application of the Act in the Republic of South Africa today gives rise to a strange phenomenon, as mentioned by other speakers in this debate, in that the Soil Conservation Act is applied to some parts of our country and not to others, and I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether such an ill-considered patchwork method is applied in any other country of the world. That is why we advocate the application of the Act to the whole of South-West Africa, particularly in those areas where severe droughts prevail and where, at times, heavy rains fall that cause a tremendous amount of damage. We must ensure that the whole area is not over-stocked and that proper works are carried out to conserve the soil of South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I definitely believe, if you will permit me to say so, that the future generations of South-West Africa, whether they be brown or black or white, will owe a debt of gratitude to this House if we pass this Bill as it stands today. Our plea is that a plan should be worked out for the conservation and preservation, for future generations, of the soil of the entire territory of South-West Africa. Sir, we on this side of the House feel strongly that soil conservation is the basis of future life in our country. We feel that if our soil is washed away famine will set in, and with famine comes despondency and hate. That is why we feel, for the sake of peace in the future, that we must keep our soil. We therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to retain this Bill in its present form.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the Soil Conservation Ordinance of South-West Africa. This Ordinance reads as follows—

That is the present position in South-West Africa. The hon. member for Albany is worried and says that we are making a crazy quilt of soil conservation. Sir, that is just where the Opposition fails to grasp our idea. In 1969 we said that the Government’s policy is that the Bantu himself will develop his area, but that we would help him. To each his own—the Bantu in his area and I in mine. We already have vast stretches of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland from which water also flows in our areas. In 1969 we said that if soil conservation must be applied to a Bantu area, we are delaying our entire action to save the White farms first. Hon. members are perhaps not aware of the speed at which the Department of Bantu Administration is at present carrying out Bantu conservation works. I wish I could show hon. members around the Northern Transvaal where Bantu Administration has carried out conservation works that are as good, if not better, than those on White farms. I realize that there is a specific problem in Natal, but this Bill deals with South-West Africa. The hon. member asks that the legislation be applied in South-West Africa in the same way as it is applied here, but let me tell the hon. member what the position in South-West is, for example as far as Rehoboth is concerned. The subsidy for the combating of soil erosion is 55 per cent and the subsidy on boundary fences is 25 per cent. We in the Republic do not have a single cent subsidizing boundary fences. But that is what they are getting in Rehoboth at present. The subsidy on inner camps is now going to be increased from 25 per cent to 55 per cent. The water provision subsidy is 33j per cent. That is what the Rehoboth farmers obtain today in the form of subsidies. We must not jeopardize the entire soil conservation idea each time with the story that it is a good and honest intention, but … and then we start asking questions. I could not quite follow what the hon. member for Kensington said. I think that if you realize that one day those areas will have self-government, and that we are educating them, guiding them and showing them how to carry out soil conservation, and telling them that in their area they must have a soil conservation Act similar to that in the Republic …

May I ask a question? If the hon. the Minister is so right, why did he not have that provision in his amendment Bill initially?

We only introduced the amendment, as I said during the Second Reading, at the request of the South-West African Agricultural Union, and we did not go into particulars. Then we found that a decision had been taken here about Rehoboth. Must we now deprive them of the privilege of obtaining 25 per cent on inner camps, for example, and say that they must be on the same footing as the Republic? It is, after all, the Government’s policy that those areas must develop independently under their special rules and measures.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main object of this Bill is to consolidate in a single Act the existing Acts which prescribe the quality and other requirements in respect of the agricultural produce which is exported. At the same time use was made of the opportunity to improve the statutory provisions in question in accordance with present practises and to supply the deficiencies where necessary.

The Acts which are being consolidated in this Bill, include the Agricultural Produce Export Act, 1959, the Fruit Export Act, 1957, and the Agricultural Products Packing and Marking Act, 1930. Actually, the provisions of the latter Act are already contained in the Agricultural Produce Export Act of 1959, and the Marketing Act, 1937, and this Act has been obsolete for some considerable time now.

The Agricultural Produce Export Act and the Fruit Export Act had precisely the same object, of course, except that the products controlled in terms of these Acts differ. In addition these two Acts contain so many similar or almost similar provisions that the consolidation thereof in a single Act is a completely practical step. Not only is the duplication of statutory provisions being eliminated in this way, but it should also result in greater clarity among the persons involved in the application of the Act in question.

It is obvious that the redrafting of the Act has resulted in certain amendments to the existing provisions. Some amendments were of course merely intended to improve the Bill juristically, and particularly to adapt almost similar provisions in the various Acts to one another, while others, on the other hand, comprised new principles. I shall simply explain in brief the general objectives of the statutory provisions which are contained in the Bill, and then point out the changes in principle which are being proposed.

Quality control in the export of agricultural produce is of course an important factor in building up a stable export market. Consequently the Acts in question are aimed at ensuring that only produce which complies with a minimum standard reaches the overseas markets of the Republic, and then, too, only in a condition and in a way which is acceptable to the consumer. Consequently these Acts make provision for the promulgation of regulations in which the requirements in respect of the different products are prescribed. Normally the requirements include provisions regarding the quality of the product and the way in which it is to be packed and marked. Obviously the export of produce which does not comply with these prescriptions is not allowed.

At present the Agricultural Produce Export Act provides that no person may export a product unless that product has been inspected by an inspector and marked after inspection. Unfortunately the definition of the word “product” is so wide that, practically speaking, it is impossible to prescribe quality and other requirements in respect of every commodity included in the definition of “product”. Hon. members will understand that in the absence of prescribed requirements, it is quite impracticable to require that such commodities shall be inspected and marked.

It is consequently being proposed to limit the word “product” now to those commodities for which regulations have already been promulgated. If a need should arise for quality control for any other commodity that commodity will be proclaimed a product under the Act as soon as the necessary regulations for that purpose have been drawn up. What is being envisaged in this way is to do away with the compulsory inspection and marking of commodities for which there are no regulations at present.

In the same context it is being proposed to replace the compulsory inspection and marking of products by a system in terms of which products may not be exported unless they are approved for export by an inspector. It follows that approval for export need not necessarily take place by way of marking. The issue of a certificate in which the consignment in question is described, has for example already met with general approval in the import countries in question.

Attendant upon this an inspector is being authorized to cancel an approval which has been granted for the export of a specific consignment upon re-inspection of that consignment. The object of this provision is to prevent perishable products which have already been approved for export from being exported at a time when the quality thereof had already deteriorated to below the prescribed minimum. This problem presents itself particularly in the case of fresh fruit which is packed and approved for export in the interior. If the fruit is not re-inspected at the export harbour, it may happen that the fruit reaches the overseas market in a poor or even perished condition.

In addition the Bill provides that products which are being exported to specific countries or for a specific purpose may be exempted from the abovementioned prohibition. Nor is it being envisaged to include in the new Act the traffic of agricultural produce in the common customs areas (the common areas of South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland), in the new Act; nor when new products are being experimented with (for example with new packings, etc.) on overseas markets. At present the Act requires that all products exported from the Republic must comply with the prescribed and other requirements set out in the Act, even if they are exempted from compulsory inspection and marking. It is obvious that these provisions can scarcely be applied in practise.

Another proposed amendment is to empower the Minister to make regulations. At present this is the function of the State President. It is no longer the practice to entrust functions of this nature to the State President.

With a view to the strict quality control of the European Common Market, it was necessary to include in the Bill provision for prescribing the maximum quantity of a foreign matter which may be present in or upon such a product. What is meant here in particular is the spray residue on fruit. In addition provision is also being made for prescribing hygienic standards for packing sheds in which agricultural products are packed for export. In the case of fruit in particular the problem arises that it deteriorates on its way to its final destination precisely as a result of unhygienic practices in the packing sheds.

Provisions for the delegation of the Minister’s powers to senior public servants is already generally applicable in a variety of Acts. The example is consequently being followed in this Bill, except in so far as it concerns the Minister’s power to make regulations. It is felt that this is not a provision which ought to be delegatable.

The Agricultural Produce Export Act, 1959, contains a number of provisions regarding the seizure and destruction of diseased animals whereof meat is intended for export and the use of abattoirs for slaughter for export of meat. In the light of the Abattoir Commission Act, 1967, and the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act, 1967, it is not being deemed necessary to retain these provisions. The aforesaid Act contains adequate provision in this connection.

Similarly, the authorization to prohibit the export of an indigenous plant or part of such a plant, except in terms of a permit issued on the authority of the Minister, is being omitted. Section 87 of the Marketing Act, 1968, already makes provision for the promulgation of such a prohibition.

All existing regulations and proclamations promulgated in terms of the Act which are now being repealed, remain in force and will be deemed to have been promulgated in terms of the new Act. Special arrangements will, however, apply in respect of the wine regulations. The latter regulations are being applied by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and because that department is also administering the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, 1957 and provision is already being made in aforesaid Act for the promulgation of similar regulations, it is being proposed to omit wine from the Bill as a product. The existing regulations will however remain in force until the new regulations are promulgated in terms of the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, 1957.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that we are being afforded an opportunity of discussing legislation which is intended to improve matters in regard to the export of agricultural produce. The House has already done so on a previous occasion. Today the hon. the Minister is coming forward with legislation to more or less consolidate what has already been done in the past. Today, as on every previous occasion, he will find that this side of the House is prepared to support him because our first duty is to protect the good name and the quality of our South African products which find their way to the overseas markets. Consequently, if it is necessary to apply drastic measures to ensure that our name will be protected, I think that anyone in this House will be prepared to give the hon. the Minister that support. It has been shown that we have achieved success with the legislation we had in the past. That is why, when it comes to the export of agricultural produce, South Africa’s name is of course among the best in the world. I think that the farmers of South Africa realize this too. For that reason the Minister will also get the support he needs from them.

In the second instance it is absolutely essential that we give this support because the export of agricultural produce still comprises the largest percentage of all exports from South Africa. If one considers the figures from, for example, 1960 to 1968, one sees that the percentage of processed and unprocessed agricultural produce increased from more or less 36 per cent to 48 per cent in one year. The percentage of exports of agricultural produce is always round about 40 per cent, if we exclude our gold of course. So, as far as our own foreign exchange is concerned, it is absolutely essential, in order to do even better, that the good name of the South African product be protected. That is why we have no objection to this legislation. The hon. the Minister is of course taking fantastic powers. For example if we look at clause 4 of the Bill we will see that he can more or less regulate and control the whole matter of the export of agricultural produce. He can make regulations. But it is not a question here of people’s rights being affected. It is a question here of the name of our products being protected. That is why we have no objection to this.

But what seems strange to me in this legislation in comparison with what we had in the past, is the question of appeal. In this connection one can take a look, for example, at the Fruit Export Act of 1957. In terms of that Act, when a farmer is dissatisfied because his products were rejected at the harbour, there is a board of reference to which he can appeal. The board of reference then makes a decision. Of course there are certain practical problems involved. But if we take a look at the Agricultural Produce Export Act, Act No. 10 of 1959, one finds that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture appoints the board of appeal. But in this Bill which is now before the House, there is no mention of anything like this. We simply find in clause 3 (5) that “any person who is dissatisfied with any decision of or action taken by an inspector under this Act, may appeal against such decision or action in the prescribed manner”. In clause 3 (6) it is provided that there shall be a person or persons who shall decide in regard to such an appeal. Further down certain regulations are set out in clause 4 (1) (b) in terms of which that appeal can be lodged. Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what made it necessary to deviate from the provisions of, for example, the Fruit Export Act, in terms of which such an appeal can be referred to the board of reference, and of the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Export Act, Act No. 10 of 1959, in terms of which anyone who feels dissatisfied, may go to the hon. the Minister who can either reject or accept his appeal? It seems to me that there is a deficiency here, where the rights of the producer could be protected. This is a cardinal point. What was previously in the legislation, is now being omitted in this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not explain it. I think he owes the House an explanation in this connection. He must tell us precisely how the right of appeal is going to work and whether it is going to work in exactly the same way as in the case of the old board of reference. The hon. the Deputy Minister must also explain to us why he will not in terms of this legislation have that power which he had in terms of the Agricultural Produce Export Act in regard to appeal. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is proposing a new system, he must tell us what it is. I think we are entitled to know this, because a farmer is quite satisfied as long as there are no problems with his products and as long as they are not rejected, but is undoubtedly dissatisfied when his products are rejected and if there are no proper ways in which an appeal against such rejection can be lodged.

This is the only deficiency I see in this legislation. Otherwise it is excellent. There are no substantial changes to the previous legislation. In the past our export of agricultural produce has functioned smoothly. I see no reason why this should not be the case in future as well. But I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will take us into his confidence in regard to this point and will furnish us with a good explanation. Otherwise I am afraid that we will have to ask him during the Committee Stage to accept an amendment in order to remedy the position.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has pointed out the importance of export for our country. I agree with him. Export is our life blood, and we must have it. We cannot build up proper markets if we do not lay down standards for our products. Here the hon. the Deputy Minister has now come forward with legislation which consolidates existing Acts. This is going to make matters much easier for exporters than in the past, because now they only have one Act they have to look up.

In regard to the regulations the hon. member for Newton Park said that the Minister is taking very drastic powers upon himself. The Minister is not taking any powers which he did not have under the old legislation. These powers are, to make regulations, to establish grades, to ensure that inspection takes place and to lay down standards for packaging and containers. All these provisions already existed under the old legislation. Then, too, the hon. member for Newton Park mentioned the abolition of the board of reference. For many years I myself served on a board of reference and I know that the boards of reference caused many difficulties in the past because boards of reference had authority over inspectors. There was often the dissatisfaction in regard to the decisions of such boards of reference. Now I do not personally know what the hon. Minister wants to put in the place of these boards of reference, but I do know what happened during the last few years in the citrus industry. Experts who had knowledge of the industry, were appointed to these boards of reference, rather than farmers. In the past it was very difficult for the farmers to leave their farms so that they could undertake certain inspection work. For that reason I would welcome it if the hon. the Minister would appoint people here who have knowledge of matters and are people who are where they should be, i.e. in the harbour. It sometimes happens that upwards of a week went by before the inspectors could succeed in getting a board of appeal of farmers together.

I have said that it is essential that we should maintain our standards. The standards must not merely be for the quality of the product, but should also apply to the packaging and the marking of our fruit. That is why I want to say that this Act is going to mean a great deal to our farmers, particularly the fact that it is also possible now to inspect packing sheds in regard to hygienic conditions there and their proper functioning. The fact that this was not done in the past was a great deficiency. Another important clause in this legislation is that which deals with the question of spray residue on fruit and on vegetables. Health regulations overseas are becoming stricter, and it is very essential that proper tests be made for spray residue. In Germany, if a certain percentage of spray residue is found on fruit, the seller and the agent may be imprisoned. That is why it is very important that inspectors should also see to any spray residue on fruit.

I note that the regulations make provision for almost every export product, but products which are not found in the schedule, are frozen vegetables and fruit. Since we are at this stage even building up a large market for frozen fruit and vegetables and since if these products are going to become more and more important in future, I wonder whether we should not include these products in the Schedule as well. That is another product which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and it may perhaps in future become necessary to include this in the Schedule as well. I am talking about vegetable seed. Our country is already producing a great amount of vegetable seed of various varieties. The vegetable seed industry is still in its infancy, but there are certain areas in our country which are very well suited for the production of vegetable seeds. I expect that we may perhaps in future have to make increasing use of the export market for vegetable seed.

I welcome this legislation because it will stabilize our export industry. It will also make our people more cognitive of the fact that certain standards must be maintained. This can only be to the benefit of our country.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that the Opposition gladly supports this Bill. I am pleased about their positive attitude. That is why it was so difficult for me to understand last year why they opposed a positive Act like the one on the subdivision of agricultural land. In any case he asked a question in regard to the appeal to boards of reference. This is still precisely the same board, but no longer consists, however, of producers, but of officials.

The hon. member for Humansdorp served on such a board, and also explained the position. If a consignment of fruit is rejected, one must get the farmers together who serve on the board. That is not always practicable. As far as the export of agricultural produce is concerned, many changes have taken place since 1959. The farmer who today exports an agricultural product, does so through the control board in question. It happens very seldom that the producer lodges an appeal. The hon. member referred to citrus produce. A private farmer has his own packing shed, but he is already being inspected by his own board, the Citrus Control Board. It happens very seldom in practise that the product is rejected at the coast, and that the farmer has the right to appeal in that sense that an unfair practise occurred. I am glad the hon. member referred to that, because one wants to give the farmer who feels that he should be protected, the right to appeal. The producer himself has felt that it is more practical for him to have such a board which consists of officials who are continually available and on the spot.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to regulations. Frozen vegetables are not included, but vegetables are. Frozen vegetables therefore fall into the same category. As far as vegetable reed is concerned. I do not want to tell a lie, but I think it is being controlled in terms of the Seeds Act. But I shall make sure, because as I read the list, everything one can think of, has been included. At present we are in fact importing vegetable seed under the Seeds Act. I think, since the Seeds Act is being administered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, that the necessary regulations are being seen to. I am grateful for the attitude of the Opposition.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Section 10 (1) of the National Monuments Act, 1969 (Act 28 of 1969), authorizes the Minister to declare certain immovable or movable property, on the recommendation of the National Monuments Council, to be a national monument. However, section 10 (3) (c) of the Act restricts such action to property which “has been in the Republic for more than 50 years”. The restriction contained in the said paragraph (c) handicaps the Council and the Minister. For example, in respect of South-West Africa it is virtually impossible to declare immovable property which came into being after the commencement of South Africa’s mandate over the Territory in 1920, to be a national monument. Recently specific cases came to the attention of the Council of houses which are less than 50 years old and in respect of which it is deemed to be in the national interest for those houses to be declared national monuments immediately, i.e. two houses built at Pelindaba in 1921 and 1924, respectively, by the late Dr. Gustav Preller, a champion of language rights, journalist and historian. The present owner of these houses, the Atomic Energy Board, is perfectly willing to have these properties declared national monuments, but as the Act stands at present several years will still have to pass before one may proceed to declaring them as such. These few examples—and there will probably be more in the future— necessitates the removal from the Act of the age restriction in respect of immovable property.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech was short and to the point. It is a Bill to which we have no exception at all. It contains nothing really more than, as the hon. the Minister said, an adjustment of the wording of the original Act in order to cover immovable property and to make the situation easier for the National Monuments Commission. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we have no objection to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, personally I feel very happy about this positive and judicious amendment to the National Monuments Act of 1969. We in South Africa are very fortunate in having a history which is a colourful and very interesting one, and for that reason we have numerous sites, battlefields and buildings such as these. It is very wise that this amendment is being effected especially so as to include in this Act buildings which are not yet 50 years old. The important advantage of this is that it will make it easier to trace such a building’s history which is often handed down orally from one generation to the next. In this case, where this is being done specially with regard to the two houses of the late Dr. Gustav Preller, we want to say that it is fitting for this amendment to have to be effected as a very result of properties which belonged to an historian of note, a champion of language rights and a journalist, as the Minister put it, properties which can now be included on this list of national monuments. I think this House, as well as everyone in the country interested in these national monuments, ought to be very grateful to the Atomic Energy Board for this donation which has been made to the Council.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

In the Extension of University Education Act, 1959, provision is made, inter alia, to establish, maintain and conduct university colleges for non-Whites and to limit the admission of non-White students to certain university institutions. The limitation referred to did not apply to non-Whites in respect of their registration and attendance as students of the Medical School for Non-Europeans of the University of Natal, their registration as students of the University of South Africa and, with the consent of the Minister concerned, their registration and attendance as students of other universities established by Act of Parliament.

The Minister concerned usually granted such consent in respect of a specified course of study or training for a certain degree, diploma or certificate for which provision had not yet been made at any university college. In reply to a question by the Secretary of the former Department of Coloured Affairs, the law advisers expressed the opinion that the relevant provision did not empower the Minister to impose conditions when he granted consent to a non-White to attend a university established by Act of Parliament, for instance to stipulate what course was to be taken. Interpreted in such fashion, the provision would mean, in effect, that whenever he granted consent to such person, he rendered nugatory in its entirety the prohibition imposed by the legislation and would therefore not do justice to the real intention of the legislature.

It is considered essential that the Act very implicitly empowers the Minister concerned to exercise his administrative discretion, as it had always been the intention, when he is called upon to decide to which non-White consent may be given and to which one not, according to the degree, diploma or certificate for which consent to registration and attendance as a student at a university is desired. Provision therefor is being made in section 31 (2) of the Act, which is inserted by subsection (1) of clause I of the Bill, to the effect that consent may be given to a student under section 31 of the Act to register with a specified university and for a specified degree, diploma or certificate and to complete the course. Subsections (2) and (3) are intended to protect existing rights. As a result of the establishment recently of universities in lieu of university colleges for non-Whites, the consequential amendments to section 32 of the Act are at the request of the three Ministers concerned and are affected by clause 2 (1) of the Bill. At the same time an obsolete proclamation of the Department of Bantu Education is repealed by clause 2 (2).

Clause 3 contains the short title.

The fact that five university colleges for non-Whites became independent universities in 1969 has resulted in all students enrolling at these universities this year being technically guilty of offences. That is my interpretation of the need for the present Bill. It has, therefore, become necessary to amend the definition of “university” so that non-Whites may enrol at their own universities without ministerial consent. To this we have no objection.

But the Bill goes further than this. It has happened that non-Whites, who had obtained permission to take a certain course at a White university, subsequently changed their courses and still remained at that White university. It is now provided in this Bill that a non-White must obtain permission to take a certain course at a White university, and that he may not change his course or extend that course without the permission of the Minister.

†The Extension of University Education Act of 1959, to which the hon. the Minister himself referred, made provision for the establishment of university colleges for non-Whites and limited the admission of non-White students to other universities, with the exception of the University of South Africa and the Medical School of the University of Natal. Whereas the hon. the Minister interpreted the principle of the principal Act, which is here being amended, as being an extension of university education, we on the other hand interpret it as being a direct curtailment of the autonomy of South African universities. I would not have mentioned this today—the principle of the principal Act is not under discussion today—had it not been for the fact that the Minister himself did so this afternoon. These tactics are typical of the Government—whenever they want to remove some basic right particularly from our non-White people, they introduce legislation with a high-sounding name giving the impression that they in reality are conferring benefits instead.

Apart from the Extension of University Education Act of 1959 there are other examples of where the Government has acted in this way. For instance, there is the Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents Act. which was supposed to relieve all Bantu from the pass system whereas in actual fact it gave the Government greater control over the Bantu than ever before. But this is just for the record.

In this Bill section 31 (2) of the original Act is being amended by the insertion, by subsection (1) of Clause I of the Bill, of a section providing that consent may now be given to the student to register at a specified university for a specified degree, diploma or certificate and to complete such a course. This discretion rests entirely with the Minister and it is required that the student receive permission in writing. It is quite true that those already enrolled at universities other than the ethnic universities, enrolled with the Minister’s permission that is. may continue their studies there without reapplying.

But let me make it quite clear at the start that we are unable to support this Bill, for the following reasons. Since our interpretation of the principle contained in the original Bill of 1959 differs fundamentally from that of the Government, we opposed leave to introduce that Bill originally, in 1959, and we did so because it removed the traditional right of our universities to admit whom they wished and for what courses they wished. We held then and we still hold that the original Act undermines the traditional autonomy of our universities and so tampers with academic freedom. This amending legislation does exactly the same; there is no difference at all. The present Bill, as an amendment to the Act that we opposed in 1959, is therefore no more acceptable to us on this side of the House now than was the original Bill. Sir, the hon. the Minister may claim that the principle is no longer at issue, that the present Bill is purely a matter of mechanics. Well if he sees it that way, I am afraid we do not; we consider it to be a great deal more than that. The present Bill gives the Minister direct power to prevent a student whom he has previously permitted to follow a certain course at another university because there was no equivalent faculty at his ethnic university, from doing postgraduate work or from changing his course of study at any time. I do admit, having read the debate in the Other Place, that the Minister may consider the matter and decide on the merits of the case, but we maintain—and this is the whole basis of our argument—that these are not matters for Cabinet Ministers; they are matters which should rest entirely within the discretion of the universities themselves and nobody else. The previous Act, as I understand it, did not permit the Minister to specify the university at which a student might enrol, nor did it limit a student’s course of study. Once he had been given permission to enrol there he could go on to post-graduate work unhindered so long as the university staff considered him a suitable candidate for post-graduate study. Now the hon. the Minister takes these powers over his academic life and the continuance of his study. The whole gravamen of our case is that these things should have nothing whatsoever to do with the hon. the Minister. That is our main contention. I really think that South Africans are the most long-suffering people in the world. There is practically no aspect of our lives in which this Government is not intent upon interfering. [Interjections.] It is quite true. The Minister may see fit to give a non-White student permission to remain at a university other than his ethnic university for post-graduate study—I am not disputing that fact—but we are fundamentally opposed to this type of academic discretion resting in the hands of anyone except the universities and the academic heads themselves. The Government should not intrude in any way. For these reasons we reject this Bill as being merely an elaboration of State interference in the affairs of the universities. In other words, the whole principle of academic freedom is again involved here. May I just add that all the money that is granted by the Government to these institutions is after all money taken from the South African taxpayers. I know that the allocation of funds is a favourite argument on that side of the House. They are not a gift from the Minister, and he has no rights, we maintain, either rights of patronage or rights of control, over these institutions without being answerable to the South African taxpayers, which is why this Bill is before this House today. Sir, ideologies can be terrible things, especially when their application impinges on the academic field, and the Government’s intention to put everybody into intellectual straitjackets in this way is something of which we do not approve; it should be left to the universities to decide. Here the highest academic institutions in the country have one of their most important functions in effect taken over by the State; that is what it means. This side of the House, on the other hand, has sufficient faith in the integrity and the intelligence of our university leaders to leave to them all decisions as to the admission of students and the best courses for them to follow. On those grounds, Mr. Speaker, we reject this Bill in principle, specifically because of the extended powers which it grants to the Minister.

In her speech the hon. member for Wynberg used the following words, inter alia: “academic discretion should rest with the universities”. With respect to the argument the hon. member raised here in connection with the question of autonomy and academic freedom, I just want to tell her. if she is then so keen to argue about it, that this degree of so-called academic freedom and autonomy has already been undermined, if I may put it like that, by the Act of 1959. This argument of the hon. member, who is opposing the Bill on behalf of the Opposition, is nothing more than a pious veil and a pious smokescreen. The principle as such has been entrenched in the Act of 1959. It seems to me as if the hon. member and through her the whole Opposition, is simply conducting a kind of spiritless and senseless rearguard action here against the Act of 1959 in connection with the extension of university training. If the Opposition could, it would turn back the clock to before 1959 as far as integrated university training is concerned. This Act on university training already embodies the principle—I want to emphasize this for the hon. member—of limiting the admission of non-White students to certain White universities. Therefore the limitation already exists and is now only being given further practical application to plug loopholes that have subsequently been discovered.

Another principle was also accepted in the Act of 1959, i.e. the principle of separation between White and non-White students at university level. On 8th April, 1959, the Minister of Education made the following statement in Hansard, col. 3172, when the Bill was introduced. At the time it was still the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. He said the following—

That is the clause involved here—-

Specifically this aspect is now being amended here. In connection with clause 31, the Minister had this to say—

I emphasize the words “without ministerial approval”. And these two cardinal principles specifically form the core of this amendment Bill now before us. This was, therefore, laid down in the Act of 1959. The exclusion of non-Whites will gradually be applied as separate facilities become available for university training for them at their own university colleges, which are now universities; and, secondly, only the Minister will be able to approve the non-Whites that may still be admitted to White universities.

Sir, he has done it only for fields of study not yet provided at the non-White university colleges, later universities, and that is how it is done, and the Act gives the Minister the right of judgment about who will be admitted and who will not be admitted; in other words, the Minister is being given the power to exercise control over admission or to limit it. But what is happening now? That is very interesting. Many non-White students are circumventing these provisions. Some of them think up the idea of circumventing these provisions themselves, while others are being egged on to do so. They are being helped to find the loopholes in the Act. In the first place they enrol for courses not yet being provided at the non-White universities. In that way they initially obtain the Minister’s approval in terms of sections 31 and 32 of the original Act that we are now discussing. After that they change to courses that are being provided at non-White universities. In the second place they obtain ministerial approval for fields of study that are not yet being provided at non-White universities. They fail at the end of the year in that specific course and then begin a totally new field of study at the same university the following year. This is now a new course of study that is, in fact, provided at a non-White university. In the third place, some of them complete, up to the Bachelor degree level, a course which they can then pursue without further permission, with a view to obtaining an M.A. degree.

In that connection I want to give hon. members interesting statistics in respect of June 1970. In June 1970 the position in connection with non-White students who were still being allowed to attend a few universities by the Minister, was as follows; at Rhodes University, there were 40 Indian students allowed; at the University of the Witwatersrand 29 Coloured students, 290 Indian students and five Bantu students; at the University of Cape Town 305 Coloured students were allowed. Here you must remember that the University of the Western Cape for Coloureds is near at hand. In addition 139 Indian students and one Bantu student were allowed at the University of Cape Town. In Natal 35 Coloured. 35 Indian and 161 Bantu students were allowed. This comes to a total of 1 360. I now concede that the students studying at the University of Natal are all taking a degree in medicine. There is then a balance of 931 non-White students still studying at White universities. A very large percentage of these 931 non-White students at White universities are studying courses that are already being provided at non-White universities.

The Opposition is not that worried, as the hon. member implied, about the non-White students and their progress as such. To a certain extent they want to maintain a position where there are mixed students and a situation in which there is integration. They want this situation to continue. Those hon. members think that they have their foot in the door to prevent all those non-White students from eventually studying at non-White universities. Now the United Party is grabbing at this last straw in its opposition. The admission of non-Whites to certain White universities was a practice resulting from a gesture at a time when facilities for non-White students did not exist or were totally inadequate. But where provision is now being made at non-White institutions at a level comparable —and I want to emphasize this—with those at White universities, and the opportunities therefore do exist, it is not necessary for that practice to be continued. If the hon. Opposition wants to do it, it is a disparagement or a repudiation of the Government’s policy of parallel development. It would also be an insult to the non-White universities and a reflection upon the standards already being maintained there. The United Party’s alternative still remains that a university must do the preparation work for a multi-racial, integrated community. They do not want the non-Whites to be educated individually, each according to his nature, his tradition and that which is his own. They do not want the future leaders of the non-Whites separated from the Whites. But what are they doing now? They are depriving the non-Whites of leaders at university level. In other words, they are doing a disservice to the non-Whites. But they are also depriving the non-White leaders of the opportunity of taking the lead at university level in their own community. The United Party is here fighting a rearguard action in order to maintain mixed universities on a limited basis. They want to protect a process of equalization and a method for obtaining equality. Here they want to do away with the splendid diversity that we have in this country. The United Party wants the various population groups together at university level, so that Whites and non-Whites can maintain mutual contact, and they forget that these different people each have an individual national context. By their actions they regard the national pride, which these people ought to develop, of lesser importance and they want the people to neglect it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort got very excited about the difference in the approach of this side of the House from that of the Government. If anything, I must applaud him for accentuating the differences that do exist between us in this regard. When he says that our attitude is going to stop the non-White leaders getting their place in the sun in the academic world, then I think …

I did not say that.

That is what the hon. member said. He said that we would do that. By not wanting the institutions which the Government proposes, we would prevent these non-White leaders in the academic field from finding their place in the sun. That is what he said in effect.

Amongst their own people.

Yes, obviously amongst their own people. What does he think I am talking about? The figures which the hon. member quoted in hi~ speech surely give the answer to that. He indicated just how many non-White academic intellectuals there were at these universities. He pointed out what a great number of them there were and how they stayed there. Surely that supplies the answer. Are these not the academic intellectuals of the non-White people who want to attend these open universities to get a university education? I shall indicate that what the Government proposes is not going to give them a university education in the true sense.

Your argument is quite off the rails.

What is quite off the rails is the hon. member’s approach. We are talking here about universities. The form, the substance and the wording of the Bill, namely the “extension of university education”, is so much nonsense. It is so much nonsense became of the attitude of that hon. member. What is a university? Has the hon. member ever asked himself what the function of a university is? He admits that there are some courses which are not offered by non-White universities. Therefore, the provision is made that there may be some ministerial concession. What sort of universities are these which we have established in 1969, when one compares them with the university in the sense in which we have always known it?

Order! I think the hon. member must limit himself to the Bill before us.

The hon. gentleman also said that these non-Whites wanted to get their foot inside the doors of these universities and that that was what this Bill intended to prevent. Indeed, he is quite right. But I should like to refer hon. members to clause I of this Bill. How can one reconcile the powers of the hon. the Minister in this regard with what is the essence of university education? I ask again: what is the essence of a university of higher education? Surely, the essence is freedom; freedom of thought; freedom of choice; an intellectual freedom. But what happens here? Not the student himself, nor the university to which he is to go, the persons whom one would have thought best qualified to deal with this, is going to make that decision. It will be made by the hon. the Minister. He will determine which university such a student shall go to or if he shall go to a university at all, because the hon. the Minister will not allow them to go to the open universities, unless the course which they intend following is not catered for in one of the universities created for non-White people. But that is not all; the hon. the Minister will also be the selection committee. He determines what degree or diploma such a student shall do. Hon. members will notice that in the new section 32 (2) (b), which is proposed by clause 2 of this Bill, the words “faculties or departments” are proposed to be substituted by “degrees, diplomas or certificates”. The hon. the Minister will specify these degrees, diplomas or certificates. Can the hon. the Minister explain to us how he considers that he, the Minister of National Education, is in a better position to judge this than the university concerned where the student, is to go? These universities know the facilities they have and have the facilities for determining aptitude and have years of experience in this regard. How does the hon. the Minister of National Education become better equipped than the university itself, to determine what that student’s aptitude is? The universities that we are dealing with here, are the old established universities of South Africa, universities with an international repute. But the hon. the Minister now knows better.

Not only does the hon. the Minister do that, but he also specifies the institution which such a student shall attend. I wonder why the hon. the Minister feels that he should determine what institution that student shall go to? This reminds one of Henry Ford who, when he sold his first motorcars, said people could have any colour as long as it is black. That is what the hon. the Minister is proposing here. He is going to determine again a restriction in regard to the university. Why does he have to have that choice? Why should a student, for example, wanting to go to one university for reasons known to him, not be able to do so? Surely the university is better equipped to say whether that student can benefit.

One of the other aspects of this Bill that is extraordinary, if I may say so, is that it institutes a departure from the normal attitude of the Nationalist Government towards ministerial discretion. Usually they want the discretion and, of course, they are always given it. But here the hon. the Minister wants his discretion shackled. I know the hon. the Minister as a reasonable man. He is on record as saying that in terms of this Act all cases and all applications for non-Whites to go to White universities will be treated on merit. If that is his attitude, why does he shackle his discretion completely? He is now not entitled to say that you may do this or you may do that. It provides that “coment shall be granted in respect of a specified university, a specified degree, diploma or certificate …”. Now, why does he do this? How can he treat every case on its merits if he does not allow any form of change, of adaptation by that student, when he is at a university? What is his policy in this regard? What are the yardsticks by which he is going to judge the me of his discretion? If there is for instance no non-White university which offers a certain course and the non-White student concerned wishes to further his studies in a post-graduate course in the medium of Afrikaans, what is his policy in that regard? Which university is he going to send them to and on what basis is he going to send them? I want to suggest to him that the only basis upon which he can do anything at all in any event is to consult with the open universities concerned.

The hon. member who has spoken before me, the hon. member for Koedoespoort, I think completely misconstrued the conception that we have of open universities. There can be no objection to a university saying that it only wants Zulus or only Afrikaans-speaking people or English-speaking people; this is their right as a university. It is not a real university if it does not have that autonomy. This Bill is a vote of no confidence in the White universities of South Africa. What has been said here and what the hon. member for Koedoespoort underlined very heavily was the fact that the universities as well were allowing these people to stay in the universities because once they have their foot in the door the Minister could not send them out. The suggestion is that this is what they are going to do. I cannot understand for the life of me what the hon. member for Koedoespoort thinks is going to happen. Does he think that non-Whites go to universities in order to stay there all their lives? People do not stay there all their lives. What is more, the university concerned will not allow a student, whether he is White or non-White, to continue further with his studies if in fact he is making no progress. The objection which the hon. member advances as a justification falls away completely. What does he think are these universities doing? Does he think that because they are non-Whites the universities say they can stay whether they pass or not? It is absolute nonsense.

This, if I may say so, takes us in any event very much further. You cannot, and the hon. the Minister knows this, have intellectual apartheid. You can have apartheid in all sorts of things but you cannot have higher academic intellectual apartheid. In fact, academic intellectualism is the very antithesis of apartheid. It is a growing together, it is a seeking in all the fields which exist and it is indeed a dialogue between different groups. This is the very thing that is happening in regard to our foreign policy. The hon. the Prime Minister is attempting now to have dialogue with black countries outside South Africa and it is much to be lauded. But the only way in which there can be any understanding whatsoever between people of things and of each other, is by means of dialogue. This is the essence of a university; this is what makes it different from a technical school and from an ordinary school. It is the dialogue and the freedom of the intellect and the exchange of ideas in that place which makes it what it is. The hon. member for Wynberg has expressed our objection in principle and I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what she has said. I think the hon. the Minister owes this House an explanation why he wants these additional powers and why he wants to confine his own discretion in trying to implement what is not, in my submission, implementable.

I want to mention one last matter. If a student wishes to do a post-graduate course, he will in the immediate future be obliged in most cases to go to a White—for want of a better word—university. In the nature of things the other universities have not been built up yet. Who is going to be the judge of this? Is it going to be automatic, because there are no facilities at any non-White university for such a course? Is it going to be an automatic decision on the part of the hon. the Minister? If not, is the power he is now taking not to decide whether such a person can receive the education or not? Because that is what it amounts to when such a person wants to take a graduate course. In this regard, who is the best judge? The university who knows his record and where he did his primary degree and who knows him, or the hon. the Minister? These are questions we would like answered, and I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies, he will answer them. As long as the Bill is in the form in which it is at the moment, we on this side of the House cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to one or two things the hon. member for Durban North has just said. This might perhaps indicate the extent of the exaggeration in some of his statements. The hon. member for Durban North says that for people to understand each other, there is only one requirement, i.e. dialogue, and that the place to hold that dialogue is at the same training centre. I just want to tell the hon. member that there are many people on this earth that I will understand even though we have not sat on the same benches of the same training centre. There are many other ways of understanding and determining people’s needs, or whatever, than specifically by mixing with them on the campus of the same university. It is therefore a completely exaggerated statement by the hon. member. There are also a few other misconceptions that one could conveniently have drawn attention to.

Then the hon. member also says that it would be a “vote of no confidence in White open universities” if they were not allowed to decide which students they wanted to enrol. Then I could say that, as far as the hon. member is concerned, it is also a vote of no confidence in the non-White universities, because the hon. member also believes that they are not able to train these people properly in the courses they offer. I believe that this legislation is necessary. In the first place I think it is necessary because we have already come far since 1960. In the institution and establishment of non-White universities, we know of the opposition there was and of the names given to those institutions in order to discredit them, in order to attach a tag of inferiority to those institutions. We know how the standard of the training was made suspect in order to create the suspicion that the level and the standard of the education would be much lower than that offered at the White universities. We have come very far since those days. We have come to the point where the non-Whites obtain much greater benefits from higher education than previously. I just want to make these few statements. We have come to the point where various non-White groups have built up a pride and love around that institution where they are studying, because that institution carries the characteristic and stamp of what is their own. Something has already been built up in that sphere. We have come far, because we have, in the way we have acted towards the students of those institutions, given them the assurance that the legislature’s intentions were sincere, that it wants to give them every opportunity at their own institutions, that it wants to give them training of a standard equal to that at White universities. One cannot simply expect a university to establish itself fully within a day or two, that it should have all its faculties and all its courses available immediately. That is not how a university comes into being. It is a slow process. But because the non-White universities are very recent creations, I believe that their relative growth was more rapid than that of the White universities. Today they stand there as a great acquisition for the entire system of training and education.

But there is another important aspect that we must take into account, that of finance. We establish these institutions at great expense, on a mandate from the electorate within the framework of our policy. Separate provision was made. Some of the taxpayer’s money was used to make that provision. We have now reached the stage of development where we can accommodate more of the students at those universities for whom provision was made in the courses and faculties. That is why these discretionary and other powers are being given to the hon. the Minister. We cannot expect that now, after so much of the taxpayer’s money has been spent, the facilities which were created must go unused. We cannot allow the objects of the principal Act of 1959 to go unrealized, because the objects were the establishment of separate university institutions for the various non-White peoples and the full utilization of those university facilities.

But we can also use another criterion if we want to judge the Minister’s actions. We can ask where the Minister has acted in an irresponsible way with the discretionary powers given to him in the past. We also see a potential student in the gifted non-White. We believe that there must also be a place of training for him. He must be trained, inter alia, to go and serve his people as well. For what reason would the Minister now, if insufficient provision has been made at a non-White university, simply refuse such an applicant admittance and turn away a potential student who can serve his own people in his own territory?

It has been done all the time.

We do not believe that the hon. the Minister would thereby act so irresponsibly. If it has been done in the past, I would have liked the hon. member for Wynberg, who has just said: “It has been done all the time,” specifically to have brought us those examples and not simply to have flung this at us now as an afterthought. I believe that the students of the existing non-White universities can rightfully claim that members of their own race, other non-White students, should come and study with them at their own institutions. The persons controlling those institutions, who have been responsible for a great deal of development, expect the hon. the Minister to have these powers, so that the student, for whom provision is being made, can, in fact, receive his training at that institution. Sir, we shall probably be able to argue about this matter for many years; we shall come along with amendments and we shall always be diametrically opposed, because we on this side believe in the philosophy of separate provisions. We are now also giving the hon. the Minister the right to utilize separate provisions to the full, but our position is diametrically opposed to that of hon. members opposite whose basic philosophy is, as the hon. member for Durban North said, that we must be able to find each other in the same sphere. Sir, I conclude by asking the United Party: If their basic philosophy is that we should also be integrated in the universities, how are they thus going to perpetuate and maintain the leadership of the Whites in South Africa?

Sir, I would have thought that by now the hon. member for Germiston should be familiar with our policy in regard to universities and university autonomy. There is one point in his argument which I could not follow and that is where he implied that we on this side of the House were virtually tendering a vote of no-confidence in the non-White universities. I believe that is a groundless suggestion. I think if the hon. member for Germiston were aware of the serious brain drain which has taken place from the White universities to the non-White universities, he would realize that this is a remark for which there is no real justification. The hon. the Minister told me in reply to a question that information concerning the extent of this brain drain is not known, but I believe that this is a matter which does require serious investigation, because it is providing very highly qualified teaching staff in areas where they are unable to work to their maximum potential because these non-White universities at the moment do not have sufficient students to utilize the services. But I leave that point there, Sir.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister, who explained the purpose of this amendment. He indicated that the permission to be granted for a student to attend a certain university for a particular course would now be in his hands. I think I understand the motive behind this; it must surely be to fill a gap, a gap which exists at the moment because of the separate ideology of this Government which is providing separate training facilities. It is obvious that it is not possible to provide all these facilities in a short space of time. Until all the facilities are provided for the various ethnic racial groups in their own universities, it is necessary to ensure that training is available to certain of these students, who would not be able to receive such training at present at the ethnic universities concerned. I accept that. But we know that the process is a gradual one; we know that in certain vital avenues such as medicine, for example, and pharmacy, facilities have been provided. But there are many other avenues in which facilities have not yet been provided. I have in mind subjects such as architecture, quantity surveying, various engineering subjects, various aspects of training in pure chemistry, and many others.

Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort indicated that there were over 1 000 non-Whites at universities for Whites, receiving training in various subjects. The universities which the hon. the member listed, as I understood him, were universities where the English language is used as the medium of training. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can indicate what facilities he has in mind for those non-Whites who receive their primary and secondary education in the Afrikaans medium and who would prefer to receive their university training in subjects which cannot be taught at the ethnic universities, in the Afrikaans medium as well. Sir, I appreciate that specific provision is made in the Bill for the University of South Africa to play its part, but I visualize that there could be certain difficulties, particularly in subjects where practical training may be necessary. It seems to me that this is almost another gap. What facilities will be given to these people who wish to receive university training in subjects not being offered to them at present at the various ethnic universities, to receive their training in the Afrikaans medium? You see, Sir, I believe that particularly as far as the Bantu are concerned they have this handicap, because with their Bantu languages they are unable to receive technical training in modern subjects in their own vernacular. They have to choose one of the two official languages in which they find it more convenient and easier to be educated. I think it is only just that these people should have specific provision made for them, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate that in this respect there will be adequate facilities.

Sir, I am an optimist by nature but I am also realistic enough not to have expected the Opposition to support this Bill, not because it is not a good Bill, not because there are any actual principles to which the Opposition can object, but simply because the Opposition is opposed to the principle of the principal Act. I therefore want to go into a few of these matters.

Order! I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to discuss the principal Act now.

No, you may rest assured, Sir, that I will not yield to that temptation. In the first place, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg said here, and I want to say that I have quite a good deal of appreciation for the sincerity she displayed. She made it very clear that she was actually opposed to the underlying principle which is embodied in the principal Act. She then left it at that; she did not elaborate on the matter. She advanced other arguments which she really wanted to project against the background of that principle. I found the defence which the Opposition came up with here today to be an interesting one. We found the hon. member for Durban North, as advocate, also participating in this debate. It is of course his task as a lawyer to defend all kinds of cases—sometimes good cases, sometimes less favourable cases, and sometimes even very weak cases.

Mostly weak cases.

Sir, you will agree with me that my hon. friend opposite had a very weak case to defend today, and that is why he had such a hard time of it. Just imagine, Sir, a learned advocate, with the experience of this House which that hon. member has, coming along here and together with the hon. member for Wynberg—I must say in his case that he did it quite by the way—making a reference to the name of this Bill, namely Extension of University Training, with the implication that was actually an attempt by this side of the House to be misleading: that it is a screen behind which the Government wishes to hide in order to go and do something sinister. Sir, surely the hon. members know that this Bill received this name 10 years ago when it was the object of the Government to establish university facilities for various non-White ethnic units. That is why the legislation got the name of “Extension of University Training”. Today an amendment is being made to this Act, and this is the only reason for the name of the Bill. I do not think, therefore, that there is much substance to that argument.

Mr. Speaker, I should like, with reference to arguments advanced by hon. members on the opposite side, to quote an extract from the Rand Daily Mail of 2nd March. There a rector of one of our so-called open universities said the following:

I wonder whether hon. speakers on the Opposition side have ever become acquainted with the work which is being done at these, as they like to call them, ethnic universities; whether they have taken cognisance of the phenomenal growth of those institutions. My colleague, the hon. member for Germiston referred to that. The hon. member for Durban North lives between two of those universities, the University for Indians and the one for Zulus, and I wonder whether he has ever taken the trouble to pay a visit to either of them to see what is being done there. I want to tell him that those universities began in a small way, with all the possible opposition one can think of, and they grew into something of which not only this side of the House but also that side of the House can be proud. I want to tell you that this is something of which the other universities for Whites in this country are equally proud, because there have been real achievements there and heights have been reached for which we can only be grateful. Facilities have been created there for people to equip themselves for the leadership which is necessary in their community. I think we must do everything possible to help them to greater heights and to achieve greater usefulness in their society.

Now the hon. member for Durban North is saving that the Minister, with the powers which he is receiving today, not only has a discretionary power, but he is in reality the selection committee as well; he decides which student goes to university and which one does not; he decides as it were which student goes to study and which one does not. Sir, surely this is not stated in the Bill before us. I have already emphasized, and I want to repeat it, that this side of the House took the initiative 10 years ago in opening up opportunities for non-White students in this country which they had never had before. This side of the House established means which certain White students in certain circumstances would envy these non-White students. For the hon. member for Durban North to come and say now that we are trying to close the door to non-White students who want to go and study, is surely inconsistent with the truth. What is the actual position? The fact of the matter is that we have an Act on the Statute Book which has been in operation for 10 years, and it has functioned on the basis that the Minister can give non-White students for whose course of study provision has not yet been made at the ethnical universities, the right to attend a White university.

In every case?

I cannot talk about every case, because I have not dealt with every case, but I can inform the hon. member for Wynberg, who asked the question, that I do not know of any case which was refused in such circumstances where there was a reasonable possibility for a student to go and study at an ethnical university. I said that this measure has been on the Statute Book for 10 years, and for 10 years the Ministers who held this portfolio previously allowed non-White students to go to White universities if there were no facilities for them at their own universities. For 10 years those students, the White universities as well as the non-White university colleges, accepted that arrangement, that they are granted consent to take a special course of study at that university, for a special degree or a special diploma. I want to make it very clear that I do not have any knowledge today of any representations which have been made to the effect that that arrangement is being abused or contravened. I do not have a single case before me which supports that fact. What happened, is what I said in my Second Reading speech, i.e. that the Secretary of the former Department of Coloured Affairs put four questions to the legal advisers. I have the questions here, but I do not want to occupy the time of the House with them. But the one question he put and to which the legal advisers replied “No”, was whether the Minister, when he exercises his discretionary rights, has the right to tell a student that he must attend a specific university for Whites to follow a specific course of study there, and if he again wants to enrol for another course, he must again obtain permission from the Minister. The reply of the legal advisers to that question was: No, the Minister does not have the right. I am appearing before this House today simply to make this matter absolutely clear, i.e. to give statutory substance to—call it a practice if you wish—something which has been in force for 10 years and which has been accepted by everyone.

Opposition speakers have once again made a great fuss about the fact that it is not the Minister who should exercise this discretion, but that the university is competent to exercise it and that they are even better able to do so than the Minister.

Quite right.

But do hon. members, including the hon. member for Rosettenville who is now interrupting with his “Quite right”, not know that all these universities control the right of admission of students. If I give permission to a non-White student to enrol at, for example, the University of Cape Town because no provision has as yet been made for his course of study at his own university, the University of Cape Town is not obliged to enrol that student. They still have the discretionary power to decide whether they want him or not; whether he complies with their requirements for admission or not. I am not therefore depriving those universities of any discretionary powers which have been granted to them.

The hon. member for Durban North even spoke of additional powers which I am supposedly taking with this Bill. I should like to hear, when he speaks again during the other readings, what additional powers he means, because the power I am now being granted, which is now being made absolutely certain, is the power which all the Ministers of Education before me exercised in terms of the principal Act.

Why is this Bill necessary then?

The hon. member was probably not listening, or else he does not understand me very well. I have just explained now that one legal opinion is that the Minister does not have the power to prescribe the course, and because I want to make that matter absolutely certain, I am coming forward with this Bill.

Another implication which arises out of the arguments of the hon. members opposite, is that the Minister, with these powers he is receiving, is supposedly standing in the way of students who want to study. I think the hon. member for Durban North asked what becomes of a non-White student who is studying at a White university and then wants to do post-graduate study. He stated it as if I would supposedly stand in the way of such a student studying further. Now I am asking: How can a Government, and the Minister of such a Government, which has in fact created all those possibilities for non-White students to come into their own, in the sphere of higher education as well, now bar the way for such a student? He asked me specifically what my criterion in this case is, what discretionary power I am going to exercise there and how I am going to exercise it. I want to tell him what I also said in the Other Place, i.e. that if a non-White student wants to enrol for a course of study for which provision has not yet been made at the university of his own race group, I feel morally obliged to help that student and to try to allow him to enrol at a university which does in fact offer him those possibilities. If I did not do that, I would be unfaithful to the principles of my party, which state that we must help these people, because alone we Whites cannot bear the burdens of the entire country. We must train those people so that they can help to carry the burdens of their own people. That is why I am not standing in the way of such a student. I am there to help him.

The hon. member for Berea referred to all the faculties and courses of study which do not yet exist at universities for non-Whites. That is the case, but I want to ask the hon. member how many faculties the University of Natal, Stellenbosch, Witwatersrand or any of the other universities, had when they started? Surely one must crawl before one can walk. These universities also began on a small scale and made wonderful progress. They will continue to progress with the help of this side of the House. We shall in time to come see to it that more and more facilities are established for these students. If a student wants to enrol for a course which does not exist there, we shall help him in another way even if this means enrolling him at a university for Whites. In this connection the numbers have already been mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston.

The hon. member for Berea also referred to the training of non-Whites as teachers. In my life I have had a number of interesting experiences, even comical experiences, but I must honestly tell you that I never expected to live to see the day when the hon. member for Berea would stand up here in the House to advocate that non-White students should be trained in the medium of Afrikaans. This was a great surprise to me, and I hope that he will make progress with his campaign. The training of non-Whites as teachers is controlled by the various non-White departments. It is not a matter in regard to which I have any jurisdiction. If a student wants to do post-graduate study in education, and he wants to do so at a university for Whites, and the merits of the case justify this, I shall consider it on its merits. But the actual training of students for the teaching profession, is a matter which belongs under the various non-White departments.

I think that with this I have replied very rapidly to the specific points raised by hon. members. I am grateful to the speakers on my side of the House for the support they gave me. They also understood that there was not much they had to fight against, because the hon. members on the opposite side really felt that they did not have a good case and that they were obliged to oppose this proposal simply because they are opposed to the principle of the principal Act.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—74: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger. J. T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The sole object of this Bill is to increase the maximum amount on which compensation is calculated at present, and this will result in increased benefits for the workers.

Sections 38 and 39 of the Act prescribe the rates of compensation and pension for disablement in respect of White, Coloured and Asiatic workmen.

In the case of temporary disablement, the compensation is in the form of periodical payments calculated at 75 per cent of the actual monthly earnings of the workman up to a maximum of R150 of such earnings. In the case of permanent disablement, a pension calculated on the same basis is payable. In other words, if a workman is at the maximum wage limit of R5 460 per year at the moment, the compensation and pension are not calculated on the full amount, but only on R1 800 per year or R150 per month.

The maximum periodic payment for temporary disablement and pension for permanent disablement therefore amount to R112-50 per month at the moment.

In the case of Bantu, sections 84 and 85 of the Act contain similar provisions in respect of temporary disablement.

As far as permanent disablement is concerned, Bantu do not receive pensions, but lump sum payments, which are, however, also calculated on their actual earnings up to a maximum amount in earnings of R150 per month as in the case of the other races. The maximum amount in earnings on which assessments are calculated is also R150 per month at present. Thus, if the workman earns R300 per month, only R150 of that is taken into account for levy purposes.

The last increase in the amount on which compensation is calculated was made in 1967. Since that time, however, wages have increased considerably, with the result that the ratio between compensation and earnings in the case of workmen earning more than R150 per month has become unrealistic.

Accordingly the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner recommended recently that the wage limit in the calculation of compensation be increased from R150 per month to R200. Levies will then be imposed on the same basis. All interested parties were consulted and supported the proposal. The actuary of the fund is also of the opinion that the amendments may safely be made.

In terms of the proposed amendments the maximum periodical payment for temporary disablement for all races and the pension for permanent disablement in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics are being increased from R112-50 per month to R150. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill give effect to this.

In clause 4 of the Bill provision is made for the lump sum which a Bantu worker will receive for permanent disablement also to be calculated on his actual monthly earnings up to a maximum of R200 of such earnings. It is estimated that the proposed amendments will cost the fund approximately R1 100 000 annually.

The cost to Government departments and provincial administrations will amount to approximately R150 000 annually and to the Railways approximately R250 000, if it is accepted that the same percentage increase will apply as in the case of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund.

In clause 5 of the Bill it will be noticed that the increased compensation will apply only in respect of accidents which occur after the date on which the amending Bill comes into operation. This was also the position in regard to previous amendments of this nature. Such a step is unavoidable as it would be impracticable to impose levies with retrospective effect on employers whenever increased benefits come into operation, in order to obtain the necessary funds for accidents which occurred before the date on which the increased benefits come into operation. As hon. members know, all pensions granted since 1943 were recalculated and adjusted last year as a result of the amending Act of 1970. This additional expenditure was financed by the fund and other risk bearers from reserves which had been built up over the years. If the increased benefits were made retrospective it would cause financial embarrassment to such risk bearers, especially the two mutual societies, namely Rand Mutual, which undertakes workmen’s compensation insurance for the mines, and Federated Employers Mutual, which undertakes workmen’s compensation insurance for the building industry. This co-operation as regards the 1970 amendments has already been obtained, on the explicit understanding that such a retrospective adjustment shall not be regarded as a precedent for future increased benefits.

Even the Workmen’s Compensation Fund would not be financially able to carry the increased benefits with retrospective effect. Workmen also make no contributions to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund or to the mutual societies which undertake workmen’s compensation insurance. The fund’s revenue is derived from levies imposed on employers in accordance with the accident rate of each industry. In the light of the preceding considerations it has always been the policy not to make increased benefits retrospective. In the commissioner’s opinion, the proposed amendments will not result in increased levy rates. On the contrary, many of the levy rates have been reduced in recent years, in spite of increased benefits having come into operation.

Seeing that the amendments are aimed mainly at providing increased benefits to the workers, we trust they will meet with the approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. We take particular interest in this Bill in view of the fact that the principal Act of 1941 has proved to be a corner-stone in the social security of the workers in South Africa. This applies to all races who receive compensation as a result of injuries incurred during the course of their duties. If we look at the situation since 1941, we notice that a considerable number of amendments have been made to the principal Act, and we on this side of the House have in most cases supported these amendments, because we believed them to be improvements to the principal Act. On this occasion we on this side of the House once again give our support to this amending legislation. We believe that this amending legislation is necessary and is important. It is important to try to ensure that compensation keeps pace to an extent with increased costs that are incurred by the workman as a result of injury and the resultant loss of income. The various clauses of the Bill have been explained to the House by the hon. the Minister, i.e. those relating to the temporary total disablement of employees in terms of section 38 and 39 of the principal Act, and in the case of the Bantu, lump sum payments in terms of section 85 of the principal Act. Increasing this amount, which was previously the limiting factor, of R150 of the earnings to the proposed figure of R200 of such earnings is a modest increase. Perhaps it will be necessary at a later stage for the hon. the Minister to come back to this House once again to make an amendment to the principal Act. The various amendments which have been made in the past to section 38 of the principal Act were mainly as a result of legislation passed in 1967. In 1967 certain important improvements were made to the rates of benefits, but even after this short period from 1967, many of the amounts of compensation received are today proving to be inadequate due to the increase in the cost of living. This leads to the provision in clause 5 of this Bill, which clearly indicates that this improvement and the raising of the ceiling will only be applicable from a date to be fixed by the State President when this Bill becomes an Act and is promulgated. The hon. the Minister has indicated in this Bill by means of a proviso that any accidents that occur prior to that fixed date will not carry the benefit of the raising of the ceiling that is proposed in this legislation. We on this side of the House believe it is necessary for the hon. the Minister further to review his policy in this regard. We realize that there are important factors involved, like insurance, and the hon. the Minister has to be guided by the reports of the actuaries as far as the Accident Fund and the Special Reserve Fund are concerned. We know that the Minister has indicated that those persons who are receiving compensation at a low rate in terms of the benefits which were applicable at the time of the accident, have received some compensation as a result of contributions made from that Special Reserve Fund. However, this amending legislation once again creates the situation where the amendment is not to be retrospective in any way and unfortunately this will be to the detriment of workers who perhaps incur an injury at this very moment. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister could perhaps give further information to the House as to the reasons behind clause 5, which restricts these improvements to the date to be fixed some time in the future by the State President in terms of that clause. Many of us who have dealt with cases concerning dependents, particularly of workmen who have lost their lives, have found that many of these people suffer hardship as a result of legislation not being made retrospective. I know that it is not competent for me at this stage to discuss this matter in any detail as it affects the principal Act mainly, but the question before us is whether this type of legislation should not be made retrospective in some manner or form. That is why it is a pity that in clause 5 it is specifically stated that this measure will not be retrospective.

I also think the hon. the Minister can give us a little more information as regards the effect on the fund of these increased benefits that will come into effect for persons who will suffer injury in the future. If one looks at the latest available figures one sees that at the end of December, 1970, the Accident Fund stood at R52 300 000. We know that there has been a reduction of the contributions paid by employers in certain instances, but it would appear that the fund is in a very strong position.

However, we would like to know from the hon. the Minister what he estimates the effect will be on the fund. During the course of his speech he has mentioned that the actuaries are satisfied that the fund will be able to withstand any increased expenditure as far as these benefits are concerned, whether it be by pension or by lump sum payments. I think it is perhaps necessary for the hon. the Minister to provide this House with the additional information as to exactly what will be involved and what the effect will be on the actual fund, particularly with the situation where the revenue from contributions have increased quite considerably in recent times. As a result of legislation passed in 1967, the income ceiling limits for workmen who enjoy the protection of this Act were further raised from R3 120 to R5 460.

Therefore, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, we ask for additional information and we ask that the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to the whole aspect of the question of retrospective application of improved benefits for these workmen. We believe that this is important legislation, legislation which workmen regard as vital to their security in view of the fact that they will be able to receive compensation which in some instances will be more or less commensurate with their loss of income as a result of such disablement, or in the case of their dependents, where the loss of the breadwinner is the main tragedy that is involved in such an accident. With these few words we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with amending Bills of this nature, in terms of which benefits are granted as from a certain date, is always that one’s sympathy demands that they should be retrospective. It is not only the Opposition that wants this. Let me tell you, Sir, that I personally should like to have that. My side would like this to be retrospective, but we are concerned here with a fund which is maintained by the employers. The State contributes nothing and the employees contribute nothing towards this fund. It is exclusively the employers who contribute. In view of this, the employers surely have a right to submit to us, through the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, their requests in regard to the administration of that fund. These people have also been very accommodating, but this fund, their contributions and their application are, after all, based on an understanding which we, as the State administration, have with them. The understanding boils down to this, that we should not tax them by way of levies and increased benefits for periods and in respect of workers who were in service before they themselves were contributors. The approach is that we should not tax them excessively in respect of persons who were in service years ago. Last year, in the case of the amendment to make it retrospective to 1943, we did in fact hold consultations with these people, and they displayed a very accommodating attitude at the time. Because the workers had received benefits on such a limited scale since the 1943 Act, we asked them whether they could not make an exception in that case as regards making it retrospective. They agreed, but once again on the very explicit understanding that we should not regard the concession that they made last year in respect of those who benefited in terms of the 1943 Act as a precedent for the future. We then had to give that undertaking. I expressed my appreciation in this House to the employers and also to these mutual groups I have mentioned as being contributors, who must themselves bear responsibility for their concession. I also gave them the assurance that we, as the Government, would not hold them to that as a pattern for the future. For that reason I am afraid that I am bound to that understanding and to that character of this fund, in spite of all our sympathy. As I mentioned in my speech, this fund must pay out an extra R1 110 000 in respect of this. It is not the intention that the levy rates should be affected by that, and in spite of all my sympathy, it is not possible, within the framework of this fund’s capacity, to make this retrospective. I really hope that we shall appreciate the benefits embodied here as being the best that can be granted at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.