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.