When this debate was adjourned on Friday, I was referring to the role played by certain English clergymen in the politics of South Africa. Evidently the hon. member for Green Point is opposed to what he calls “overt political action” by clergymen. I now issue a challenge to the hon. member for Yeoville to confirm that this is in fact the United Party’s standpoint and in that case, i.e. if this is the standpoint of the United Party, to repudiate the actions of certain clergymen.

This afternoon I want to confine myself to the question of sport, particularly to the statement issued by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The standpoint of the National Party has always been clear, i.e. that inside South Africa each population group has to play its sport separately and has to administer its sport separately. But in recent years the enemies of South Africa have adopted the attitude that in order to overthrow the social structure inside South Africa, attention is to be concentrated on the one field in respect of which, so it is thought, the citizens of South Africa may be hurt most, i.e. sport. The National Party has always offered strong resistance to these onslaughts on its standpoint that we here in South Africa play our sport separately.

What about the Maoris?

For the information of the hon. stupid member here on my right, we have always drawn a distinction, of course, between inter-state sport and purely local sport. Throughout all the years the United Party has remained silent in regard to their standpoint in favour of mixed sport, although they have always accused this side of that. As a matter of fact, they have always denied that they are in favour of integration in sport. But now the United Party has yielded to the demands which have come from the outside world. South Africa and its sports administrators were confronted with demands, and the United Party has yielded. It has become a putty-like party—exercise some pressure on it and it changes its shape. The United Party has now publicly accepted multi-racial sport for the first time. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said his party stood for the concept of multi-nationalism in South Africa. But multi-racialism, as the United Party now wants to apply it here in respect of sport, differs from multi-nationalism. The hon. member should explain to us in what way he is able to effect a reconciliation in this regard. One thing is certain, and that is that the policy statement of the Leader of the Opposition amounts to a victory for the left and progressive wing of the United Party. It is very clear that the United Party is now moving more and more rapidly to the side of the Progressive Party.

In this connection there are two questions which may be put to the United Party, ones to which the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Yeoville may be able to reply. The first is, whom outside South Africa do they think they will satisfy with this new sports pol-ley? According to Die Burger of this morning, the Prime Minister said (translation)—

Do you believe Die Burger?

The specific question which I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is this: Which of our enemies overseas does he think he is satisfying with this new policy? We accept, of course, that there are of our enemies who will be satisfied with this statement as a first instalment. But they are going to come back for a second and for a third instalment—they will keep on coming back until they receive the full price, and that is the head of White South Africa on a platter. This is what they want and this is the direction in which the United Party is moving. About the policy of the National Party, on the other hand, there need be no obscurity. What is the position now going to be inside the country itself? The United Party says that it accepts integrated sport on international level, as well as mixed trials in South Africa. Mixed control of those trials apparently goes with that. Do they think that they are satisfying those people and bodies in South Africa who want to play multi-racial sport at all levels? I believe not. The next thing that will happen is that the controlling body of, say, the non-White cricket people will come forward with a protest that they cannot participate properly in trials as they do not have proper opportunities of competing. They will ask to compete with the Whites on provincial level as well in order to create competition for themselves. What is the United Party going to say in that case? I am asking them a question and I should like to have a reply to my question. Sir, the next question is this, “How can we compete at provincial level if we do not get proper exercise at club level?” That is what this is going to lead to; it is going to lead to demands to play mixed sport at club level. But this is not all. The logical consequence will be that the non-Whites will tell the enemies of South Africa, “Those people can most definitely not get proper exercise at club level if they do not start playing mixed cricket and mixed sport already at that level at which each person learns his sport, and that is at school level,” Mr. Speaker. If this policy statement, this standpoint of the United Party, has to be carried into effect, it can only lead to integration and to multi-racialism at each level as far as sport is concerned. There is no doubt about this.

But now we come to the social level. What fairness is there in the policy of the United Party as announced by it? Will the United Party now come and tell us, “See here, the sportsmen will enter through that gate but their wives and children will enter through that gate; they will sit on separate stands on the opposite side, and the Whites will sit on that separate stand, and on this stand the White and the non-White players will be sitting together.”? Surely, Sir, what their policy must lead to is something completely absurd. But now I come to the question of social intercourse. Surely there must most definitely be social intercourse amongst all those participating White and non-White sportsmen,

As between Jonathan and Vorster.

Sir, that hon. member, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, does not have the faintest idea what this debate is about at the moment. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then wants to solve this problem by saying that the implementation of this will be the same as in the case of inter-state intercourse as far as non-White diplomats are concerned. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to know that as far as non-White diplomats and our relations with other states are concerned, there is no apartheid which we can maintain. At interstate level one meets a man, whoever he may be, as the representative of that state, and it is completely wrong to want to apply that policy to a domestic situation. The United Party must not be completely absurd. The message which goes out to the electorate outside in this connection is this: The United Party is an integration party, the United Party is a party that wants to bring about integration at every level in South Africa. The United Party is a putty-like party; if one exercises any pressure on it, it changes its shape. I still want to tell hon. members just this: The more pressure one exercises on this poor party, in the same way as one kneads putty, the more one squeezes its lifeblood from it; the more unacceptable one makes it to South Africa, and the more definitely it will be rejected by the electorate.

In connection with the argument that theirs is purely an integration party, I think this is an appropriate moment for referring once again to the standpoint of the United Party as set out by the hon. member for Wynberg. When she was asked in a letter to the Argus on 3rd February, 1970, for her comments on the question of in what respects the United Party “intended to amend or repeal legislation”, she replied that the following would be considered—-

All the Acts, Sir, which seek to confirm and retain the established social pattern and structure in South Africa, are the things which will be reviewed by the United Party. We are faced here today with an accomplished fact, and that is that the United Party has become the integration party; that the United Party’s policy can only lead to integration at all levels. But, in contrast to that, what is the position of the National Party? The position of the National Party is summarized in, for example, the editorial of Die Vaderland of 13th April, in which the following was stated (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, I level the specific accusation at the United Party that is has decided to change its sports policy because of agitation, because of demands made on them, and that theirs is not a decision which has been taken with a view ro promoting the interests of the country.

The speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central was very interesting. It was a speech directed at the by-elections which will be held on Wednesday, and in view of that, the performance of the hon. young member was very illuminating. The Nationalist Party and the Government are faced with a test in the shape of the by-elections and they have no defence for the mismanagement of South Africa of which they have been guilty. The poor hon. member was instructed to come and beat the Black danger drum again this afternoon. This is the only thing on which the Government can rely, because it has no policy, nothing constructive and nothing else for the people of South Africa but this nonsense to which we have to listen. The hon. member made great play of the fact that we wanted to give an inch, because of the statement of policy made by my hon. leader, [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Sport can tell us everything about satisfying people. He can tell us whether mixed sport was not played at Ellis Park in the past week. He can tell us whether mixed sport was not played on the rugby fields against New Zealand. He can tell us whether the hon. the Prime Minister did not say that mixed teams could represent South Africa in tennis and at the Olympic games. Therefore, if there is any such principle as giving an inch, the hon. the Prime Minister has already given two inches. But, Sir, we shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters and we are looking forward to it. But to come along with extravagances and exaggerations of this kind on the eve of the by-elections, can bluff no one except the hon. member himself and the members of the Cabinet.

On Friday the hon. member raised another matter which, in my opinion, is more serious.

†That was the completely unjustified attack on the hon. member for Kensington. I use the word “unjustified” deliberately because he made a number of wild statements, general statements, without a single tittle of evidence or truth to support them. I want to say deliberately now, that he cannot produce a single tittle of proof to justify or support or substantiate the wild allegations he made. I want to say this about the hon. member for Kensington. When we nominated him as a member for the Transvaal, we knew that he was a journalist and we accepted that if he became a member of Parliament he would continue his political journalism. We see nothing wrong in that. There are precedents which stretch back in history which involve important personalities in South Africa, and although I do not like to do it I think, in justice, I should mention some of these people.

There was the father-in-law of the hon. Minister of Sport, who interjects here, who for years sat in this House and ran a newspaper himself. He wrote it himself and attacked members of his own party and Cabinet members of the other party, to his heart’s content and never was he accused of abusing the privilege of Parliament. There was the example of two Governors-General of South Africa and one State President who wrote articles for the Sunday Express and even edited New Era while they were members of Parliament, and conducted political columns. There was Senator Jan Grobler. There was Mr. Eric Louw, who wrote a regular political feature under the editorship of Mr. Etienne Malan in a political journal. Where was the nonsense about morality and privilege then? This was in perfect order.

And now I want to say that the facts stated by the hon. gentleman were completely wrong. I have looked at every item written in the Sunday Times by the hon. member for Kensington, and not once did he attack a colleague of his on either side of the House as a member of Parliament— not once. That was an allegation made with no substantiation whatsoever by the learned hon. member for Pretoria Central.

And then we had the strange phenomenon. I am sorry the hon. the Minister is not here now—that the Minister of the Interior got up and did the unprecedented thing of interrupting his own backbencher with questions. The questions were, referring to the fact that the hon. member for Kensington writes in the Sunday Times, “Is dit wettig dat dit gedoen word deur ’n lid onder die privilegie van hierdie Raad?” Sir, what privilege as a journalist—I am one myself—has a member of this House got in reporting on Parliament which a member of the general press has not got? It is the proceedings of Parliament which are privileged, not the members. Anybody reporting the proceedings of Parliament or making fair comment in the legal sense of the expression, is privileged. That hon. member is a lawyer. He should know this.

A second, stupid question put by the hon. the Minister of the Interior—I cannot understand why he put the question—was this—

What a shameful thing for an hon. Minister to say! It means that every journalist in this House who contributes to a paper, is guilty of malpractice according to the suggestion contained in the hon. the Minister’s statement. I do hope that the opportunity will be taken if not in public, then certainly in private, to rebuke the irresponsibility of this hon. member for Pretoria Central, whom I forgive as he is an infant in politics. Certainly I hope that the opportunity will be taken to rebuke the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who should know better. I am sorry that he is not here, because I want to say that he came to this House with a high reputation. It seems to me that since he is out from under the influence of the Natal Provincial Executive he has lost his touch and his dignity. (Interjections.]

I shall make this admission; George’s articles are much better than yours.

I think that what we had from the hon. member for Pretoria Central was a mild and puny attempt at character assassination. My hon. friends opposite are very touchy about character assassination. I can remember, on previous occasions, but especially in this debate, that, when the hon. member for Simons-town made some interesting revelations about the fishing industry, he was accused of character assassination. My hon. friends went further and said he was attacking the concessions which were granted, because they were granted to Afrikaners. It was an anti-Afrikaner movement.

Order! I should be pleased if the hon. member would face the Chair when he speaks, because I want to hear what he is saying.

I am sorry, Sir. May I have clarity? Does that mean that all the time I speak, I must face you exclusively?

No, not exclusively.

I just wanted to know, Sir.

The hon. member must address the House in such a way that I can hear him.

Well, that is fair, Sir.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member thinks it is fair. Thank you.

These malpractices in the fishing industry were allegedly exposed because we resented the fact that Afrikaners received these privileges. The hon. the Minister then told us that only about 100 people were concerned in this. There was a total issue of shares to 2 800 people, but there were only 100 of these wonderful Afrikaners involved. They were mostly members of Parliament and organizers of the Nationalist Party. I want to know if that is the only way in which we can serve the Afrikaans people of this country, namely by giving fishing concessions to members of Parliament and to political organizers. What about the other 2 million Afrikaners in South Africa? Are they not entitled to some consideration, which they do not get from this Government? Is this past Budget evidence of great consideration and care for the ordinary people by this Government?

You are talking petty politics now.

Of course! This is a political issue and I will make no excuses for it. Hon. members stand up here and very sanctimoniously speak about the concern of the Government for the Afrikaner and they accuse us of the opposite, when we are discussing a budget such as the one we have now, which is a punitive budget directed against the ordinary people, the Afrikaans, English and all the people of South Africa. What sort of level of public discussion is this? What a pathetic attempt to get away from the sins of the Government concerned in the fishing industry! While we have to listen to that sort of nonsense our people outside of all communities have to pay more for petrol. They are still paying for inflation. They have to pay more for petrol, milk, bread and for a hundred commodities. Then, in order to fight inflation for which they were paying on the one hand, they now have to pay higher taxes to limit their consumption. They have to pay R57 million more in purchase tax. By the time they pay it, it is inflated because profits are taken on the tax and tax is taken at source. They have to pay more in loan levies; they have to pay more on excise and import duties. They have to pay more all the time. Is this a Government which is concerned with the ordinary people? The only step of any significance that the Government is willing to take to fight inflation is to sock the people; to make them pay more in prices and taxes; let them suffer credit restrictions. Not in one instance does the Government set an example of self-restraint and show any willingness to restrain itself in order to combat inflation. Government expenditure has increased by another 11 per cent as my hon. friend, the member for Constantia, pointed out. The Government regularly takes a larger slice of the total domestic product for itself whilst retraining the ordinary citizen from spending and enjoying the very increases this Government gave them before the election. Now it is suddenly unpatriotic to spend those increases.

If we saw the slightest indication that the Government was also willing to do something really practical about increasing production and productivity in South Africa, we would be less critical, we would be more hopeful of South Africa under this Government. But there is no such indication. The only result of the rise in taxation to the extent it has been raised and the rise in the cost of living to the extent it has been raised, is that it will become more difficult to get immigrants in future. The time when South Africa was an economic attraction to immigrants from abroad because they could live at a higher standard in South Africa and pay lower taxes, is past. We will still get immigrants from Zambia. But the standard of living in Western Europe is rising fast. In those countries they have deliberate policies to reduce taxation and to make the life of the ordinary citizen more comfortable and more secure. We miss this in South Africa. I genuinely believe that the time is coming when it will not be attractive for immigrants to come to South Africa under this Government with its policies. I wish one could be satisfied that these limits on consumption, these punitive expeditions against the people of South Africa, will be effective. I see that Die Vaderland in a reasoned article, shortly before the introduction of the Budget, with the authority of the editor, warned that restrictions on consumption alone will not be effective. Die Vader-land warned that when people find that the Government takes more money from them, they do not lower their standard of living, but incur more debts and borrow more money in order to maintain their standard of living and that this sort of policy is ineffectual.

We have abounding numbers of authorities who tell us that the real answer is that we must increase production and productivity and that labour is a key to the situation. We have a striking example which I appreciate very much. I do not want to make political capital out of it, because the hon. gentleman was sincere. The hon. member for Mayfair tells us that we have to accept that we will have to use Bantu labour more productively, especially in the building industry. He did not speak of Coloured labour, as the hon. the Minister of Labour has conceded, but Bantu labour. I must be fair to the hon. member and say that he makes it subject to the condition that this Bantu labour will be resident and rooted in the reserves, in the Bantu areas. But the hon. member wants their labour to be used in the building industry in the White areas. The hon. member is correct. It cannot be helped. It must be done. But there is no sign on the side of the Government or in the Budget of any approach to this problem.

Mr. A. J. M. de Vries, head of the Bureau of Economic Research of Stellenbosch University, is a man whom we must respect and whose views we certainly all respect. In March he spoke to the Institute of Manpower and earlier this month he spoke to the Rotarians. In each case the theme of his speech was the labour shortage and the consequent pressure on wages and salaries as a major cause of inflation. On February 17th the Fifth Economic Development Programme of the Government was published. It had been drawn up by the Government in consultation with experts from all sections of the people. They listed six priorities for the next five years. They are matters of policy and I am going to name three of the six points. Firstly, productivity in general will have to be increased. Secondly, labour should be used to better effect and, thirdly, there must be more investment in productive capacity. I ask hon. members where in the Budget is there any evidence that the Government has learned the lessons or taken the advice of its own Economic Advisory Council? There are glimmerings, little signs, as small as a man’s hand on the horizon, that the Government know that they are doing wrong and that they must do something about it. We know, for example, that they have changed their attitude towards the employment of Coloureds and Indians. Even the hon. the Minister of Labour had to make concessions in this respect to the O.K. Bazaars and other emporia and to the building industry in Natal and in the Transvaal. We even know the hon. the Prime Minister, in his last New Year’s Message to the people over the S.A.B.C., said something had to be done about the more productive use of our labour resources in South Africa.

So what?

The hon. the Prime Minister says “So what?”, but where is the evidence in this Budget? Last year we had some evidence. Last year the hon. the Minister came with a suggestion that there should be a dialogue between industrialists and the Government about the better use of labour in the White areas, but this died, because it was murdered by two of the hon. the Minister’s colleagues.

You know that is nonsense.

I certainly do not know it. Show me any evidence of a successful and a meaningful dialogue! Give me any evidence and show me any results.

Good heavens, the Riekert Committee was appointed as a result!

Oh, a commission has been appointed. Our experience of this Government and commissions is that a commission is not a result at all, but a non-event or a non-happening. They will probably take 13 years to report, and then it will be pigeon-holed and nothing will happen. We have had examples of this kind. It has also happened that a report has been kept back because it could not be translated. We know their techniques. Therefore that does not mean a thing. In all fairness, the Government indicated that they would spend an amount of something like R20 million under this Budget in order to assist the development of secondary industrial activity in the Bantu areas. They are willing to spend some money to assist industrial development on the borders of these areas, but is that not putting the cart before the horse? If we are going to make—and this is their policy—more productive use of labour on the borders of the Reserves and, to a smaller extent, inside the Reserves, it is good. It is good as far as it goes. However, can it go far enough in order to create the wealth and the resources we need now in order to carry out any policy with any hope of success to solve the race problems of South Africa? Are they not putting the cart before the horse? Are they not putting the negative before the positive? They want to develop their border industries, and in the past 12 years they have created enough jobs on the borders of these Reserves to absorb the work-seeking population of all the Reserves who come on the market in one year. That is the measure of their achievement. Because they want to develop the Reserves, they say to the industrialists in the White areas of South Africa that they will restrict them and make it difficult for them to carry on their business. They say they will limit employment and they will apply the Physical Resources Act to them. Furthermore, they say that if they want to expand or build an industry which uses Native labour, it will be as difficult as getting a camel through the eye of a needle. They are restricting and they are strangling industry in the White areas, and they are the very industries which will have to produce the means with which the other areas are to be developed. I see, for example, that Prof. G. Marais, the Director of the University of South Africa’s School of Business Leadership, issued a warning on the 24th February that job reservation and the establishment of most of the country’s industries in border areas may eventually lead to the White industrial areas of South Africa becoming redundant. I think this is a far-reaching warning, but the potential is there. One cannot restrict and try to move industrial development away from the White areas by strangling the White areas. If the Government wants to do that, why does it not follow the ideas of the United Party and try to encourage and attract industries to the border areas? But why do it by strangling the White industries and why should the suppressing of the development of White industries be the main method in seeking the movement of industries to the border areas?

Industrialists in White areas must create the wherewithal to carry out the policy of the Government. They will also have to create the wherewithal to carry out our policy. They are the people who are needed to give security and a decent standard of living to the people of South Africa. Their production of wealth is necessary to maintain peace and order in South Africa for all peoples. But they are being limited. They are being forced to move. I think the time is now more past than ever before that they will move in any significant numbers. The hon. the Minister should speak to industrial leaders. Over the last week-end we spoke to them again. They say that with this limiting Budget and the heavy taxation on them, they will have to consider husbanding their capital resources very carefully and they doubt whether capital will now be available to start experiments on the borders of the reserves or to go into the reserves on an agency basis to untried places.

Because of the restrictive policies of this Government the Government is unnecessarily increasing the numbers of Black workers in the White areas on an uneconomic basis. We know that most employers, including Government departments, resort to the employment of illegal workers of a different colour than those allowed by the Government, I have here a number of authorities to substantiate this, but we all know this from our own experiences. On the 6th September. 1970, the Trade Union Council of South Africa reported that thousands of factories and construction firms were using non-Whites under cover and against the spirit of job reservation laws. There is no rate for the job or protection for the White worker. They are doing it illegally and even Government officials have to shut their eyes to this fact because they know that to enforce the law strictly will bring about the collapse of industries in South Africa. In the Star of the 30th September, 1970, I read of a concrete example of how African construction workers were welding foundation beams on major building projects in Johannesburg at 30c an hour. This is illegal and not allowed under the laws of this Government. They do it for 30c an hour where the minimum wage for a White welder is R1-10 an hour. This is what is happening everywhere.

Not only is there illegal employment, but there is also over-employment of Blacks. The hon. member for Hillbrow and I interviewed several employers of labour in Johannesburg during the Easter recess. And what did we find? They are forced to employ more Natives than they really need, because if a Native were to lose his job or resign to go to a better-paid job it takes them three months to get a legal replacement for that man, because they have to go back to the reserves. In this particular industry there was not a single establishment which did not admit to us that they were employing more Black labour than they needed in order to avoid breakdowns caused by the normal movement of labour from employer to employer. The Government itself is responsible. What a Government! What efficiency! What lack and insight and appreciation of the problems of the people who create the wealth of South Africa!

We are all agreed on this matter. The hon. the Prime Minister agrees to the extent that he is afraid he will not sleep at night. If we want to succeed in South Africa in working out a pattern for the peaceful co-existence amongst races in this country, we need prosperity. We need the means to do what is right and just according to the lights that we have, although they may differ. On that we are agreed. The Government deliberately follows a policy that restricts and confines the productivity of the entrepreneurs of South Africa. They do it for a policy, the so-called policy of separate development which has no natural life, vitality or viability. It has to be forced into existence by measures like the Physical Resources Planning Act, and such measures as those applied by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who restricts and strangles the industry of South Africa with his short-sighted labour policy. What are we doing this for? For this policy of separate development which is unnatural and an economic impossibility, as is proved day by day, this policy which is now exploding in the faces of the Government.

We had an exhibition in this House on Friday by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development which was unbelievable. What you read in Hansard does not reveal the temper of the Minister on that occasion. It does not reveal his anger and the venom with which he spoke about the actions of Mr. Kaiser Matanzima of the Transkei. He accused Kaiser Matanzima of ignorance and discourtesy. He even told us that he had the courtesy to reprimand the Chief Minister of the Transkei, not in private, but in the presence of his associates. He had to be humiliated by being reprimanded by the Minister in the presence of his junior colleagues. I want to say something in favour of Kaiser Matanzima this afternoon. The Minister has no right to reproach him. No member of the Nationalist Party, of this Government can take any exception to what Kaiser Matanzima says. He is merely asking the Government to carry out its policy. Why should they be angry with him? Why should they take it amiss? For years the Government has promised these very things. It is the very foundation of Government policy that these reserves, these Bantu homelands, will eventually be given sovereign independence.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many splits now that I do not know what to do. There is a split between the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Kaiser Matanzima on the one hand. On the other hand there is a split between the Government and the Minister of Community Development, who now repudiates his recent past. The theory is independent Bantustans, where the Black people will have everything the White people have in their own country.

Everything?

Everything. It was said again and again. “Anything that I want for myself in the White area, the Black man can have in the Black area” —that is the philosophy of the policy— except for the majority of the Black people who will never live in those areas. But that is by the way. The fight is now developing between Black supporters of Government policy, who are losing confidence in the Government’s sincerity and determination to carry out its own policy. When they are goaded by Government ineptitude and reluctance to make public statements, they are reproached, recriminated and reprimanded in the presence of their juniors.

South Africa is asked to accept the economic situation in which we find ourselves today, to accept the Government’s refusal to use labour in South Africa effectively, to accept inflation, to accept punitive taxation, rising cost of living and appeals from the Minister for labour not to ask for higher salaries or wages. We are being asked to accept these things in the name of a policy that is dying.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

Mr. Speaker, since hon. members have raised so many matters to which I want to reply, I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the Third Reading of this Bill. During the Committee Stage no amendment was made to the Bill; the attitude of the Minister remained unchanged. It is appropriate at this stage to take note of what the passage of this Bill so far has revealed and to ask what this Bill will achieve. A large part of the debate on this Bill has been taken up by the Minister. To me, the Minister’s speeches revealed an inconsistent and vacillating approach to the whole matter, an approach ranging from complete banning to a staunch defence of vested interests. There has been only one consistent aspect in the Minister’s approach right throughout the debate, i.e. his antagonism to the philosophy and practice of chiropractic. When this Bill has become part of history, the Minister’s attitude will be equated with that of a by-gone era, one who criticized and ridiculed theories and hypothesis which today are accepted by the medical profession. The Minister’s quotations have, without exception, condemned chiropractic despite the fact that it has been claimed that in 80 legislatures of the world, legislation has been introduced on behalf of chiropractic, and despite the fact that we are told that in Europe the Medical Research Society for the Study of Chiropractic has a membership of almost 500 medical practitioners. The Minister has been at pains to prove that chiropractic makes no contribution to science. I, on the other hand, believe that there is evidence to show that chiropractic has made and can still make a contribution to health, in some cases even where medical science has failed. The Minister accepts the premise that if medicine is right, chiropractic is wrong or vice versa.

Who said so?

Hansard, column 4014. The Minister quoted it there and accepted it. at least did not refuse it. Therefore I take it he accepted it. Can I accept that?

It is the Medical Council which said that.

And the Minister did not refute it. According to that premise, chiropractic and medical science cannot exist together. Yet the Minister indicated that it would be to the good of South Africa for medical schools to give more and serious attention especially to manipulation and physiotherapy. Surely, the manipulative technique is the raison d’être of the chiropractor. Let us pursue this into another field. Science gave the world D.D.T. and the world acclaimed the use of D.D.T., during World War TT I think it was. Today, however, country after country is banning D.D.T., and so has South Africa, belatedly. Could not the converse be true as far as chiropractic is concerned? Science condemns chiropractic; human experience contradicts science. It does not mean that science is wrong; it means that because of the limitations of the human mind in the field of science it does not always produce correct hypotheses. Furthermore, it could take more than 75 years, which is the lifespan of chiropractic, for certain theories to be accepted.

When one looks at the legislation before us, one finds that it has developed in three stages. Initially, we had a bill to amend the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. The Minister assured the House that it was not the intention of that Bill to deal with chiropractic. However, there were legal people on this side of the House who disagreed and claimed that chiropractic could be included within the ambit of that Bill. Then a Chiropractic Bill was tabled on the 10th February with the object of banning chiropractic. A short time afterwards, however, this Bill was withdrawn. I do not think it is usual for a Bill to be introduced, then to be withdrawn and for another Bill to be submitted, everything in one session by the same Minister.

What is wrong with that?

I say it is unusual. The new Bill had, to my mind, three main objectives: Firstly, to phase out chiropractic; secondly, to protect their vested interests; and thirdly, to allow them almost unrestricted activity for the next 40 to 50 years. I believe that we are entitled to ask what prompted the hon. the Minister to act in this way. I submit there are several reasons for that. Firstly, there is the report of the commission which investigated chiropractic in 1962; secondly, it could well be an expression of the attitude of the medical profession; thirdly, we are aware of the Minister’s own antagonism to chiropractic; fourthly, it could have been the reaction of the chiropractors themselves, and fifthly, and by no means last, it could have been the reaction of the public itself.

Referring to the report of the commission, I want to ask whether this Bill implements the recommendations contained in that report. In my opinion, basically it does not. What did the report recommend? It recommended that no statutory recognition be extended to chiropractic in South Africa. This Bill offers statutory recognition for 50 years! Then the commission recommended that after 1964 no person ought to be allowed to practise as a chiropractor in South Africa. However, this Bill permits the chiropractor to practise in South Africa until the year 2021. The commission further recommended that chiropractors should be given plus minus six years in which to qualify as medical practitioners or physiotherapists. There is no such provision in this Bill then the commission recommended that section 34 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act be amended. This has been done by a previous Bill. Finally, the commission recommended that more attention be paid to the training of medical students in physical medicine and manipulative technique. That, we can agree, is not a matter for legislation. However, this recommendation highlights the attitude of the commission. It rejects the philosophy of chiropractic while accepting that the practice has certain merits which science would do well to emulate.

What has been the attitude of the medical profession? In 1962 the Medical Association of South Africa issued a comprehensive statement on the question of chiropractic. I quote—

But there is another brief quotation to which I also wish to refer, also dating back to 1962—

Sir, that was the attitude of the medical profession. We know of the antagonism of the hon. the Minister. I believe he has expressed it enough; it is on record and there is no need for me to dilate on that particular aspect.

But let us have a look at the reaction of the chiropractors themselves. The Minister is well aware of this reaction. He says he is on the best of terms with them and that he has been negotiating with them all these years. Sir, I submit that the chiropractors are disappointed. I realize that the present chiropractors and the existing students realize that their future has been secured, but I believe that the chiropractors are disappointed because their offer to bring expert chiropractic advice from other countries to South Africa to put their point of view, was not accepted by the commission.

You are talking absolute nonsense; there was never such a request from the chiropractors. It is completely untrue.

I have it in writing from the chiropractors.

Well, read it out.

I can give it to the hon. the Minister at any time but I am not going to interrupt my speech to read it. I say that the chiropractors have accepted this Bill conditionally. Sir, had they any other alternative, but to accept this Bill, or to face the prospect of complete banning? The chiropractors made a suggestion; they asked whether the Bill could not make provision for a code of ethics. This was not accepted. They have now been given a virtual monopoly because present chiropractors and those South Africans training to be chiropractors will be allowed to practise more or less unfettered, under a monopoly granted by a government which has been known to act against monopolistic tendencies.

Sir, we have seen the reaction of the chiropractors. Now what is the reaction of the public to this Bill? I would say that by and large—and there is evidence to prove this—the public is against this Bill. Opposition has been voiced from the man in the street, to the intellectuals and opposition has been voiced even by some medical practitioners. I believe one could sum up by saying that health should be sought where it can be found, and if the State itself allows a freedom of choice it should also safeguard the public interest when this freedom is exercised. But there is no real defined, enforceable form of public protection in this Bill.

I now wish to refer, Sir, to the attitude of the Official Opposition and of Government members to the Bill. I believe that the attitude of the Official Opposition to this Bill was succinctly and concisely summed up by my colleague, the hon. member for Musgrave, during the Committee Stage of this Bill. In fact, the hon. the Minister remarked and complimented the hon. member on the concise exposition which he gave of the attitude of this side of the House. But in the Government ranks we know that the Minister’s attitude has been unequivocal. I am, however, aware of murmurings in the ranks of Government members who are not medically orientated. I believe that a number of Government members recognize the value of chiropractic, that they make use of chiropractors and that they are not happy with this Bill. But, Sir, there has not been a single peep out of any of the non-medically orientated members on the Government benches …

They do not have the courage.

Only members of the medical profession have spoken from the Government benches—the Minister, a medical man, the hon. member for Faure-smith (Dr. Van der Merwe), the hon. member for Cradock (Dr. Morrison), the hon. member for Newcastle (Dr. Viljoen).

So what?

I am just remarking on it. Not one Nationalist who is not a medical man entered the debate to express his own reaction or the reaction of the public. Sir, it has not passed unnoticed in this Chamber and outside.

What is the attitude of the Progressive Party? The lone member of the Progressive Party, who is not here at the moment, took no actual part in the debate on this Bill. She flamboyantly left the Chamber when the division was called, but once again it was left to the United Party to express to Parliament the very clear voice of the opinion of the people of South Africa. So in conclusion I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I want to suggest that he amends this Bill in the Senate to provide that it is possible to have a code of ethics for the behaviour of chiropractors in the public interest. If he does not do that, I wish to make a prediction, namely that his successor will in the future find it necessary to institute another commission to investigate chiropractic, a commission on which both sides will be represented, a commission which will have the authority to call evidence from expert witnesses from other parts of the world. If this does not take place, then I believe it will become necessary in the future to amend this Bill which we are discussing today.

It was interesting, as far as it can be interesting, to listen to the hon. member for Berea when he tried to explain how the scientific basis of chiropractic would be proved 50 or 100 years hence, and then he mentioned D.D.T. and how scientific it is, but that D.D.T. is banned today. I may remind him that there are many other examples. He could rather have spoken about the atom bomb, which everyone wants to ban today, although it represents a very special scientific achievement. This does not make the whole matter unrealistic. But what I find quite strange is that the hon. member complains here because the Bill will allegedly create a monopoly for people, in that they will be the only ones who will be allowed to practise chiropractic. In actual fact, however, this contradicts his entire argument. The hon. member is a pharmacist, after all. Does he want persons other than pharmacists to practise the pharmaceutical profession? Over the week-end I saw the pharmacists were complaining because the firm Clicks wanted to sell medicines. Does the hon. member not expect protection; in this connection from the Minister of Health? Is it a monopoly if only an attorney may practise the profession of attorney? Has one ever in one’s life heard such a lot of nonsense, i.e. that this can now be described as a monopoly? I cannot understand that an hon. member can go so far as to talk such nonsense in the House of Assembly.

What is the effect of this Bill? This Bill has done a few things. In the first instance the Bill has shown that the Minister and the Department of Health are not afraid and do not hesitate to carry out their duty, i.e. the duty of protecting the public; in other words, the Bill prohibits people not properly qualified from being turned loose to treat the public. Great play is made here of the public having the right to go to any person whom they want to treat them. It is true that the public have that right, but the public also have the right to know that the person in whose hands they place themselves is properly trained. This is the essence of this Bill. It has never at any stage been said that a chiropractor is not fully capable of applying manipulative therapy. The hon. member also brought this up because the hon. the Minister allegedly said that more attention must be paid to manipulative therapy in medical training. But we recognize this. The other day we quoted here from the South African Medical Journal and said that these people are properly equipped to do it. The only thing we are not prepared to accept is that these people are properly trained to make a diagnosis.

This is the crux of the matter. Therefore the hon. the Minister is 100 per cent correct. Let us have no doubt that a large number of them are people who are properly trained in the art of manipulative therapy and who render very good services. No-one has ever denied this. The Minister is 100 per cent correct in asking that the training of medical students should in future include more manipulative therapy. It must be manipulative therapy which will be backed by people who are properly trained to make the diagnosis for the therapy to be applied. Surely this is the crux of the matter.

Another object of this Bill is to recognize the existing order, i.e. to ensure that a person’s profession by means of which he earns his living is not taken away from him, but that he is allowed to continue practising his profession. In this Bill statutory recognition is being granted to the Chiropractic Association of South Africa for the first time. Let me say that this must be of special assistance to these people. Usually an association is established in such a way that people first organize themselves and then ask for statutory recognition. The Bill has gone out of its way here to give them special assistance and to set up one association and to grant it statutory recognition. In other words, these people are afforded the opportunity of setting their house in order. It is a fact that they will still be able to continue under the present dispensation, probably for the next 50 years, if it is taken into account that those ladies and gentlemen who are still undergoing training will be allowed to return and to practise the profession. I am convinced that if these people set great store by their profession, ways and means will be found—-whether it will be called chiropractic or manipulative therapy in future —to ensure that the art of chiropractic will not be lost, but will be retained so that these services will be rendered, but will be rendered more efficiently. If a person offers his services as a manipulative therapist to the public, the public will know that he is a person who is absolutely 100 per cent qualified, a person who, inter alia, enjoys the recognition of those bodies which grant recognition to all the other medical services in the country. An opportunity has now been created for the chiropractors to set their house in order. It was interesting to read what a leading chiropractor said in an interview with the Argus on 13th April, I wish I were in a position to read out that report to hon. members, but I am not allowed to do so now. In this report one reads how delighted this chiropractor is with this legislation. He says that under this Bill chiropractic has a very rosy future.

On top of all this, it has provided protection to the public. This is the main feature which is necessary. It is also the task of the Department of Health to protect the public in matters of this nature.

I have no doubt that this legislation will have a particularly wholesome effect on the health services of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this afternoon a most curious argument in support of this Bill from the hon. member for Fauresmith. He tells us that this Bill is intended specifically for the protection of the public. He went so far as to suggest that this is the kernel of this Bill. In other words, the object of this Bill is to prevent people who are not properly qualified from being let loose on the public. This is the way he put it. If the hon. the Minister shares this view, I hope he will explain to us in what way this Bill provides for the protection of the public. As we see it, and quite clearly, this Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with this. On the contrary, it lays down no qualifications whatsoever. It lays down no yardsticks for the protection of the public. It enables all present practitioners to continue in practice for as long as they live. In what way can it be said, by any stretch of the imagination, that the kernel and the object of this Bill is the protection of the public?

The hon. member for Fauresmith was equally talking nonsense when he dealt with the argument of the hon. member for Berea in regard to the aspect of the monopoly which this Bill is creating. He is quite right that we do not expect persons other than attorneys to practise the profession of attorneys. We are not suggesting that people other than properly qualified chiropractors should be practising the chiropractic profession. But why we do say that this Bill creates a monopoly, is because we believe that it creates a monopoly for those people who are presently practising and those who are presently in training, because these are the only people who, for the future, will be able to continue practising chiropractic in South Africa. All other persons are excluded. Surely, that is creating a monopoly in every sense of the word for those people who are permitted to continue to practise. The essential difference between the case suggested by the hon. member for Fauresmith and the present case is that, taking the profession of attorneys or my own profession, the profession of advocates, there are standards of examination, of ethical practice and so on, laid down. Provided persons are able to fulfil these conditions in the future, they may be admitted, whereas under this Bill, future generations are prevented from qualifying themselves to practise chiropractic. Undoubtedly, in terms of this Bill, a monopoly is being created for the present practitioners and those in training by the very Government that claims to be opposed to monopolies.

I leave the hon. member for Fauresmith and I should like to come back to my own arguments on this Bill. At this late stage, the Third Reading debate, I think it is important to appreciate once again that what this Government is proceeding with, is a Bill the main object of which is to legislate chiropractic into ultimate extinction. The Government is proceeding to suppress a profession that is performing a valuable service to the community and has done so for very many years.

There may certainly be certain exceptional circumstances. The hon. the Minister may perhaps be able to point to isolated instances where a chiropractor has not carried out his profession in the way he should have. Those cases, however, are isolated cases which one gets in every profession, including the hon. the Minister’s own profession. Is he going to tell us that doctors have not made mistakes which have had the most serious consequences? In some instances this was the result of sheer negligence. Those are exceptional cases and nobody is going to condemn the medical profession out of hand because of the few black sheep. Similarly, I think it is most unfair of the hon. the Minister to refer to examples of possible malpractice and to condemn the profession as a whole because of that.

I say, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny it, that the chiropractic profession as a whole has performed a valuable service to the South African community in the past and is continuing to do so. I ask him now, if he accepts this proposition to tell us precisely why he proceeds to suppress this profession and why he wants to legislate it into extinction. If he disputes this statement, let him explain his attitude. We must also bear in mind at this late stage of the debate that in proceeding with this Bill and in wishing to suppress this profession ultimately, the Minister and his Government are arrogantly ignoring the protests of thousands of South Africans against the banning of chiropractic. These protests have been expressed through numerous letters to the Press and through letters and telegrams to every single member of this House, including, I am sure, the hon. the Minister himself. The Government is going ahead, simply ignoring and taking no notice of these thousands of protests. Above all, by proceeding to suppress the chiropractic profession, the Government is placing South Africa once again in the position where it will be entirely out of step with the rest of the world. It will be out of step for not reason but the stubbornness or the stupidity of the Government. Every civilized country in the world recognizes chiropractic; in fact no fewer than 80 countries, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Berea, give some form of statutory recognition to chiropractors.

Eighty states?

I beg your pardon, 80 legislatures have given some form of statutory recognition to chiropractors, including such advanced nations as the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand. When this Bill is passed, South Africa will be in the invidious position of being the only country in the world which has banned chiropractors statutorily. We will be the only country in the world which will be banning chiropractors statutorily. When this was pointed out to the hon. the Minister, his reply was that the rest of the world would in due course see the error of their ways regarding chiropractors; his words amounted to something like this. He said that they will see the error of their ways as regards chiropractors and that they will follow the lead which is now given by him and by his Government. I can find no other term for this than that it is an utterly puerile and ridiculous argument. Does the hon. the Minister expect us to believe that because the Nationalist Government has decided to ban chiropractors, the rest of the world is now immediately going to follow suit? We on this side of the House have always known that the hon. the Minister suffers from notions of grandeur, but we had no idea of the extent of these delusions. We had no idea that the hon. Minister thinks himself quite so grand that the whole world is going to follow his lead. We look forward to seeing this.

Let us have a look at the hon. the Minister’s arguments. With almost no exceptions his arguments can only be described as illogical and contradictory. First of all, I would like to point out what is probably the most glaring example of illogicality and contradiction. The Bill on the one hand gives for the first time limited recognition to the Chiropractic Association to the extent of recognizing a body and to the extent of giving statutory permission to present practitioners and those in training to practise. At the same time the Bill legislates that very profession into extinction. I wonder whether a more illogical and more contradictory situation can exist. The chiropractic profession is recognized and banned in the same Bill.

Then there is the second argument of the hon. the Minister that can be described as illogical and contradictory. He went to great lengths both in the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage to show how harmful chiropractic is to the public. He said that they are not properly trained and that their calling is not scientifically based. He gave numerous examples of the harm they do in practice and so on. At the same time he is introducing a Bill which provides that all chiropractors in practice and in training will be allowed to continue to practise their profession for as long as they live. The hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways. If his case is that their profession is harmful to the public, how can he as a responsible Minister of State introduce a Bill to give recognition to a profession which he claims is harmful to the public? I might draw to the attention of the House that the reason he gives for doing this when this contradiction is pointed out to him is that his Government is very concerned to preserve existing rights.

Vested interests.

Yes, vested interests, and that he does not wish to remove these. This is a very praiseworthy sentiment, but surely there are limits to this. No government has the right to give statutory recognition to a body which is claimed to be harmful to the public. That is going too far. As I said a moment ago, the hon. the Minister must make up his mind what his case is. If his case is that the chiropractic profession is harmful to the public, let him say so and let him take the consequences. He knows that he will not do that. He would very much like to take that stand and to make the case that they are harmful and then to ban them altogether. But, in the first place, he knows that he cannot substantiate such a claim, because there are thousands of members of the public to whom they have done considerable good in the alleviation of pain, and so on. Above all, the hon. the Minister knows that if he were to introduce a Bill to ban chiropractors altogether, he would not even have limited support from his side of the House, let alone from the members of the public. He has managed to persuade his colleagues to come forward with this compromise. It is not to the credit of the members on the Government benches that they are prepared to give the hon. the Minister that limited support. It does not redound to their credit at all.

Let us look at another aspect of the Minister’s arguments in support of this Bill. I suggest that if one looks carefully at what he said both in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage, one sees that at no stage did he explain satisfactorily why he is so determined to legislate chiropractors into extinction. He has given two reasons. One is that they are not scientifically based and secondly, that they are not properly trained. Now let me deal briefly with the second reason first. Surely, if he considers that their training is inadequate, it is a simple matter to rectify. They do not have to be banned into extinction simply for that reason. Their training can be improved. The hon. the Minister can lay down criteria and standards that he believes the profession must meet in the future before they are enabled to practise. In other words, he must state what training he expects them to undergo. If they reach those standards, they should be permitted to practise. There is no problem in regard to the training aspect.

Now I want to deal with his reason that their profession is not scientifically based. The hon. the Minister said a lot about this aspect during the debate. He want to great lengths to prove that they are not scientifically based. First of all, I find it curious that, if in fact they are not scientifically based, they have been statutorily recognized by so many legislatures throughout the world and in so many civilized countries. This just does not make sense to us. Secondly, the chiropractors dispute the allegation that their profession is not scientifically based. The hon. the Minister has challenged the statement by the hon. member for Berea that they wished to present evidence to the commission to satisfy the commission regarding the scientific basis of their profession and the commission declined the offer. I would refer the hon. the Minister to the letter of the very association which has been recognized by him under this Bill, addressed to him personally. The heading reads “Chiropractic Association of South Africa” and the letter is dated 10th February, 1971. It is addressed to “Dr. the Hon. Carel de Wet”. I am not a chiropractor, so I do not know what transpired between the chiropractors and the commission; but what I do know, is what they claim transpired. I wish to refer to that. In the second paragraph of this letter they say—

Then they go on to refer to the terms of reference. In fact, the terms of reference under which the commission operated, did not specifically mention the scientific acceptance of chiropractors. It is obvious that the commission’s findings hinged on this aspect of evidence. I wish to stress this. The chiropractor maintain that they were not given adequate opportunity to present evidence regarding the scientific basis of their profession. Yet the commission of inquiry made its findings on the basis that the profession was not scientifically based and the Minister in dealing with this Bill went to great lengths to base his case on that same premise. I submit that it is grossly unfair and unjust for the commission and for the Minister to base their case on this issue and not to give to the persons concerned a proper opportunity to meet it. I want to reiterate that I find it impossible to believe that they could have been given official recognition in so many civilized countries if in fact their profession is not scientifically based. This to me is conclusive proof against the hon. the Minister. If the Minister persists with this basis for his argument, then he ought either to give the chiropractors the opportunity to convince him regarding this aspect of their profession or he should at least have another independent commission of inquiry in order to test this issue.

They allege further that the report of the commission, which the hon. the Minister relies upon, is already out of date. It was issued in 1962 after a comparatively short hearing. From the time the commission was appointed until it reported a comparatively short time elapsed. The chiropractors claim that their profession has advanced considerably in ten years and is still advancing, a claim which I believe they are entitled to have tested. However, what did the hon. the Minister do? He went to great lengths to attack chiropractors on the basis of the original concepts of the Palmer College on subluxation. He went to great lengths to condemn this. However, he barely mentioned the teachings of other leading chiropractic colleges. There are chiropractic colleges, particularly in the United States, which train students, and they must do so on some recognized and acceptable scientific foundation. Perhaps the Minister can explain this apparent illogicality and contradiction in his approach.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to another aspect of the hon. the Minister’s case. We made attempts in the Committee Stage or prior to the Committee Stage, to introduce certain amendments which would enable chiropractors to establish a code of ethics and to do some of the things which the hon. the Minister claims he wants them to do. He told us in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage that he wants the chiropractors to put their house in order. I asked the hon. the Minister to state clearly and unequivocally what he means by that. Does he mean that they will have the opportunity (a) of proving the scientific basis of their profession and (b) of establishing satisfactory training procedures so that in the future persons, other than those to which this Bill is giving recognition, would be able to qualify as chiropractors and to be recognized under some new Act? Or is his attitude that he will never give permanent recognition to the chiropractic profession? It is a very simple question, and I believe that both the profession and the public are entitled to an unequivocal answer from the Minister. Will he or will he not permit them to put their house in order, as he has put it?

The answer is “yes”.

Will he also say precisely what they must do to achieve these two objectives so that they will know how they stand and, above all, so that South Africans, and possibly others who wish to come to South Africa in future to practise this profession, will know what they can do to achieve these objectives?

Sir, I close by reiterating that we on this side of the House stand firmly on two points which we have made clear throughout. We believe in protecting the right of the public to consult chiropractors if they wish to do so. We believe in protecting chiropractic as a profession provided that proper control is laid down, provided that proper training criteria are established and that a proper code of ethics is laid down. On this basis we believe that chiropractors have shown that they perform a good service to the community and are entitled to permanent recognition in the future on the basis that I have just described. We will therefore vote against this Third Reading because this Bill does not achieve these objects.

I think the United Party has missed this point completely as far as this Bill is concerned. The object of this Bill is, in the first instance, not to remove chiropractors from the map once and for all. In the first place it is concerned with the establishment of proper control in respect of this profession, as in the case of any other profession in this country. In the second place the Bill is concerned with the question of uniformity of control over professions of this nature. I am quite amazed that the hon. member for Berea listed the various medical men who spoke on this side. I think the hon. member will concede that I tried to give a very objective view of chiropractic in my Second Reading speech. I think I succeeded in making a very systematic analysis of the whole theory of chiropractic and in presenting the common scientific view of the profession. I really think the hon. member did me, this side of the House and the hon. the Minister a great injustice by making this accusation, seeing that we really did our utmost to present the matter objectively. The United Party makes the mistake of trying to see this entire Bill as an attempt to protect the medical profession. I do not think this is the object. The main object is to protect the public and to lay down proper norms as far as common self-discipline is concerned, as in any other profession. In fact, an apology has not yet been forthcoming from the hon. member for Berea for the blatant attack which he launched on the Medical Council at one stage. We are still waiting for that apology, and I think that in his position of belonging to one of the subsidiary professions as far as the medical profession is concerned, i.e. the pharmaceutical profession, he really owes the Medical Council and us an apology.

The facts in connection with the whole of this Bill are very well known by now. I think all the considerations underlying this Bill emerged very clearly at the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. Surely it is quite obvious that we must lay down minimum requirements in respect of any profession in this country. I shall come back to this point later. The second point we want to make is that the Medical Council is the controlling statutory body in South Africa, which has to decide and exercise control and pronounce judgment in respect of all the medical professions in South Africa. But now the United Party wants to establish an additional body, apparently with the same statutory status as the Medical Council, and this body is to apply other norms; to me this is an inconsistency in their argument. I think I succeeded on a previous occasion in pointing out very clearly that in terms of existing medical knowledge not all the theories of the chiropractics are acceptable, neither on an anatomical basis, nor on a physiological view of the whole nervous system. I pointed out how this concept of an “innate intelligence”, on which the theory of chiropractic is based, is something very vague, something which we really cannot accept, and something which does not exist in any case. Even if certain of these nerve roots are completely severed, an organ can still continue to function normally. It is not necessary again to go into all the scientific considerations for the justification of chiropractic. We cannot allow different statutory bodies in this country each of which operate according to its own norms. This is a free country, and just as was the case when nurses and medical practitioners were placed on a specific roll and many persons who were practising these professions and who did not qualify, were nevertheless placed on the roll, we must in all fairness apply the same precedent in this case. In other words, we may not interfere with existing rights here, and therefore it is necessary that the people who are practising at present should, for an indefinite period and under the control of their own association and the Department of Health, be allowed to continue practising.

We now pose the question, also with reference to certain questions put by the hon. member for Musgrave, whether chiropractic has a future in South Africa as far as new registrations are concerned. I want to state unequivocally that I think chiropractic does have a future. I want to put it this way. If the chiropractors can come forward and furnish proof of their own control over their own body and of the self-discipline applied by them in respect of their own association, if they are able to comply with the minimum qualifications expected from any reasonable profession, and if they can come forward with an acceptable basis on which their theory and their profession are based, I cannot see this Government not bringing to bear a new approach in listening to their case. We only ask ourselves the question: Why must we again have double standards here? If chiropractic is a specialized profession, why can it not specialize under the same conditions as those under which any other specialist in South Africa specializes, in other words, seven years of basic training plus three or four years of post-graduate training?

We ask that another consideration should also be applied in this matter, i.e. if for example a physiotherapist goes abroad and undergoes certain training in chiropractic, I cannot see how such a person who does, in fact, satisfy the basic requirements for training, cannot in terms of the existing laws of this country be allowed to practise and to apply those theories under the protection of the Medical Council. I think as far as the physiotherapist is concerned, it is a matter of four years’ training plus two to three years at a school of chiropractic. This is not a matter to which we want to give a decisive reply at this stage. Perhaps serious consideration may in the future be given to the question of practising by people who have the necessary basic background in respect of this profession. There is no ethical justification or existing precedent in South Africa which can justify dual control over essentially the same kind of profession or professions fulfilling the same function, or which can justify the establishment of a separate control body while we already have the Medical Council.

I think the whole objection of the Opposition to this legislation is only aimed at making party political capital. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville made it very clear during the Second Reading that he too does not believe there are any recognized scientific principles on which chiropractic is based. If that hon. member has the courage of his convictions, he would dissociate himself from his own caucus, which is opposing this legislation simply on account of the party political capital which may be derived from it. I wish to appeal to members on that side of the House not to allow themselves to be misled by this overt attempt of making party political capital out of a case which they know is not justified.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this debate has now drawn to a close, after we had a very thorough discussion of the Bill in all its stages. The hon. member for Berea confirmed a suspicion of mine this afternoon when he mentioned that there were also murmurings on our side against this Bill. It is very clear to me, and we must have no illusions about this, that the United Party adopted this standpoint because they hoped there would be dissension about this matter on this side. They did so for a party political reason, and for that reason only. However, their wishes were not fulfilled.

Is that an opinion or a statement?

It is a fact I am stating.

This will not pass unnoticed.

The hon. member says, “This will not pass unnoticed”. It certainly will not. I want to tell the hon. member that the scientists and the doctors of our country and those people who have always looked after health matters in South Africa, will take due note of two matters. One is the standpoint of the United Party. They will certainly take due note of the standpoint of the United Party, which is in complete conflict with the scientific and medical standpoint, not only in this country, but also throughout the world.

That is untrue.

It is not untrue. The hon. members who say this is untrue have in these debates not given a single example or quotation from one single scientist or doctor who supports their standpoint. The hon. member for Berea is shaking his head now. Let him give me the name of one person he mentioned.

Read my Hansard of the Second Reading debate.

I am asking for only one name.

Dr. Dalgleish was one of them.

They have not mentioned one single name. The hon. member for Berea will be remembered for his having cast a scandalous reflection on the persons on the Medical Council. I asked him nicely to put the matter right, as he is a member of an allied profession, but he has not done so yet. He cast a reflection on the integrity of every member of the Medical Council. What is that reflection? He specifically said they would be influenced and had been influenced by their personal, financial considerations. Do hon. members know on whom he also cast that reflection? He cast the reflection on a former member of his side of the House, Dr. Radford. Dr. Radford is still serving on the Medical Council. In fact, he is the oldest sitting member on the Medical Council, both in years of service and in age.

The hon. member for Berea said something else which was untrue. He and the hon. member for Musgrave referred here to my “repeated antagonism towards the chiropractors”. This is not true. I have never expressed my own views about the matter. The views of scientists and medical bodies throughout the world as well as the views of our own Medical Council and medical bodies in this country were stated by me in this House ad nauseam. I then added that I was prepared to accept those views and standpoints. I have no antagonism towards these people. The hon. member asked whether they know precisely where they stand. They know where they stand; it is only the United Party which does not know where it stands. A chiropractor himself said—

This is clear language. The hon. member read this; therefore he knows about it. The chiropractor continued—

In what way will the present Bill do that?

I have just told the hon. member that these people know this. It is only the hon. member who does not know it. It has been said here repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is the one which I have just put to him by way of interjection. namely in what way does the present Bill enable the chiropractors to achieve the objects which the hon. the Minister has just read out?

Mr. Speaker, I have just read out to the hon. member what a chiropractor himself said. If he does not understand that, I cannot explain the matter to him any further.

The hon. member also said that my successor will perhaps still appoint a commission to go into these matters again. If necessary, I shall appoint that commission myself, because I stated clearly that the door is not closed in a democratic country such as ours. If these people ask for another inquiry and can furnish proof that chiropractic has a scientific basis, the door will not be closed. I again want to give the assurance, as I did it in my speech over the radio, that the door is not closed. However, this not only concerns treatment. That is what hon. members must realize. It also concerns the basic training which someone must have in order to be able to make a diagnosis. This is what it is about, as the hon. member for Fauresmith made quite clear.

The hon. member was also concerned about the fact that the report is out of date. I have repeatedly said very clearly that I do not base my standpoint only on that report at all. It is an additional matter. I have given hon. members proof ad nauseam from the latest inquiries in which every possible attempt was made to afford there people and their teachers an opportunity to give evidence. But let me state very clearly now that the commission assured me that they never received a request that people should come from abroad to give evidence. However, be that as it may, the standpoint we adopt in regard to this legislation is based on the very latest searching inquiries all over the world.

The hon. member for Musgrave also said that doctors also make mis takes. I dealt with that in my reply to the Second Reading debate. I said very clearly that doctors naturally make mistakes. I am sure that doctors sometimes make fatal mistakes. But with what I did say here and the examples of mistakes by chiropractors which I quoted, I had only one object i.e. to show that someone who has the basic training to make a diagnosis will not and cannot make mistakes of that kind. We must protect the public against that. Of course, we have to protect present vested rights. These people make their living from chiropractic. But my whole object in this matter is to create a situation where in future we shall basically arrange matters in such a way in South Africa that a diagnosis may only be made by a person basically trained to do so. This is the only reason why I mentioned these examples.

Now the hon. member says we shall be the only country with legislation of this nature and that I had ideas “of grandeur” when I said that we were setting an example in this connection. In what respect are we setting an example? It is only in this one single respect, i.e. that we are here following the advice of scientists and doctors from all over the whole world, also in those states where there is in fact legislation in terms of which chiropractors are recognized. In those states it was done by the legislative assemblies. But the scientists and doctors in those states are completely unanimous that it is scientifically wrong. In actual fact we are therefore following the lead given by the scientists and great doctors of the world. To me it is in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the public of South Africa. Therefore I see in the future, in the first place, an opportunity for these people to set their house in order. The hon. member asked what “setting their house in order means”. These people know what it means. They are perfectly satisfied that they know precisely what is going to happen in the future. I am not going to talk about that again. In the second place, we are now ensuring that someone wanting to make a diagnosis in the future will have a basic training which is acceptable. In the third place, more attention will also be paid in medicine to undergraduate training in physical medicine, manipulation and physiotherapy.

That is why today is a day on which we can be entitled to the support of the Opposition as well, if they want to take note in any way of the standpoint of the scientists and doctors of the world. If they reject that, they vote against this legislation.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—92: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, B.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins. H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. W.; Rauben-heimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rey-neke, J. P. A.; Rossouw. W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J; Van Wyk, A C; Van Zyl, J. J. B; Viljoen, M; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers. I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F. Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading Debate and also during the Committee Stage we on this side of the House made it very clear that we regretted the fact that this legislation would be passed in its present form. When the legislation was before the House during the Second Reading, no amendment was made to exclude any of the non-White areas of South-West Africa. I think that the attitude of this side of the House and the attitude of that side of the House are diametrically opposed. Hon. members on that side of the House think it fitting that every race group should look after its own soil conservation in South-West Africa. We, on the other hand, think it would be better if the Department of Agricultural Technical Services were to be the controlling body as far as all areas in South-West Africa are concerned. I want to make it very clear to the hon. the Minister that we do not believe in this division of duties. We do not believe in this fragmentation, because it has been our own experience here in the Republic that when the Bantu, for example, must look after soil conservation, the desired results are not obtained. It would be altogether wrong if those people were to have control over a certain area and the Whites over another area, and if the best methods are applied in the White area and not in the non-White area. To a large extent the work done in the White area is totally frustrated because of insufficient steps taken in the non-White area.

This legislation is similar to the legislation accepted in the Republic of South Africa. Because this legislation plays so much of a role in the sphere of agriculture, and because it is of so much benefit to the White farmers in South-West Africa, we feel that under these circumstances we cannot vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. If we vote against the Third Reading of this Bill, it would mean that those people cannot obtain the benefits of the Soil Conservation Act in that area. We understand that there is already a great deal of confusion in South-West Africa about matters such as the livestock withdrawal scheme, for example, and the farmers do not know exactly where they stand in this connection. If clarity could now be reached about the implementation of the Soil Conservation Act in that area, it would be altogether wrong of us on this side to vote against the Third Reading. But it is nevertheless regrettable that the legislation must be approved at the Third Reading in its present form. I therefore want to make an appeal today to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for the best support he can possibly give to the Department of Bantu Administration and the non-White groups in South-West Africa, so that the best soil conservation methods can be applied there.

This is being done.

The hon. gentleman says it is being done. It is being done as inadequately there as it is being done in the Republic of South Africa. I do not think that the Department of Bantu Administration and Rehoboth Affairs have equal knowledge at their disposal. To an even lesser extent do they have the same dedicated officials in this respect as, for example, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It is for that reason that we would have liked to see the Department of Agricultural Technical Services doing the same in those Bantu areas as they do for the Whites. Hence my appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that similar methods and provisions are applied, as far as possible, in both the non-White and White areas. If that does not happen, I fear that we shall not obtain the desired results in respect of soil conservation in the non-White areas.

There are myriad arguments I can advance about why this will not happen. One of the foremost reasons is that the majority of non-Whites in South-West Africa must chiefly make their living from the land. There are certain of those areas in South-West Africa that receive very little rain. When tremendous storms occur, as they do from time to time in the Republic, there is a large amount of land that is destroyed and that flows down to the sea. Unless the best possible methods are applied there we shall simply have to see how much more of our South African topsoil also washes down to the sea in that area.

Another argument is that certain of the Bantu areas in South-West Africa, for example the northern sector of Ovamboland, receive some of the best rainfall. In other words, it is just as important that sound methods be applied there. I therefore allege that if there is not the optimum co-operation between the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Soil Conservation Division, as well as the various non-White territorial authorities or boards, whatever they may have, and if our methods are not applied, we cannot save our soil in that area. That is why I say that it is regrettable that this legislation must be passed in its present form. But because it will be beneficial to the White farmers in South-West Africa for the Soil Conservation Act to be implemented there, we support the Third Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Let me state right at the outset that we consider the whole university situation, as far as it concerns the admission of students and the courses they may follow, highly unsatisfactory. This Bill is merely another reflection of it. The correct procedure would be for the non-White universities to be part and parcel of the South African academic scene. As such they ought to be represented on the Committee of Principals in terms of the Universities Act of 1955. Were that the position, admission of students whether White or non-White, and the courses they followed, could safely be left in the hands of the universities themselves after proper consultation with each other at the highest level. But there is another aspect, an aspect which emerged very clearly during the Second Reading and Committee Stages. This is that education in South Africa should never have been placed in its present watertight compartments, with no apparent link for the purpose of dealing with various racial groups, particularly where faculties do not exist at the ethnic universities and the other universities are automatically involved, i.e. those universities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Minister himself. That is the whole purpose of the Bill now under discussion. By all means, let us have a sub-Department of Education for each group for the purposes of basic organization. Education should, however, be indivisible and should be dealt with on that basis in the country’s interest and in the interest of all students and potential students. Obviously, education should be available for everybody. The only possible justifiable criteria for selection should be academic merit and ability, and nothing else.

The Minister may wonder why I am making this specific point. Discussion on this Bill so far has made it clear that the Minister is not in a position to exercise his discretion with regard to the admission of students in terms of this Bill. His powers in terms of this Bill, powers of discretion and interference, appear to be greater than they were before, discretion over admission and the courses which students may follow. The Minister himself admitted that where Bantu students or potential Bantu students were concerned, it was the Minister of Bantu Administration who initially decided on the advisability of a Bantu student enrolling at an open university. I make bold to say that the criteria being applied by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration are by no means always likely to be academic, as they should be. In fact, I quoted an example previously where the Minister for Bantu Administration curtailed the number of Bantu students who applied for enrolment in the engineering faculties at our open universities way back in 1960 on the grounds that if they qualified as engineers there would be no jobs for them anyway in the Bantu homelands, nor in White South Africa. With great respect, this hon. Minister himself has admitted that it is not his business but the business of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to make these decisions. And then, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs takes the initial decision in respect of Coloured students who make application to go to a university other than an ethnic university because the subjects which they want to study are not taught there. With due respect to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, how competent is he to make any such decision? He is not a Minister of Education. He is essentially an ethnic Minister dealing with what he considers to be an ethnic problem. The Minister of Indian Affairs, of course, does the same and may I say with respect that he is even less competent to make this decision than his colleagues. The fact is that these other Ministers are involved, and the hon. the Minister of National Education made this admission in the debate himself; he said that it was their business to decide, not his. I make the point again that it is very doubtful indeed whether the criteria which his colleagues use in these instances are academic criteria. In fact, I very much doubt whether this has an awful lot to do with it.

In a sense this Bill is a farce. It applies, oddly enough, only to the question of the admission of non-Whites to the open universities and yet the job of this Minister is to deal with White students; the other Ministers deal with the non-White students. In fact, he has no real adequate discretion in terms of this Bill; everything is referred to him at second hand by his colleagues who deal with people of colour in the various departments. His colleagues in effect tell him what to do, as the hon. the Minister himself admitted earlier on in the debate. May I say, Sir, that even if this hon. Minister were in a position really to exercise his discretion, we do not agree that those powers should rest in his hands in the first instance. They should rest, as we have said before, with the academic heads of the universities themselves and with nobody else.

Sir, this Bill is not a further extension of university education at all; that is a total misnomer; it is a further curtailment of rights and nothing else. It carries a little further the principle of the original 1959 Bill which interfered with the autonomy of universities. Interference with the autonomy of universities is a principle to which we remain fundamentally opposed on this side of the House, and to which we shall always remain opposed. I would like to conclude by saying that the Bill represents another serious threat to academic freedom in general, something to which this side of the House will never be a party under any circumstances whatsoever, and we would like that placed on record here in this House. On these grounds, as a matter of principle, we oppose the third reading of this Bill and we intend to vote against it.

The hon. member for Wynberg, in customary fashion, again arrived at far-fetched conclusions in her short Third Reading speech, which she thought to find in this Bill— absolutely far-fetched deductions, completely removed from the contents of this Bill, which in fact effect no fundamental change to the situation as it exists at present. This is solely an amendment bill to define the Extension of University Education Act of 1959 clearly. In the years since 1959 this Act has been applied in this way, and the principle is simply being stated more clearly here, so that there can be no doubt about it. But the hon. member again came forward with the old story of academic freedom. It has nothing whatsoever to do with academic freedom. The hon. member arrived at all kinds of far-fetched conclusions. I want to warn that hon. member this afternoon. She is engaged in a vicious campaign, the outcome of which she cannot see. She is trying to discover and extract grievances where none exist; to create grievances among a group of people who are emotionally easily disturbed and who perhaps do not always have the ability to exercise their own judgment. While privileges are being created for them here, she is parading grievances before them. Sir, the consequences of this campaign on which she and other members of the United Party are engaged, they cannot see, and I should like to warn them to exercise a little more responsibility.

The existing Act is simply being amended here; the powers of the Minister in regard to the admission of non-White students to White universities are being more clearly defined. The law advisers were not certain whether the Minister had the right, when he admitted a non-White student to a White university, to limit such student to a particular course. If this is not clear, it would be possible to abuse that principle, and the intention of the legislature in 1959 could have been entirely circumvented. A large number of non-White students could, for example, have enrolled at White universities for a medical course. They would subsequently have been able to change and take other courses, which were also being offered at the particular universities where they belong, the non-White universities. This would be a circumvention of the intention of the legislature, and that is why it is being stated clearly and unequivocally in this Bill.

But why, then, is the United Party opposing this Bill? It is not because it affects the interests of the student, because the interests of any student are being prejudiced. The rights of these non-White students who are admitted to the White universities by way of a privilege, are not being affected. The legislation has been implemented and understood in this way all these years, i.e. that the Minister may restrict them to a particular course, and that right they continue to retain. They are still able, under this amendment Bill, if the course is not taught at a non-White university, to obtain consent to enrol at a White university, for the specific purpose of taking a particular course which will lead to a particular degree or a particular diploma or certificate. The right of the student is not being prejudiced therefore.

Is the right of the university being prejudiced? No, Sir, it is not, because no new principle is being introduced. If there were to be any circumvention of section 31 (2) of the principal Act, it could be prejudicial to the non-White universities, because a group of students which ought normally to be studying at those universities, are going to enrol at other universities. This could therefore prejudice the non-White university. It could also prejudice the White university because it could then have on its hands a group of students who change their courses and who should not really be there but are nevertheless studying there. But this amendment Bill does not prejudice the student and it does not prejudice any university either. Nor has it anything to do with academic freedom. Why is the United Party opposing it then? For one reason only, because they see a political issue in this matter, because they want, to a limited extent, to integrate the non-Whites. They want to have them bringing up the rear. They want to give them a few representatives here in the House of Assembly and they want to keep a number of them at the university. They want to give them the impression everywhere that they are on their side.

And in sport as well.

Yes, in sport as well. That is the reason. It is because they want to further integration. I hope the day will arrive when it will no longer be necessary for a non-White student to enrol at a White university, not because I begrudge a non-White student being able to do so, but in order to protect the non-White students from people who take advantage of them while they are studying at that university. I do not have the time for this now, and perhaps it is not relevant, but I can mention to you examples of two non-White students who studied at the University of Cape Town and who were used by underground organizations. When they arrived in Port Elizabeth, they were also drawn into this net of underground organizations, until the Police finally made contact with them. Then they came to me and told me the story of how Whites had taken advantage of them in a malicious way for this purpose. That is why I hope the day will come that this will no longer be necessary.

I am just rising to put a question to the hon. the Minister. As we know, a non-White student who wants to follow a course of study for which there is no provision at his own group university, must obtain the consent of the hon. the Minister to study at a White university. According to this Bill it is now within the power of the Government, by means of the hon. Minister, to limit this consent to a specified university and to a specified course of training. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister revealed that he was sympathetic towards the needs among the non-White students. The hon. the Minister said that he in fact felt himself “morally obliged” to make provision if application was made to him to help a student to study at a White institution if the university of his own group was unable to make provision for him. I accept the spirit in which the hon. the Minister said that. I think that it would have been very unfair of any Minister not to have adopted that attitude and to have prevented people from making themselves proficient in the course of study they wanted to pursue. I must say, however, that if the hon. the Minister feels so strongly about this matter, and goes so far as to say that he feels it to be his moral obligation to afford a non-White person an opportunity of studying at a White university if no provision can be made for his course of study at his own university, I cannot really understand why the Minister should in any way still require him to ask for such consent. Then the hon. the Minister could just as well have laid down as a general rule that a person is free to go to another university if that university wants to enrol him in a course of study for which provision is not made at the university of his own group.

According to a reply the hon. the Minister furnished the hon. member for Wynberg with, there are, leaving out the University of South Africa, at present 167 Bantu, 840 Asiatics and 379 Coloureds at White universities. This amounts to a total of 1 360, which is more than the present enrolment at the University of Port Elizabeth or at the new Rand Afrikaans University. At the University of South Africa there is a total of 3 821 non-Whites. I am just mentioning this to indicate what a great demand there still is today among the non-White students to take courses of study outside their own group universities.

I have heard it said a few times in the company of eminent Coloured persons that the Afrikaans universities play no part whatsoever in this aid programme. They take it amiss of us Afrikaans-speaking people that, in view of the great number of non-White students who cannot study at their own universities owing to the course they are taking, the Afrikaans universities do not participate in this aid programme. This reproach has been levelled at me a few times. The Coloureds feel very strongly about this, because the bulk of the Coloured community is Afrikaans-speaking. Their children receive their school training in Afrikaans, and they are then expected to follow difficult university courses through the medium of English at English-language universities. They attach an unfortunate interpretation to the position. This is something we must face up to. They interpret it as a lack of sympathy on the part of the largest White population group for their efforts to get ahead. This has, as I have said, already been put to me boldly in this way a few times.

I have also, in English-speaking circles, heard the criticism being expressed that we leave the entire aid programme for the non-White students to the English-language universities. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear during his Second Reading speech that he could not compel a university to enrol a student. I want to make it clear that we are not asking him to do so either. The hon. member for Wynberg made the policy of this side very clear, i.e. that we have always adhered very strictly to the principle of the autonomy of a university. I am not in any way asking him therefore to force any student whatsoever on any university.

What did you then say in your reply to those people?

I am putting the question to the hon. the Minister. I should like to know from him, with this Bill in mind which empowers him to determine to what university the student should go and what course he should follow there, whether he has addressed an representations to the Afrikaans universities or held any discussions with them yet to see whether they cannot be of assistance with the aid programme for Afrikaans-speaking non-White students and whether they cannot also, in this important sphere, move outwards and make a contribution. I do not think that it will be difficult for the hon. the Minister to hold such discussions. The hon. the Prime Minister is Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is Chancellor of the University of Pretoria. The hon. the Leader of the House is Chancellor of the University of Port Elizabeth. Other Ministers have representation on the controlling bodies of the universities in question. That is why I do not think it ought to be difficult for the hon. the Minister to arrange a discussion of this nature, to see whether there is no alternative by means of which we can solve this problem. I do not think it is a good thing for sound human relationships in our country that the aid programme for the training of non-White students should be entrusted to one language group alone, and that the trained non-White South African should be given the impression that the other and largest White community is unsympathetic towards his progress. For that reason I would be pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he has given his attention to this matter yet and, if not, whether he will do so.

The United Party is a very strange party. They have many strange standpoints and arguments. As far as general policy is concerned, and, in particular, as far as educational policy is concerned, they do not really have a sure, fundamental point of departure from which they argue and on which they build their entire educational policy. I mention this particularly as a result of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. I remember very well that during the election last year my opponent, who is now an hon. senator, Senator Gert du Preez, was confronted time and again in my constituency, which is a university constituency, with the matters we are now discussing. In connection with these amendments he was very specifically asked at various meetings what the standpoint of the United Party is in respect of tertiary education and the University of Pretoria. There he consistently said that they need not have any problems on that score, because their university will be White. Students specifically asked what the United Party’s policy would be if applications were made. He said that it would never happen because, after all, there were the English universities. He said that only the English universities were mixed universities, and not the University of Pretoria. After the young people of Rissik had rejected him and accepted a Nationalist, that same hon. senator spoke about it again at the Third Reading in the Other Place.

Your minority decreased.

On the other hand I had a very large majority, which I am very proud of. At the Third Reading in the Other Place the hon. senator said that the University of Pretoria must accept non-White students. He thought that no-one would read his speech and that this would not appear in the newspapers. He thought that in four years’ time he could simply go and fight another election and tell the same students that there are no problems in connection with their university. I say this now so that we can have it on record before we fight another election there in four years’ time. I find it strange that the United Party uses this argument. They surely have a declared policy. Even in the declared policy, the so-called yellow booklet, there is no mention anywhere of the Opposition’s university policy. The Opposition argues about this Bill in the Second Reading, and here as well, without having any solid basis on which to do so.

The criticism from the hon. gentlemen opposite is very interesting. They say that the amendments to this Act simply constitute further interference in the tertiary training of the non-White students. They say that it affects these people individually and that they cannot peacefully continue with their own research. They cannot carry on with their undergraduate subjects in order to obtain their Master’s and Doctor’s degrees. They cannot do any research. The Opposition say that this amendment is depriving them of this. They say that if these amendments are introduced they would not be able to give back the optimum to their community either. They say that with these amendments we are causing fragmentation of university training in our country. Fragmentation is a new word the United Party has discovered. They cannot serve agriculture. They cannot do anything for livestock. To tell the truth, they continue and say that we should not only have removed these amendments. During the Third Reading debate the hon. Senator Henderson said the following in the Other Place—

Order! Is the hon. member reading the report of the speeches of the present Session of the Other Place?

Yes.

The hon. member is not allowed to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I am just mentioning the fact that these things are said.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member in favour of non-White students being enrolled at the University of Pretoria under the same difficult circumstances, i.e. where they perhaps cannot get the training at another university institution?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked the hon. the Minister that question. Hon. members opposite will be given a reply to that. We made it very clear where we stood in respect of our White universities. It is this side of the House which established the non-White universities. It is surprising that those hon. members who have now again come, not only questioning the principle of the Act, but also voting against the amendments, did not go to the respective non-White universities and notice that the results of these amendments will specifically better enable the non-White students in our country to obtain their academic training. Hon. members opposite did not notice that these amendments will enable our non-White students to study courses at their own universities which are just as good as the courses at any of the other universities, that the qualifications of the staff teaching these subjects at their universities are just as good as those in any other place in the world, and that the possibilities for research and post-graduate study are equally good. Another argument we could advance is that even in America, a country where there are many universities, one finds that not all the students applying to study a special subject with a particular professor are admitted. There are numerous universities in America where there are simply too many applications and the people cannot be admitted.

Today we ask whether hon. members opposite, perhaps the hon. member for Durban Central, whose turn it is to speak after I have finished, can tell us whether he can give us the name of one single non-White student who could not continue with his studies under the policy of the National Party? Can hon. members on that side of the House give us an example where the National Party, under reasonable circumstances, did not give a student the opportunity to improve his qualifications? Let them give us one instance. We can go back in history and show that under the United Party’s policy there were dozens of people who could not do so. What is important are the reasons why we must continue with this amendment Bill and the effect it will have. We are convinced that science and research can best be carried out when there is order, peace and quiet in society.

If one wants to create that climate in connection with one’s research projects in South Africa, one must achieve a policy whereby the least friction will develop and whereby the respective groups will undergo their training to the best of their ability according to their individual natures. A university is always subject to growth. These hon. members now come along here and say that the Bantu universities do not furnish sufficient possibilities for study. I agree with hon. members that these universities are not perfect. However, no university in the world is perfect, and there is no university in the world that can say that it can now offer all the courses it would like to have offered, and that it has achieved the best that can be achieved. For that reason the growth at these universities, based on the policy of the National Party, will not only be the best for those universities, but also for the communities using those universities.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Pretoria District began speaking, I realized that in some or other way we were going to wrestle with the spectre of integration. We must bear in mind that this principal Act came in to being in 1959. Then we see, as the Opposition in this House, that this question of education at White universities has been wrestled with for more than a decade. I think it is important for us to look at the figures. The hon. member for Koedoespoort gave us the data which indicate that at present there are 1 360 non-Whites who are studying at White universities. Before the legislation was originally submitted there were 1 500 non-Whites in South African White universities. It was a very big problem in the late fifties; it was regarded as race integration and it could not be allowed. Now we have been applying this legislation for a period of approximately 13 years, and still we have a total 1 360 non-White students at White universities.

In other words, the principle is still being applied by the present Government. This amendment legislation is not going to furnish any solution to the question this Government is struggling with. Whether there are 500, 1 300 or 1 500 students, in principle it still remains the application of integration. I want hon. members such as the hon. member for Pretoria Rissik, when they attack us, to bear in mind that they do, in fact, apply it and that everything in this country still goes on peacefully.

In reviewing this amendment Bill, we see that concessions are being made, but those concessions are limited in scope. The only concession there is, is the concession being made to students whereby they may study at their ethnic universities. With reference to the hon. the Minister’s explanation in the Report Stage we know that he will not be involved with the applications of non-Whites to go to other universities. At this stage I want to say again that it is a great pity that he did not, with the introduction of this Bill, make use of the golden opportunity to get rid of this trifling aspect. What I find so paltry is that when a Zulu applies for admission to a university where the language spoken is Sotho, even if he is competent to speak that language, it is necessary to make an application to one of the three different Ministers. This has only one practical consequence, and that is the wasting of the hon. the Ministers’ time because they have to decide about such matters. Ultimately it has absolutely nothing to do with the original problem the Nationalist Party is struggling with. That problem involves racial integration at White universities. It has nothing to do with that. The hon. member for Algoa proudly said: “We are trying to create grievances.” If I, as an Afrikaans-speaking person, want to attend an English university, it is not necessary for me to ask any Minister whether I may do so. But when a Zulu, for example, wants to go to the University of the North, he must first, cap in hand, ask the Minister. He is told that he may only go if there are insufficient facilities at his university.

I now come to the question of Afrikaans that was cited here. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is not present. We are discussing a matter here which involves the University of Durban-Westville, which falls under his Department. The problem is that at present there are Indians, coming from the Northern Cape and parts of the Transvaal, who are enrolling at the University of Durban-Westville. Their home language is Afrikaans and they are not able to study at the university with English as their language medium. Because their education, and the area in which they grew up, has made them Afrikaans speaking. The outcome of this is that these persons attend that university for a year or more and do not pass. At least they achieve one thing, the building up of their bilingualism. I have an intimate knowledge of what takes place at these universities and I do not reproach them for it. The lecturers at that university try their best to help these people, but it is physically impossible, even though they do what they can, to help such a student when there are 50 students in the class who come from Durban and its environs and who can speak English, and there is only a single student who is Afrikaans speaking. It is in this light that the request of the hon. member for Bezuidenbout must be seen. I want to tell the hon. member for Algoa that the person who finds himself in this position can also develop a grievance.

Lastly I come to the real victims of the restriction placed on admission. We must accept that the over-all majority of the 1 360 non-Whites at present studying at White universities will continue to study there because they are taking courses for which provision is not made at their own ethical universities. The small group of victims will be those persons at present engaged in post-graduate studies. There are those persons, particularly those who were students at White universities before 1959, who received a measure of sympathetic treatment and who continued with their studies. Some of them graduated from a B.Ed. degree to a Master’s degree, and eventually to a Doctor’s degree. They are the people who will be the victims today. Again I regret the fact that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is not present.

At the Indian university one finds telling examples of this. There are at present lecturers at the Indian university who are now taking their B.Ed. and Master’s degrees, and they know that they are going to become victims of these restrictions. Their own university is qualified to offer them those courses, and consequently they will not be able to carry on as they are at present doing. These are people who are helping the Government with the implementation of its policy. At the same time they are also trying to extend their own knowledge by enrolling at the University of Natal. In whatever way one looks at this Bill and the amendments, one sees that those persons will be the victims of this amendment. We shall have these victims, but we shall also, as mentioned on the other side of the House, have racial integration at White universities. Those are the facts of the matter. It has been the case for 15 years, and it will continue in this way. It is physically impossible for the universities of every ethnic group to make provision for all the various branches and courses of study in South Africa. For these reasons I have no hesitation in saying that we shall vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the predominant impression this Third Reading debate has given me, is that there are a great many quasi-arguments one can drag in when you want to prove a case you do not really have. I have already pointed out, in my Second Reading speech, that the hon. Opposition opposes this legislation, not on the grounds of the facts before them, but because they oppose the principle of the principal Act. On one previous occasion, and earlier this afternoon in this House again, the hon. member for Wynberg read out a list of laws which will be repealed by the Opposition if they should come into power. This Extension of University Education Act is one of the laws appearing on her list. That is why I did not expect to get any support from the opposite side of this House. She began with a few general statements.

On a point of order, Sir, I did not say that they would be repealed. I said they would be reviewed.

The hon. member is right. I know she sets great store by these two words. She has had recourse to that distinction in previous debates. I concede that she is correct on that score.

The hon. member for Wynberg began with two catch-phrases she took over from her predecessor, Mr. Flippie Moore. The one is the division of education into watertight compartments, and the other is the indivisibility of education. I want to inform the hon. member that I am not going to discuss this matter this afternoon. I am dealing with the factual situation as I find it here. The hon. member knows the policy of this side of the House and she knows that we have made provision for separate educational facilities for the different peoples in this country. Therefore I am not going to go into this matter any further.

The next point the hon. member for Wynberg made was that education should be accessible to everyone in this country. I want to emphasize that as far as this matter is concerned, this side of the House has reason to be proud of what it has accomplished. This side of the House went out of its way to make it possible for the non-White peoples of our country not only to receive primary and secondary education, but higher education as well. The establishment of these five universities for non-Whites is proof of this. The success which these universities have recently achieved, contradicts any argument to the contrary. What is the affect of this statutory amendment before us here? There are only a few simple facts, despite all the arguments hon. members on the opposite side wanted to drag in.

In the first place this statutory amendment before us merely confirms in law a procedure which has been in operation for 10 years. I have already explained that there was a difference of opinion amongst the law advisers as to the question of whether the Minister does in fact have the power to nominate a university and a course of study when giving his consent to such a student. This procedure has been followed for the past 10 years now, to everyone’s satisfaction, the Government, the Minister, the university and the student. If hon. members on the opposite side now want to allege that we want to place obstacles in the way of a student who wants to go to university, it is surely inconsistent with the actual facts. We on this side, through our actions, have in fact opened up the way for them and we have granted students permission to take at a White university a course which his own university does not yet make provision for. Sir, what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here was correct; I did say that we on this side regard ourselves as being in duty bound to do so. If the hon. member for Wynberg now questions the discretion of the hon. the Minister who deals with the exercise of that discretion, then I want to tell her that this discretion is being exercised on a basis of equality. In other words, we want to help students who want to study, to further their studies in that course for which they have an aptitude and in which they are interested.

And the Rand Afrikaans University as well?

We are now discussing the five non-White universities. Sir, in the second place this Bill ensures that the objects of the principal Act will be realized. The principal Act was passed at the time to provide that higher education will be available in this country for the non-White ethnic groups. It was a major and an expensive undertaking. Wonderful progress has been made, and this side of the House cannot see the taxpayers’ money being wasted by leaving loopholes which make it possible for students to go to other universities than those universities they should actually be attending. That is why I maintain that the original objectives of the principal Act are being realized by means of this amendment Bill. The Bill comprises nothing more than that.

But these amendments also guarantee equal treatment of the non-White students. We are providing that a non-White student must go to the medical faculty of the University of Natal for medical training. If another student can now be allowed, for some reason or other, to enroll at a university for Whites, and then changes his course and commences medical studies at a White university, then surely those two non-White students are not being afforded equal treatment. This statutory amendment before us will ensure that equal treatment is meted out. Sir, I have also said, and I repeat it, that this statutory amendment will also enable the Minister to exercise his administrative discretion, because unless one metes out equal treatment to people, one cannot determine to which student consent should be granted and to which not.

In the last place the effect of this Bill is that the new status of the universities for non-Whites is being recognized. The hon. member for Durban Central spoke of a decade of strife. I want to tell him that he is completely mistaken. He could have spoken of a decade of progress and advancement in this sphere. He quoted figures, Sir, but what do his figures mean if he does not tell us what the totals were. If he says that there were so many non-White students at White universities 15 years ago, and he does not say what the total number of those students was, and if he says there are today so many non-White students and that this supposedly proves that the problem is just as great and in essence just as serious as before, what does it mean? No, there is nothing in it. The fact of the matter is that this Government established separate universities, and the progress which has been made with that has been so spectacular that every foreign visitor who comes here is amazed at what has been achieved over a period of 10 years. Obviously these universities are not perfect, as the hon. member for Rissik said. There are still many deficiencies; there are still many courses of study for which provision is not being made, but it is the task and the intention of the Government, who are going to remain in power in this country for many years to come, to carry out this policy and make provision so that ever-fewer non-White students will be studying at the universities for Whites.

Sir, I want to make another point which I raised on a previous occasion and in regard to which the hon. member for Wynberg levelled a reproach at me. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to applications of Bantu students to be admitted to White universities. She said that the Minister was refusing so many of the applications. I then said to her: “Why do you not quote the same figures in respect of the Coloured students?” In reality these figures could already have been much lower if the Minister of Coloured Affairs had exercised his discretion in such a way that Coloureds who are now studying at the University of Cape Town and at other universities, had gone to the University of the Western Cape. But I maintain that there are considerations other than just the mere availability or not of a course of study at a university.

I should now like to come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but before I do that, I just want to finish dealing with the hon. member for Durban Central who spoke about the victims of this statutory amendment. Sir, there is no question of victims. The only relevant issue here is people who are being helped to further their studies and to study as far as their ability enables them to; there is no question here of victims. If there is a student, as I have already said in the Other Place, who has obtained his degree at some university or other and there are sound reasons why he should complete his post-graduate studies at that university, then it is a matter which may be considered.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister has mentioned sound reasons. Would the mere fact that a student does not want to change his promotor not be a sound reason?

I cannot, as I have previously said, reply to questions on behalf of my colleagues. But I take it that if there are sound reasons for a student to be admitted to a university for Whites, any reasonable Minister, as the Ministers on this side are, will allow him to attend that university for that specified course of study. This is something which happens every day. The figures here before us, furnished in reply to questions from Opposition members, surely prove what I am saying here.

Sir, I come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who rose and put a very pious question here. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he attaches the same value to the so-called autonomy of the universities as his party does.

He said so.

I stated it very emphatically.

The hon. member said that he stated it very emphatically. Why did he not then furnish those people who put the questions to him with a reply? Why did he put the question to me? Surely he should then have said to those people: “We, the United Party, stand for the autonomy of the universities; it is our standpoint that the universities must control the admission of students”, as is in reality the case. I explained this to the hon. member for Wynberg as well. If the Minister, in terms of this Act, gives a student his consent to study at a White university, and it does not mean that he obtains admission to that university; he only obtains admission to that university if that university accepts him. This is the actual state of affairs. And that is why I say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout could simply have said to those questioners that his party advocated that universities should have the right to admit or to refuse students, and then they would have had their answer. Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expect me to address representations to any university for Whites in this country, or that I should if need be, exercise pressure on them to have certain students or groups of students admitted? Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout regard that as my function?

Representations—not pressure.

Find out what their policy is and let us know.

Sir, if the hon. member wants to make inquiries he may do so at the universities. I do not regard it as my function to address representations in regard to the admission of any student to any university.

But you do it in any case.

The hon. member for Wynberg also spoke of the increased powers the Minister would now be getting, with the implication that a non-White student would want to go to a certain university and that he would then be forced to go to another university. The hon. member for Durban Central made the same point, of a Sotho who allegedly wanted to go to the Zulu university, and was then forced to go to the University of the North. I want to tell you, Sir, that in practice, during the past 10 years, consent has always been granted to non-White students to attend the university which he wants to attend in terms of the procedure which we have passed, have confirmed in law. To apply it now to the non-White population groups: If there is a Sotho student who for some reason or another wants to attend the university of Ngoya, the Zulu university, then it is a matter for that university to decide, i.e. whether they want to admit him or not. It is not something in regard to which the Minister has authority in terms of this legislation.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that I was sympathetic towards these people to help them obtain an education, and he asked why it was in any way necessary for prior consent to be obtained. I hope that it has become clear to him in the course of my speech that if we want to build up these universities for non-Whites in this country to the service which hon. members on the opposite side want them to render, i.e. that they will offer every possible course of study to students, then it is necessary for this degree of control to be exercised. In addition it is necessary to control the admission in this way so as not to waste the taxpayer’s money unnecessarily. I can tell the hon. member—and he can look it up in this Budget publication before us—that that medical faculty at the University of Natal is costing the White taxpayer an enormous amount of money, proportionately more money than the White faculties cost; and I want to say that this Government will see to it that use is made of these facilities which have been created, and that no facilities will be withheld from these students.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—90: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Bot-ma M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, B.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson,, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

That the following be a new clause to precede clause I of the Bill:

1. 1. Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1968, is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:

   “(1) Save as is otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions thereof shall not apply to any land in any area referred to in section 25 (1) of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927 (Act No. 38 of 1927), or any land referred to in section 21 (1) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936), or any land or area referred to in section 4 (1) of the South-West Africa Bantu Affairs Administration Act. 1954 (Act No. 56 of 1954), which is not a demarcated forest.”.

The reason for the insertion of this section is that this legislation does not apply to the Bantu Territories in the Republic. Section I is being moved merely to bring the legislation in South-West Africa into line with that provision.

New clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

In line 51, to omit “take beforehand such precautions” and to substitute “clear beforehand such fire-belts.”.

Agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow clause 4:

1. 5. The following section is hereby substituted for section 32 of the Forest Act, 1968:

   “Application of Act to land or an area referred to in section 25 (1) of Act 38 of 1927, section 21 (1) of Act 18 of 1936 or section 4 (1) of Act 56 of 1954.

Certain provisions of the Forestry Act apply to the Bantu Territories in the Republic in terms of the Bantu Administration Act. The reason for the insertion of the new clause is to bring the position in South-West Africa into line with the provisions in the Republic.

New clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

1. (iv) “land” means any land used or intended to be used mainly for residential purposes; (i)

I just want to explain briefly that, in the first place, the proposed amendment provides a definition of “land”, namely any land used or intended to be used for residential purposes. In the second place, it is being provided in the definition of “contract” that there are to be more than two instalments. The reason for this is briefly that it is the customary procedure in all contracts of purchase and sale of land that a partial payment be made on the purchase price upon signing the contract of purchase and sale, and the balance upon registration of the transfer. Therefore the ordinary contract of purchase and sale comprises two payments. It is now being provided here that the purchase price is to be payable in more than two instalments. In the third place, in the definition of “interest” reference is made to section 6 (3). As provision is being made in section 6 (3) (b) for all the interest payments that are applicable, this reference is now being changed to “section 6 (3) (b)”.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name—

To omit paragraphs (a) and (b) and to substitute the following paragraphs:

1. (a) apply to a contract under which the purchaser is a natural person or is the estate of the purchaser who has died or is insolvent, and which relates to land which—

   1. (i) is situated in the area of jurisdiction of a municipal council, city council, town council, village council, village management council, local board, health board or health committee, and land forming part of, in the province of the Cape of Good Hope, a local area established under section 6 (1) (i) of the Divisional Councils Ordinance, 1952 (Ordinance No. 15 of 1952, of that province), and, in the province of Natal, a public health area as defined in section I of the Local Health Commission (Public Health Areas Control) Ordinance, 1941 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1941, of the last-mentioned province), and, in the province of the Transvaal, a local area committee established under section 21 (1) of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas Ordinance, 1943 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1943, of the Transvaal); or

   2. (ii) forms part of any other area subdivided into erven or plots, with or without public open spaces, and in streets bounded by such erven, plots or spaces;

2. (b) not apply in respect of a contract relating to land—

   1. (i) of which the State, including, for purposes of the application of this Act in the territory of South-West Africa, the Administration of that territory, is the seller or which is held in trust by the State or a Minister for any person;
   2. (ii) forming part of a scheduled Bantu area as defined in section 49 of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936), or of a released area referred to in section 2 of the said Act;
   3. (iii) to which the provisions of the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963 (Act No. 24 of 1963), apply;
   4. (iv) of which the Community Development Board referred to in section 2 of the Community Development Act, 1966 (Act No. 3 of 1966, the Housing Commission referred to in section 5 of the National Housing Act, 1966 (Act No. 4 of 1966), or a local authority, is the seller;.

This amendment changes the description in the printed clause. Its object is mainly to indicate that this provision will not be applicable to agricultural land, as defined in Act No. 70 of 1970. The words used in that Act, were used here almost verbatim, but they were changed round to indicate that this legislation will not be applicable to agricultural land. To my mind this is an improvement on the definitions we had previously.

Mr.

Chairman, as we have indicated in the Second Reading debate, we see no good reason why the Government departments and, in some cases, the Provincial Administrations, which are referred to in paragraph (b), should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I therefore move as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister—

I do not wish to speak at length on this amendment, which I am moving to the Minister’s amendment. I think the position was put clearly in the Second Reading debate. However, I would like to state briefly our attitude on this side of the House. We believe that the provisions of this Bill, as it is proposed with the amendments to the various clauses, will provide good and much needed legislation in the interests of purchasers of land on the instalment basis. If that proposition is correct, and surely that must be the basis on which the hon. the Minister is introducing this legislation, the provisions of the Bill are equally good, whoever the seller is. We cannot understand why the hon. the Minister should wish to exclude sellers, who happen to be State departments and Provincial Administrations, as referred to in paragraph (b). The reason may be given that the State departments would not act prejudicially to purchasers. I accept that position. I am not suggesting here this afternoon that the reason for wanting to include them in the operation of the Bill is that they would tend to act prejudicially towards purchasers. That is not the basis of my argument at all. But, quite apart from the question of prejudice, there are provisions in this Bill which have nothing to do with prejudice, but which grant a benefit to purchasers which they do not have under the law as it stands at present. Purchasers from State departments will not have this benefit unless the State departments are brought within the provisions of this Bill. We will discuss these provisions as the clauses are put, since I cannot go into too great detail at this stage. It is not merely a question of prejudice. There are very real benefits which they will not enjoy in a case of a purchase from the State, unless the State departments are brought within these provisions. I cannot see that any State department will have its task made any more difficult if it has to comply with the provisions of this Bill. I doubt that the hon. the Minister can suggest as an argument in support of excluding the State departments, that their task will be made more difficult. This is not the case. The provisions that are proposed in this Bill are all pretty straightforward. All the State departments referred to in this Bill, can quite easily be required to comply with these provisions.

I therefore urge the hon. the Minister to accept my proposed amendment of the amendment which he has moved. If he will not do that I hope he will justify his intention to exclude the State departments from the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I am not prepared to accept the proposed amendment of the hon. member. It is obviously not the intention that this legislation should be made applicable to the various Government Departments mentioned here. There is no need whatsoever for this form of protection which is being conferred upon purchasers in this proposed legislation, to be made applicable to Government departments. This is so obvious that one almost does not want to elaborate on it. As far as the Government departments are concerned, it goes without saying that, in cases where land may possibly be sold on instalments, the Government departments will meet their obligations to the purchasers in every respect. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to make this legislation applicable to Government departments.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any question of this side of the House doubting the fact that departments of State will certainly do everything they can to assist purchasers and will not do anything which might prejudice them. That is not the issue that arises here.

If one reads the contents of the conditions that are prescribed in clause 4, one will find that they almost represent a model series of conditions, which I think, in time, will probably become the form of printed contract that will be available to most sellers of land when they enter into a contract of sale on more than two instalments. The value of these conditions, I think, is that they make it quite clear to the purchaser what his rights are and allow him to know exactly where he stands with regard to a contract. It is not so much that the contract will bind the departments. It is the type of contract which will be to the advantage of the purchaser so that he does not have to be in constant touch with the department or waste both their and his time in writing letters and asking questions. I should like to give an example. Some of the conditions refer to the date on which a purchaser can occupy the purchased land. In other conditions reference is made to the amount of each payment in respect of capital and interest. These are the type of conditions which would be provided. If you exclude these departments of State, they may just draw up a contract, which might be a very short form, wherein they set out a few of the details required. I have had the experience—and I am sure it has been the experience of many people—of constantly worrying as to what one’s rights are in connection with these contracts. The result is a constant communication with the State departments. I think the objective here is to avoid that, because we cannot see any reason why the State departments should not be bound by the general terms of legislation once it is enacted since the Bill is to enable the purchaser to have complete clarity with regard to a contract for the acquisition of land. There is no imposition on the department, there is no hardship on the department, and, if anything, it will alleviate the burden of the department. It will probably save a great deal of man hours in connection with additional work in which the department would be involved if it were not governed by the terms and conditions of this particular Bill. I want to say, further, that the hon. the Minister is well aware that to a great extent we have gone along with him in the Bill generally. There are a number of amendments under the name of the Minister which we are pleased to see because it indicates the goodwill of the department in doing everything possible to ensure that this is a workable and satisfactory piece of legislation, serving the purpose for which it has been brought into being. Why the State should be excluded is beyond my logical thinking. What is desired here is clarity, and it is something which the average man in the street knows and understands, and this can relieve departments of a great deal of work. I can understand certain types of contracts where the State is excluded, for example contracts where the question of ownership would be involved, where the question of any possibility of a man not having any title to land is involved or where the question of a man who does not have the financial resources to be able to withstand any action or claim against the seller, is involved. Then one can well understand that the State does not need to be included in that sense to ensure that the purchaser has protection. That is not only the intention of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is to do many other things which will bring about a much more settled situation such as security to the buyer, a certain series of acts will enable the buyer to sell his rights and this will enable any additional purchaser to know exactly where he stands, whether it be the State or a private sale. For that reason and under these particular circumstances it seems rather extraordinary that all these departments of State should be excluded. For those reasons we press the hon. the Minister to give further thought to this amendment and to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Jeppes and Musgrave are quite academic ones. One should not view this particular clause in isolation, but in relation to the provisions contained in subsequent clauses. The provisions which follow in clause 4, are particularly important. In other words, the basis or the ratio on which these particular Government departments, Provincial Administrations and divisional councils have been excluded, should actually be found in another consideration. That consideration is this question: What are the evils which this legislation seeks to combat? As I see the matter, these evils are, inter alia, the following: The first evil is that the purchasers may be exploited by sellers when circumstances prevail where the seller is not in a position to provide, amongst other things, transfer in respect of the property he sold. Another evil is that he may, for instance, have debts, and that in the case of insolvency the purchaser should be protected and that a certain preference will be given to him. In respect of combating all these evils or malpractices, I just want to say that all these circumstances do not exist in respect of those actions or transactions where the Government or semi-Government departments are the seller. In other words, in this respect it is not only a question of a principle which is being introduced. In this respect it is not a question of the purchaser having to know on precisely what conditions he is making the purchase. I think that the problem in the past, arising from which this legislation was introduced, is not to be found in the position that people were not aware of the conditions of the purchase, but the fact of the matter is that the people from whom they purchased such land, were unable to meet their obligations under the contract of purchase and sale. Therefore, I think that there is one important aspect which should receive consideration. I want to ask hon. members to take cognizance of it. Very real problems arose in practice in cases where the State, the Administration, Bantu Administration or a local authority was unable to meet its obligations in respect of contracts of purchase and sale. In the absence of evidence there are no cases where purchasers have, inter alia, forfeited money owing to the failure of these bodies to give transfer of their land, and therefore there is to my mind also no reason why this should be made applicable. I also want to make the following point. Why should one impose on the State an additional administrative burden, which would follow as a matter of course if they were included under the provisions of this measure, whilst this step could serve no real purpose and does not seek to combat any evil? That is why I think the hon. the Minister is quite correct in refusing to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, it is disappointing that the hon. the Minister has taken up the attitude that he has. I made the point that this Bill is not concerned only with the object of, as suggested by the hon. member for False Bay, controlling evil and false practices. I accept that this is one reason for the Bill, but in fact this Bill before us goes further than merely the control of evil and improper practices and in fact gives to purchases in respect of the contracts referred to in the Bill advantages and benefits which they do not have under the law as it stands at the present time.

Which ones are you referring to?

To almost every provision of the Bill. I cannot go into great detail now …

Which ones?

The provisions of clause 4, for example, which sets out clearly what shall be contained in the contract. Also the provisions of clause 5, which provide that a copy of the contract is to be furnished. Also clause 6 dealing with the calculation of interest and which provides that interest above a certain figure may not be charged. Also clause 7 which deals with the invalidity of certain provisions which are obviously to the benefit of purchasers. Then there is clause 9 which deals with the statements of account and clause 10 providing for the right of a purchaser to accelerate payments. Then there is the cession clause, namely clause 11. Also clause 13 which deals with the limitation of the right of a seller to take action. I accept that this clause mainly applies to private sellers. Then there is also the proposed amendment of the hon. the Minister to clause 13. Also clause 15 which deals with the waivering of rights by the purchaser and clause 17 which deals with the competence of a magistrate’s court to declare a contract invalid. These provisions are not there purely to control evils and improper conduct. They are there to create for the benefit of purchasers certain benefits which purchasers do not have at the present time. It is no good for the hon. the Minister to say that the State departments can be relied upon not to prejudice purchasers. This has nothing to do with it. These provisions I have read out have nothing to do with the prejudice of purchasers as such; these are the creation of benefits and the conferring on purchasers of rights which they do not have under the law as it is at the present time. Now I would like to know from the hon. the Minister quite clearly what he meant by the words “the State departments can be relied upon to do their duty”. He said they know their duties and they can be relied upon to carry them out. That is what he said in justifying the exclusion of State departments. Now what exactly does the hon. the Minister mean by that assurance? As I pointed out, most of these clauses create benefits and rights which purchasers do not today enjoy. Does he mean that these State departments, in entering into a contract for the sale of land on instalments, will in fact introduce these clauses into the contract, or will not introduce the provisions which are made invalid by clause 7? If that is what he means, there is no reason why they should not be made subject to the provisions of this Bill. If he does not mean that, then purchasers of land on instalments from State departments will clearly be prejudiced, because they will not have the benefits which these clauses are conferring. It is no good to put it on the basis purely of prejudice and control of evil, because this Bill goes a lot further than merely doing that. I ask the hon. the Minister to state clearly and unequivocally what he meant by that statement. Does he mean that the State departments, because they know their duty, will introduce these beneficial provisions into contracts into which they enter? If not, will he justify his stand? If they do not, purchasers from State departments are clearly prejudiced and do not enjoy the benefits which this Bill is conferring upon private sellers.

Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat the arguments of my colleagues from Musgrave and Jeppes, although I strongly subscribe to them, and think they do constitute the main argument in favour of the amendment which we propose.

But there is a second argument upon which I do wish to elaborate a little more. In this respect I want to go rather further than my colleagues have done. My argument relates to the position of the State as a party to a contract of this kind. I do not believe it is good enough merely to say that the State is impervious to faults, that the State cannot make a mistake, and that the agents of the State will always act consistently with the intentions of the State. It is perfectly correct, and we accept it, that the State obviously has no mala fides when it makes contracts of this nature. The State acts in entirely good faith and we are prepared to accept that. But, Sir, the agents of the State are individuals. These people can make mistakes. They are human beings. They are subject to prejudice, bad faith and bad human relations between themselves and people who come to them. For instance it does happen that agents who are acting on behalf of the State, whatever the intention of the State may be, may misinterpret or distort the intentions of the State and thereby carry out acts which are prejudicial to the other party to a contract with the State. There was a famous case in Britain, the Crichel Downs case, where an individual civil servant acted in a way which was entirely prejudicial to the private party. He acted in a way which was entirely inconsistent with the intention of the State, but, ensconced behind a barricade of files, he was able to keep the private party at bay and at prejudice for a number of years. He was able to do this until finally the matter was raised in Parliament. I am not suggesting that this will happen, but as an ex-public servant myself, I think I am entitled to say that public servants are not perfect; they make mistakes and if buyers of land by instalment are entitled to be protected against private sellers who are mala fides, or careless, or who might act prejudicially, then why should the buyer not be protected against agents of the State who might be motivated by bad faith or be guilty of the same errors or misjudegment?

I think it is an entirely wrong principle to say that the State should he above the law or outside the law in respect of matters such as these. If such a principle were valid, then why should we not say that by Statute the State should be made immune to the common law? After all, we all know that it is the intention of the State to abide by the common law. On the Minister’s argument, if this is so, we should then say that the State should in all matters be exempted from the common law, because it is well known that the State accepts the common law and abides by the common law. No, Sir, this is not a valid argument. I think it is right that the State, like any private individual, should be bound by the same terms and conditions and if the hon. the Minister believes, as he does, that it is the State’s intention to abide by these conditions, to act in good faith towards the purchaser, then no harm is done by merely striking out the exemptions because the State will in any case be doing its duty towards the purchaser.

Mr. Chairman, for 319 years we have managed without this legislation, ever since Jan van Riebeeck landed here in 1652, 319 years ago on 6th April of this year. In listening to the speeches being made in this House this afternoon, one cannot understand how we could have managed without this legislation over all these years.

Why, then, did you introduce the Bill?

Hon. members opposite have gone so far as to say that there were problems in the past, but, surely, one introduces legislation of this nature when experience has shown that there is a need for such legislation to be introduced. Hon. members now want to go so far as to point out that there is a need for protective measures such as these to be introduced in respect of transactions between the purchaser and Government departments as well. Sir, that is all it amounts to. Our experience in the past was, in cases where people purchased land on instalments—this is not something which happens every day, but it does happen—that years later such people found that they could not obtain transfer of the land because of events which had taken place in the meantime. These events which had taken place in the meantime and which gave rise to the problems against which we now want to afford protection to the purchaser, took place in respect of private bodies or persons who sold land; and if hon. members on that side of the House can rise and tell me that in this or that respect the State failed in the past to meet its obligations to purchasers and that the purchasers should also be protected against the Government departments, then we may perhaps listen to them.

Would the Minister give consideration to the possibility of an Agliotti case in reverse?

But, surely, that is not relevant here?

How can that take place? We are dealing here with transactions where land is purchased on instalments. The hon. member is referring to something quite different. I think that what created the biggest problem in the past, was probably the case of insolvency. I think hon. members opposite will agree with me that it is cases where the seller became insolvent, which, by and large, gave rise to this legislation which we are introducing here today. The seller does not obtain transfer of the land; over a period of years the seller becomes insolvent, and then that land forms part of the insolvent estate of the seller, and as a result the land is sold and the purchaser is unable to obtain his right. That is the major reason why we have resorted to these measures for the protection of the purchaser. But there are quite a number of other factors, such as the identification of the land after a period of years. All sorts of other events have given rise to this legislation. Sir, this Bill, from beginning to end, has been drafted for one purpose only, namely to protect the purchaser of land sold on instalments. Every provision of this Bill has been drafted for that one purpose only, namely to protect the purchaser. The purchaser needs no protection against a Government department, nor should it need any protection against any Government department. Furthermore, up to now we have had no cases where purchasers suffered because of the fact that Government departments failed to meet their obligations under contracts to purchasers. That is why I say that this is unnecessary. In fact, I think it would be rather ridiculous if we were to make our measures for the protection of purchasers of land applicable to Government departments as well. I am really sorry, Sir, but I do not see my way clear to accepting this amendment.

Sir, I cannot allow the hon. the Minister’s explanation to pass without replying to it. First of all, he says that we have managed without this legislation ever since Van Riebeek came to South Africa. Well, of course, that is true. This is a new legislation. But the hon. the Minister is deliberately not facing up to the arguments which we on this side of the House have advanced. First of all, the hon. the Minister is arguing simply from the basis that this legislation is for the protection of purchasers and that it is being introduced with that intention. Of course, he is right. This legislation is intended for the protection of purchasers, but what the hon. the Minister is avoiding is that in providing protection to purchasers this Bill is not only controlling evils and abuses which have taken place in the past, but is deliberately granting to the purchasers of land on the instalment ¡basis, certain privileges and benefits which they have not had ¡before. As I said a moment ago, Sir, these benefits and privileges have nothing to do with prejudice or the control of evil. They go beyond that in creating these benefits and privileges. Sir, what the Minister is avoiding is to tell this Committee why, if it is right that purchasers of land on instalment from individuals should have these benefits and privileges, which I have referred to—I have drawn his attention to the various clauses and he has given me no reply in that regard at all—it is not right that they should have like benefits and privileges against State departments? It is a very simple, straightforward question and the hon. the Minister has avoided it. He simply bases his case on the fact that we have not mentioned any abuse by a State department. Sir, this is not the point at issue because we are dealing with a new law which is going beyond the common law as it is today, and which is giving purchasers benefits and privileges which they do not enjoy under the common law as it is today. Will the hon. the Minister tell us quite simply why these benefits should not be conferred on purchasers of land from the State, just as they are being conferred on purchasers of land from private individuals? It does not make sense simply to say that the State will do its duty and the State has not abused its position. We are not dealing only with abuse in this Bill. This is new legislation which, in addition to controlling abuses which have arisen in the past, is creating new benefits and privileges. This is the case we are making and this is the case which the hon. the Minister has not met on both occasions that he has spoken.

I just want to reply in one little sentence to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Musgrave. I appreciate that this legislation which we are introducing here, is not merely intended for eliminating anomalies, or rather, that it does not make provision for that matter only. It does not only make provision for cases of insolvency. But there are certain rights which accrue from this legislation to a purchaser, but why are we granting him those rights? We are granting him those rights for one purpose only, namely to combat the evils with which he may probably be confronted.

That is not the only purpose.

Of course it is the only purpose. I am conferring protective rights on him in view of the fact that evils did take place in the past. Sir, you can look at each of these paragraphs and see what they deal with. Then you will find that there are rights which are being conferred on the purchaser to protect him against dangers which may arise in regard to the sale of land on instalments. That is why they are there. But none of these provisions will be applicable in the case of any Government department which sells land. That will simply not happen, and that is why I say it is necessary for us to make them applicable, too.

Omission of paragraphs (a) and (b) put and agreed to.

Substitution of paragraph (a) put and agreed to.

Substitution of paragraph (b) put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Amendment to amendment proposed by Mr. R. G. L. Hourquebie accordingly dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments, as printed on the Order Paper—

1. (b) unless the contract relates to an undivided share in land, the extent, and situation or description with reference to a diagram or general plan as defined in section 102 of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937 (Act No. 47 of 1937), of the land which is the subject of the contract; and in line 59, after “(p)” to insert “unless the contract relates to an undivided share in land,”.

This amendment is being effected so as to make it possible to apply this Act to undivided shares in land. It is, therefore, as you will see, an amendment to paragraph (b) and also to paragraph (p) of clause 4.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed—

1. (3) No seller shall in connection with a contract obtain judgment for or recover from a purchaser an amount exceeding the sum of—

   1. (a) the purchase price and interest owing to him by the purchaser in terms of the contract;

   2. (b) if the contract specifically provides that the purchaser shall be liable for payment thereof, the actual costs incurred by the seller—

      1. (i) in connection with the drafting of the contract; and
      2. (ii) after the date stated in the contract in terms of section 4 (1) (m), in respect of maintenance and repair of improvements on the land, rates and taxes in respect of the land, and premiums on an insurance policy relating to the subject matter of the contract; and
   3. (c) all costs which are actually incurred by him in connection with the recovery of the amount referred to in this subsection and are recoverable in terms of any provision of law from the purchaser.

This provides, in the first instance, for interest charged by “any building society” and not “building societies” as was the case before. Furthermore it provides for a first mortgage bond and not only a mortgage bond, and for consequential amendments.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman I move the following amendment, as printed—

To omit paragraphs (d) and (e) and to substitute the following paragraphs:

1. (d) the purchaser is obliged to take transfer of the land before the date or the expiry of the period stated in the contract in terms of section 4 (1) (g) without the seller having undertaken to arrange for a mortgage bond on conditions as to the rate of interest and redemption which are not more onerous than the terms upon which at the time when transfer is to be taken, a loan secured by a first mortgage bond over land is granted by a building society, to secure payment of the unpaid balance of the amount referred to in that section; or
2. (e) the purchaser is obliged to accept a mortgage bond over the land for the payment of the outstanding balance of the purchase price plus interest and any of the costs referred to in section 6 (3) (b), which is arranged on his behalf by the seller or his agent, on conditions as to the rate of interest and redemption which are more onerous than the terms upon which at the time when transfer is to be taken, a loan secured by a first mortgage bond over land is granted by a building society,

This merely provides for the purchaser to take transfer when a mortgage bond can be arranged for him. When the seller arranges a mortgage bond for him, he is obliged to take transfer.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments, as printed—-

To omit subsections (4) and (5) and to substitute the following subsections:

1. (4) The cessionary under a cession referred to in subsection (2) shall inform the registered owner of such cession.

2. (5) When a cession referred to in subsection (2) has been entered into or is in force and the cedent under such a cession has not assigned to the cessionary the obligations coupled with the right to claim transfer of the land—

   1. (a) the cessionary may, as from the date of the cession or the commencement of this Act, as the case may be, if the cedent fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract under which he acquired the right to claim transfer of the land, perform the said obligations of the cedent to the registered owner and such a performance by the cessionary of the obligations of the cedent to the registered owner, shall be deemed to be a valid performance by the cedent of his said obligations to the registered owner and to the same extent by the cessionary of his obligations to the cedent; and
   2. (b) the cedent or the estate of the cedent who has died or is insolvent, shall not be entitled to recover from the cessionary again any payment made in good faith by the cessionary on behalf of the cedent to the registered owner;

and in line 43, page 10, to omit “seller” and to substitute “cedent”.

The object of these amendments is merely to define the objects of the Bill more clearly, and I do not think they require any further explanation.

We have no objection to the amendments which are being moved to this clause by the hon. the Minister. I would like to deal with another provision, namely subsection (7). In terms of the Minister’s amendment, the word “seller” is now being changed to “cedent”. It seems to me that this clause as it stands is still unsatisfactory. This is a matter which I raised in the Second Reading and the hon. member for Bellville replied to me, but I doubt whether that explanation is correct. As I read it, it means that if a cedent remains in default in the matter of handing to the cessionary the receipt for transfer duty and continues in default after due notice and the period of a month has expired, file cessionary is then entitled to withhold payment of interest until such time as he gets the transfer duty receipt. As I read it, this refers to the payment of interest due to a seller under his original contract. Now why should a seller have the payment of interest withheld in respect of a default which has nothing to do with him? The default lies as between persons lower down the line, the cedent to the cessionary, a default for which the seller is in no way responsible. The hon. member for Bellville, in reply to me in the Second Reading when I made this point, suggested that this clause related only to the payment of interest by a cessionary to a cedent from whom he received title. I cannot see how this provision can be read in this way, because payment of interest surely relates to interest due on the outstanding purchase price. If that is so, it is interest clearly which is due not to the cedent from whom the cessionary obtained title, but to the seller. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister on this point.

I should also like the Minister to deal with one other aspect in regard to the cession. The hon. the Minister refused to accept our amendment to include State departments within the provisions of this Bill. Clause 2 therefore has duly been passed on the basis that State departments are excluded from the provisions of this Bill. As I read it, we will now have the situation where, if a State department is a seller, purchasers, in the absence of a clause prohibiting cession, will be able to cede down the line, two or three times. We will then have the situation that the ceded contract will not be subject to the provisions of this Bill, many of which are clearly for the benefit of purchasers. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that that is an unfortunate situation, and if he agrees with that, what he proposes to do about it. So there are these two matters on which I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister in respect of clause 11.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Musgrave is still not right in his interpretation of this clause. He is confusing two bodies corporate, i.e. the basic contract which has to be entered into between a cedent and a cessionary, the basic deed of sale—and the cession arising out of that. These are two different bodies corporate. The one is a bilateral contract between two parties and the other is simply a unilateral action in terms of which the rights arising from the bilateral contract are transferred to the cessionary.

I acknowledge that the hon. member is right in that he most probably finds this confusing position in the fact that our definitions in this Bill may perhaps not be quite correct. In clause 2 it is merely provided that a cession shall be a contract in writing. It is also provided that a contract includes a cession. What is meant is that a contractual relationship must exist between the cedent and the cessionary. This contractual relationship, which is a bilateral agreement, must exist in the first place and comply with certain formal requirements as laid down in clause 7. Certain formal requirements must be complied with. Just as in the case of an ordinary first sale, this cession agreement must also comply with certain formal requirements. After the bilateral contract has been concluded, the question of the cession, in fact, comes into operation. The section is the transfer of the duties. One may compare this with the ordinary purchase agreement which is a bilateral agreement and the transfer of title by way of registration at the Deed’s Office. This is an identical case and it may more or less be compared with that.

Similarly, we have here a basic agreement between two parties, and then the unilateral action arising out of that, in terms of which the rights are transferred. I hope I have made this clear. If we accept this principle and regard these bodies corporate in the proper light as we ought to, as legal practitioners should regard them—and I am now speaking to the hon. member for Musgrave—there is nothing obscure as far as this clause is concerned. The clause states very clearly “interest under the cession”. The clause does mention “interest under the original sale”. It mentions “interest under the cession”, which exists. There exists an original hire-purchase agreement between the original owner and the cedent. The relationship between these two parties remains unchanged. The interest clause in that agreement remains unchanged. The cedent still owes the original owner interest in terms of the original bilateral agreement. But now we get a new bilateral agreement between the two parties, i.e. the cedent and the cessionary.

Here a new interest clause is now inserted. One can imagine that the first interest rate may be 6 per cent per year, while the second interest rate may be 8 per cent per year or thereabout. This is the position we may get. However, the hon. member for Musgrave prefers to confuse the position as if the cedents’ rights he got in terms of his first contract and his obligations in terms of his first contract, are all transferred intact to the new cessionary. This is not how I see it. I see it as a new relationship, and that it is still the cedent’s duty to fulfil his obligations under the original agreement. Therefore I say that I do not think that there is any confusion here. The hon. member may differ from me and say that the cedent does not come into the contract in this case at all. If he can tell me that the cedent transfers all liabilities and all responsibility in that regard, I shall tell him that that may possibly be the case. However, I maintain that the original agreement does retain some value and that the rights of the original purchaser still go against the original cedent. As I see it, the spirit of this Bill is of such a nature that the original purchaser cannot recover from the cessionary what he has lost on the cedent.

Before the hon. the Minister replies to me, as I hope he proposes to do, I should like to deal with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Bellville.

Will you please also repeat the second point you made earlier on?

Yes, certainly. I think, however, I would rather deal with the hon. member for Bellville’s argument before I repeat the second point I made.

First of all, if we are using the term “cession” correctly, I cannot see that there are two separate contracts of purchase and sale between the original seller and the first purchaser and a separate, new contract of purchase and sale between the purchaser, who then becomes the cedent, and the person to whom he cedes, who becomes the cessionary. The position cannot be such, because that is not then a cession. It becomes a second and entirely new contract of purchase and sale between the two parties concerned. A cession as such means one of two things; either all the purchaser’s rights and obligations pass from purchaser A to someone else, who takes over from him, in which case the second purchaser has to fulfil his obligations not towards the first purchaser, but towards the seller; or you have the other situation where only rights may be passed to the cessionary, but the obligations remain with the original purchaser. Either way there cannot be two entirely separate contracts. It is then not a cession, because a cession necessarily implies the passing of either part of some of a purchaser’s rights and obligations. If that is so—and I suggest that it is clearly so—what clause 11 (7) refers to in speaking of the liability “for payment of interest under the cession” is simply the liability which has been taken over in terms of the original contract. There is no liability for payment of interest, as between a cessionary and a cedent, since this would not then be a cession. The phrase “liability for payment of interest under the cession” can only mean the liability of the purchaser to the seller. That is my reply to the hon. member for Bellville.

I will now repeat the second point I made earlier on. My second point was that, if the State departments are to be excluded from the provisions of this Bill as they have been in terms of clause 2, we are going to have the situation where cessions of such contracts will not be subject to the provisions of this Bill. The cession can only be a cession of what was originally agreed to in terms of the original contract. It cannot be anything else. Whatever the contract was between the State and the purchased it is only that contract, and no other, which can be ceded. Therefore you will get the situation where you have cessions of contracts of sale of land on an instalment basis from the State which will not be subject to the provisions of this Bill. This, I suggest, is undesirable. I should like to hear whether the hon. the Minister agrees and, if so, whether he has any proposals in regard to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily, but I think I should nevertheless mention one example to the hon. member for Musgrave. Suppose the seller sells to B in terms of the contract. B re-sells the same piece of land. In terms of this legislation he may do so by way of cession. He need not sell the same piece of land at the same price for which he bought it originally. He may now sell it at a higher or lower price.

That is not a cession.

That is my point. The confusion arises because the hon. member confuses the concept of a bilateral agreement with a cession. A cession is, in the terms in which it is used here, merely the transfer of the rights and obligations arising out of the bilateral agreement. This is the point which I made a moment ago and which the hon. member for Musgrave does not want to understand. The point is that the original purchaser may conclude one agreement in respect of a certain price. The original purchaser may then conclude a second agreement for quite a different price, more or less, just as he pleases. The rights he has in terms of that second agreement, are then ceded by him to the cessionary. That is the point I made.

Then I want to come to the second point made by the hon. member for Musgrave, which to my mind has just as little substance, because sale of land on hire-purchase by the State does not fall under this legislation at all. In other words, a purchaser of State-owned land on hire-purchase does not have the privilege of a cession. In such a case the normal procedure of the re-sale by way of an agreement has to be followed. He does not have the advantage of this procedure of cession. That is the reply to the point made by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I think this clause has been discussed in quite some detail.

I just want to emphasize one point on which I agree with the hon. member for Bellville. If I bought land on instalments and have perhaps been paying off that land for five or six years, and if I now want to cede to another person the contract I entered into upon purchasing the land, it goes without saying that I need not cede that contract at face value. In the five or six years which have elapsed, the land may perhaps have appreciated considerably in value. Now I want something from that person who buys the land from me. On ceding the original contract of purchase and sale, I transfer to another person my obligations as a purchaser under that contract. I cede to him my rights under that contract. But under that contract I also have privileges which have probably appreciated considerably in value in the meantime. For that reason there is also a contract between myself and the new purchaser, a contract for which he has to pay. He has to pay for the rights which I had under the original contract and which I now cede to him. That is Why there is an agreement between us as well. This clause is intended to be a penalty clause which the cessionary will have in respect of the cedent. I do not want to pursue this minor point of argument about precisely what is meant in clause 7 by the words “under the cession …” or, in the Afrikaans text, “uit hoofde van die sessie …”. I shall investigate the matter more fully, and if I find any obscurity or uncertainty in regard to the matter, I shall try to rectify it in the Other Place.

I do not think it is necessary to reply to the second point made by the hon. member for Musgrave. I just want to make it clear again that a cession will be possible as this legislation is not applicable to Government departments. In other words, land will have to be transferred in terms of the normal procedure. If B has purchased from A, C from B and D from E, the transfers must take place in the order of selling, i.e. from A to B, from B to C and from C to D. A cession is, therefore, not relevant here.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) No seller shall, by reason of any failure on the part of the purchaser to fulfil an obligation under the contract, be entitled to terminate the contract or to institute an action for damages, unless he has by letter handed over to the purchaser and for which an acknowledgement of receipt has been obtained, or sent by registered post to him at his last known residential or business address, informed the purchaser of the failure in question and made demand to the purchaser to carry out the obligation in question within a period stated in such demand, not being less than thirty days, and the purchaser has failed to comply with such demand.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides for the arrangements for the payment of other costs in connection with the transfer when transfer is effected.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I move a new clause, clause 18. This clause is only intended for the furnishing of proof. This clause provides that land described in the contract as being land to be used or intended to be used for residential purposes shall be presumed to be so intended. It also provides that the contrary then has to be proved. I move—

1. 18. If in any proceedings it is alleged that land sold under a contract is used or is intended to be used mainly for residential purposes, it shall be presumed that the said land is so used or is intended to be so used until the contrary has been proved.

New clause put and agreed to.

Title:

An amendment is necessary here on account of the amendments already effected to the Bill. I move as an amendment—

In the first line, after “of* where it occurs for the second time, to insert “certain kinds of”.

Agreed to.

Title of the Bill, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I move the adjournment of the debate.

The hon. the Deputy Minister first has to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I now move—

That the debate be now adjourned.