Mr. Speaker, I move—

Shocking.

Simultaneously with this development, a recommendation was received from the Controller and Auditor-General to the effect that telephone revenue for the month of March, which had previously always been accounted for during April, has to be credited against the month in which it was earned.

Therefore, in compliance with the Controller and Auditor-General’s recommendation, a start is now being made to journalize revenue earned during this March, in this financial year.

This will provide additional revenue of approximately R12 million for the 1971-’72 financial year. Thus—on a non-recurring basis—telephone revenue earned over a period of 13 months, will be accounted for in one financial year.

In this manner, the deficit of R29,5 million is reduced to R17,5 million.

R10 million of this shortage is being financed by an additional Treasury loan, which means that the current financial year is being closed with a deficit of R7,5 million.

Because the Post Office has no reserve fund, this remaining deficit has to be defrayed from floating moneys, comprising, for example, money order and postal order moneys which are in transit. This provides a limited source of funds which can be used temporarily in times of financial stress.

1972-73

I now come to the new financial year. For the next financial year, the operating revenue is estimated at R321 million.

The operating expenditure is estimated at R280,7 million, which includes an amount of R26,8 million for depreciation.

This leaves an excess of revenue over expenditure of R40,3 million.

For capital purposes an amount of R139,8 million is required.

Together with a Treasury loan of R46,5 million, it is proposed to utilize the full excess of revenue over expenditure—R40,3 million—and the amount provided for depreciation—R26,8 million—for this purpose.

This gives a total of R113.6 million, leaving an amount of R26,2 million besides the deficit of R7,5 million with which the 1971-’72 financial year is being closed.

The total shortage of R33,7 million will have to be financed from the other sources recommended by the Franzsen Committee.

Significantly, the latest revenue figures show a rising tendency.

I am hopeful that this will continue— even increase in tempo—and that a portion of the required amount will become available in this way.

Self-financing

The Franzsen Committee’s recommendation in this regard reads—

1. (i) provision for the replacement of assets at historical costs,
2. (ii) additional provision to cover the higher costs that will apply when the assets are actually replaced, and
3. (iii) provision for the possible premature replacement of assets owing to technological developments; and

1. (b) the surplus of revenue over expenditure.

The surplus of the Post Office should also cover the annual redemption payments in respect of outstanding loans.”

The application of this recommendation which accords with acceptable practice in the private sector—especially in respect of depreciation—will create an increasing burden on the operating expenditure side.

Honourable Members will realize that the source from which the Post Office has to meet its operating expenditure, is the revenue it derives from the tariffs it levies.

The effect of redemption and interest liabilities on the tariff structure

Regarding Post Office tariffs in our country, it is a known fact that, in general, South Africa’s tariffs are of the lowest in the world.

In this regard I may mention by way of illustration that—as opposed to our 4c for inland surface letters—the inland letter postage rates in England, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Canada are 4,89c 7,06c 5,96c, 8,65c and 4,49c, respectively.

The rental for an ordinary telephone in our country is R24 a year. The installation charge is R20. Seen from a capital investment viewpoint—spread over the telecommunications system as a whole—it costs us, at ruling prices, approximately R1 000 for each telephone connection.

Earlier this month, the following report appeared in one of our English-language daily newspapers—

Our tariffs are still relatively low and in the long term interests of our country— especially in view of their effect on the national price structure—we desire to keep them as low as possible.

I know there is a school of thought that we must keep tariffs low by making more and more loans; we must increase our own debt and that of the country in order to maintain a false ceiling for our tariffs.

Honourable members will agree with me that there should be a reasonable relation between the costs of our services and their price—the tariff.

The Franzsen Committee found that at the current rate of loans and interest, the Post Office would within a few years have nothing left of its loans for capital investment; its redemption and interest liabilities would exceed its loan.

For the current financial year it is R29 275 000. For the 1975-’76 financial year it would have increased to approximately R51 million.

It is abundantly clear that these liabilities will unavoidably result in the imposition of an unreasonably high tariff structure on posterity—to its detriment and that of our country—unless we remain within reasonable bounds with regard to loans.

It is obvious, therefore, that our tariffs should be realistic and that they should make the proposed contribution to selffinancing.

The effect of large-scale tariff increases

It is undoubtedly the case that general and drastic tariff increases can create serious problems for the country’s economy.

During the Budget debate last year I said that it was our aim not to increase tariffs again tomorrow or the day after.

In fact, we thought and hoped that we would not need to do so for a number of years.

But in the light of the Franzsen Committee’s recommendations regarding self-financing and the contribution the Post Office ought to make from operating profits, the Department will make it its aim to increase tariffs gradually and in easy stages instead of doing so sporadically and on a large scale.

In the present economic climate and in the expectation that the signs of greater economic activity will in a growing measure continue in the new financial year—a development that will have a salutary effect on Post Office earnings—it is not proposed to introduce tariff changes during 1972-73.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister very kindly made copies of his speech available to me and one or two other members on this side. I have it here and am therefore able to quote his exact words. The one chilling sentence, overriding all others and staring the country in the face, is found on page 18, where the hon. the Minister said:

His Estimates, his hopes for the year 1971-’72, were out by more than R30 million— not R30 million up, but R30 million down. This is indeed the latest sorry chapter in the history of the ruinous inheritance, the damnosa hereditas, of the past policies of this Government.

Two points in the speech call for comment, points which are important. The first is the fact that the hon. the Minister has said that he accepts the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee in toto. The second point is that he by implication accepts the recommendations of the United Party in regard to non-White labour in toto too. I shall have to say much more about that in my speech tomorrow; because, as you can imagine, Sir, one would always like to go fully into the fine print of the agreements mentioned in his speech.

I did not say, however, you will note, that we necessarily accept all the recommendations, like the hon. the Minister does, of the Franzsen Committee in toto, because there were certainly certain parts of the hon. the Minister’s speech which indicated that he was accepting a recommendation of the Franzsen Committee that tariffs should, after 1973, gradually be increased to finance his programme. I am not committing myself and my party to that policy of tariff increase. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that last year, on exactly the same occasion, he made a promise in this House. He remembers his promise. Let us first read what he said in his Budget Speech today—

Now let us look at what he actually said last year. After having made the biggest tariff increase, postal increase and telephone increase in the history of the Post Office, a tariff increase which should have brought R50 million into his coffers, he said this on the 24th March, 1971 (Col. 3495)—

That was his word and his promise to the country—no further tariff increases for five years, until 1976. Does he still stand by that promise, in view of what he has told us today?

That is our aim.

We shall certainly tackle the hon. the Minister on that point. Apart from the customary verbiage, also in this particular speech, there are six different points that appear clearly, and all these are gloomy and ominous. The first is the one I have mentioned, that the expected surplus of R1,1 million has now been transformed into a shocking deficit of R29½ million, the biggest in the history of the Post Office. This is the biggest gap there ever has been in Post Office estimates between expectation of income and the expectation of expenditure.

The second ominous fact is that the expected income of the Post Office has failed to come up to expectation by R14,8 million. His high tariff policy has not produced the income he expected. In other words, in so far as one can speak of a point of marginal utility in regard to the price of Post Office services to the public, and in so far as one can speak of it in regard to a monopoly, that point has almost been reached, if it has not already been reached.

The third point emerging from the Budget speech is that expected expenditure for the current year has skyrocketed by R15 million. So, Sir, we have a deficit of R29,5 million for this year, and next year calculated on almost the same basis, it will be more than this—it will be R33,7 million. What a picture of the future! What a picture of the so-called advance in the Post Office!

The fourth point that is revealed in his speech is that his whole plan of trying to raise his capital needs to the tune of 62per cent from ordinary revenue, has completely collapsed. It has failed, as we told him last year it would fail. Indeed, Sir, in November last year, the Postmaster-General also said—

The economy took a dip and we had to cut back the capital expenditure from revenue from 62 per cent to 53 per cent.

The fifth point is that the telephone shortage is as bad as it has always been in the past, despite the figures given by the hon. the Minister. There is a small drop, of course, in the numbers of outstanding applications he has given us, but to what is that drop attributable? Firstly, to the stagnant economy, which is the fault of the Government; secondly, to the higher tariffs and the higher installation fees, which make it impossible for many, such as young couples, to afford a telephone; and, thirdly, to that “sundowner service”, which thousands of people have taken as a substitute for an ordinary service.

I do not wish to continue for much longer, but the sixth and final important point in this Budget speech of the hon. the Minister is that it is now perfectly clear that the Government does not know what the answers are to its problems, except in a few instances, and in so far as it knows those few answers, does not have the ability to carry them out.

Sir, it is customary, in a debate such as this, after the Minister in charge of an Appropriation Bill has spoken, to move an adjournment until a later occasion, so that the Opposition can discuss the contents of the speech and frame the necessary amendment. Before doing so, I want to warn the hon. the Minister that tomorrow during the debate we on this side shall do our very best to whip this lagging Government into some convulsive activity during the last year or two of its period of office. We shall come as the alternative Government of South Africa, with a clear-cut and concise policy for the future of our country. I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the question of the necessity of using the exact words in the marriage ceremony. I believe that the amendment in clause 2, this validation of marriages where the exact words have not been used, or where the exact requirements of the ceremony have not been complied with, is necessary to cover cases where default had occurred innocently. I do feel, however, that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give further consideration to this matter. Perhaps he should refer it to the law advisers to see whether it is not advisable to go back to the 1970 amendment. I believe, as I indicated yesterday during the Second Reading, that his insistence on the use of the ipsissima verba can lead to the possibility of collusion between spouses who no longer wish their marriage to continue and who do not want to go through the formality of divorce proceedings. They will be able to make statements if they so wish, to the effect that they deliberately did not do this or that at the time of the marriage so that they could have the marriage declared null and void if they so wished. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will not undertake to refer this matter back to the law advisers in the light of the experience which he has had over the past year and a half since the Marriage Act was amended, to find out whether he should not introduce an amendment next year in connection with the rigidity of the marriage service requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot actually understand what the hon. member’s problem is. Surely the idea cannot be entertained that, where we have drafted a standard form or a standard formula, it can subsequently be used as an excuse to dissolve a marriage. I cannot see how the spouses themselves can use this excuse in order to dissolve the marriage, because then surely they themselves openly committed fraud. If, after the condonation of an irregularity, one of the parties to the marriage wants to use the irregularity as a reason for having the marriage dissolved, I am almost certain that he or she will not succeed in doing so. If one of the parties were to say that the words in the formula were not used correctly, or that he or she did not say “yes”, then it is probably something for the court to consider, but I cannot see how this can be a ground for a divorce. What we may in fact consider is whether we cannot allow the churches to use their own formulary in addition to this one. This is something one may look into. Approving the churches’ formulary for use instead of the one prescribed in the Act may be considered, but at this particular stage I am not prepared to tell the hon. member that we shall do so. I myself should first like to find out a little more about this. If it should subsequently appear that it is necessary to effect an amendment, we can come back to the House. In the meantime I shall try to find out what we can do and I shall ask the law advisers whether they can give the assurance that this is a problem which cannot arise.

I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his undertaking to consider this matter. I cannot go any further than merely asking him that this should be considered. I realize it is not possible for the hon. the Deputy Minister to give a reply today in connection with this legal problem which may arise as a result of the provisions of the Bill. The point with which the hon. the Deputy Minister did not deal, is the following: Under which circumstances will a person ask for the condonation of an irregularity? Surely the request will come from the parties to the marriage. They are the people who will ask for it. If they do not ask for condonation, and they admit that there was something wrong with the formula, then no one can do anything; then the marriage is void. That is my problem. But I accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot give me an assurance in this regard today. I accept his undertaking that he will consider the matter and may perhaps effect an amendment to the principal Act in the future.

I think that is fair. The hon. member fears that there may be a loophole here which may be misused by people. It is a matter we will have to take into consideration if it should appear that there is such a loophole. We will then have to close that loophole, for otherwise the objects of the Act will be frustrated.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

During the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister to sketch for us the background to the amendment of the definition of “farmer”. Apparently the hon. the Minister misunderstood me, because he gave an explanation under paragraph (a), but it is paragraph (c) I am referring to, and I should now like to know from the hon. the Minister what the reason for the amendment is.

There has apparently been a misunderstanding. The definition of “farmer” is being amended to ensure that it will not be interpreted as relating only to a natural person, but that it can also include a juristic person. That is why provision is being made here for private farming companies. The omission of the words “either exclusively or together with some profession” actually does not alter the position at all. The words were in fact superfluous and are now simply being omitted. The pattern according to which allocations are made, is not being changed by this.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister in charge of this order, Order No. 6, is not in the House? I would suggest that this matter stand over until the Minister can be found. The Minister is not on his job. In the circumstances, I should like to suggest that this item stand over until the Minister can be found. In the meantime we can go on with the next item.

The Minister in charge of the next item, the Minister of Mines, is not here either.

In the circumstances I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Minister is not here and I therefore ask that this matter too stand over. The Minister is trifling with the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

When the debate adjourned yesterday evening I was making one or two general remarks, a few introductory remarks about the hon. member for Houghton, who is not in the House at present. I am very sorry she is not present because I wanted to discuss a few more matters with her. I began by saying that the hon. member for Houghton’s standpoint in connection with these amendments in this Bill are altogether faithful to the fundamental groundwork of her party’s standpoint, but I must also say that it actually forms a contrast with the speech which her leader, Colin Eglin, made, a speech which was included in the work Priorities for the 70s, in which they present the public with a heavily-sugared version of the changes they are seeking in South Africa. I said yesterday evening that with the so-called enlightened thinking of the Progressive Party, they are trying to bluff the general public in the sense that they want to pretend they are the great authorities and interpreters of history here in South Africa. I just want to make this remark and then quote her a passage from a very recent work by an Indian, Bridglal Pachai, The South African Indian Question from 1860 to 1971, in which he said inter alia, the following—

What are you quoting from?

I told you I am quoting from a work by an Indian. He grew up, I think, in the Ladysmith area and he is a professor of History in Malawi, Prof. B. Pachai. The point I want to make is that the hon. member for Houghton comes along and says that enlightened thought in South Africa has always adopted the standpoint that the Indian is a permanent part of South Africa’s population pattern. I want to say that this was not the case. Inter alia, I want to point to the Wragg Commission that was set up in the previous century. If there has ever been a Government in South Africa which is honest and consistent, it is the Government on this side of the House. If the initial policy was repatriation, then we were honest about it, and if it was acceptance then it was acceptance in the light of the principles laid down by this party throughout its history. The Opposition may judge for itself to what extent they have absorbed elements into their party that can run the gauntlet of this Indian writer’s critical thinking.

Yes, they are the “British” party.

What did you say in 1948?

I stated a moment ago what our standpoint is. I must, however, still make this remark in connection with the hon. member for Houghton. I cannot but interpret speeches such as the one she made yesterday evening as being speeches in which she passes the death sentence, not only on the White man in South Africa, but also on all the other population groups living in South Africa—every time I listen to such speeches made by her, I come to that conclusion. The more I listen to her, the less I am able to avoid the conclusion that she is a political Jezebel. The important point in this debate is that the hon. members of the Opposition, the United Party …

There she is now entering the Council Chamber.

I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton was probably tied up with an engagement.

I am very sorry too.

Unfortunately I could not wait for her. I shall perhaps do so later.

In the light of the amendments being introduced in this Act, I want the hon. members of the Opposition—I think it will be the hon. member for Port Natal who will be the next to speak—fundamentally, scientifically and meaningfully to state why they think that in principle they can vote for these amendments and why they think the hon. member for Houghton is wrong by not voting for them. They owe it to the South African electorate.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Zululand. I listened attentively to his speech. I think it was well prepared. There was a great deal of substance in his arguments. I think he laid a firmer foundation for the United Party than the speakers they pushed into a similar debate in 1968. However, there are a few aspects I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to. In connection with the first of these I want to quote the following from his speech yesterday evening. I quote from page GG 4 of the Hansard version of the speech he made on 21st March. There he expressed himself as follows about clause 2—

What he subsequently said is important. I quote further—

I am no authority on constitutional law or public administration, neither do I try to pretend that I am, but in the light of the knowledge I have about this, and in the light of what I have tried to read up about it, there are certain observations I want to make about this. Parliament is surely the seat of authority, a place with a certain composition and with specific functions. Inter alia Parliament passes legislation for the handling of particular situations. In terms of an Act certain powers can be given to a Minister. Inter alia regulations can be issued, because an Act can never cover every detail.

But no one disputes that.

I am now building up an argument for the hon. member for Mooi River, if he wishes to listen carefully and not be swept downstream. These regulations are then published in the Gazette and be read by hon. members. A member then has the right to raise the consequences involved in this House and this can then be discussed thoroughly. Secondly, the Governor-General, now the State President, could previously, in terms of the South Africa Act exercise the power of issuing proclamations, as we have here in the new section 1 (a). Surely the place, content, history and use of proclamations ought not to be unfamiliar to the hon. members for Zululand, Mooi River and Port Natal, because they are actually members of the English history tradition in which the use and origins of proclamations have surely had an exceptional history. This ought to be clearer to them than it is to me …

Before the rinderpest.

The hon. member for Mooi River must listen to the argument for once. Those hon. members ought to know this better than I, who come “from the farm”. Those hon. members ought to know the constitutional history of England better than I do because, after all, these proclamations have their origin with the King and in 1961 they did vote for the Queen. The origins do lie with the King or Queen of England, who made certain laws by means of proclamation. But they ought to know that those far-reaching effects of this old practice were watered down by the growth of the parliamentary system. In addition, those hon. members ought to realize that the parliamentary system did not reject this holus-bolus, but realized its possibilities and that it was tempered into something that became a useful instrument in the hands of a good and responsible government, such as that of the National Party. In addition hon. members ought to know that it was specifically Great Britain which, particularly by way of proclamations, governed its Commonwealth of Nations and South Africa in particular. Therefore they ought to know as well that it was specifically the United Party which used proclamations issued by the Governor-General in a large variety of the laws they themselves made. I now find it interesting that specifically those members are objecting so strongly to this. I now quietly ask myself whether the hon. members are not afraid because they did not want to trust themselves with that, having perhaps done something wrong themselves and now thinking in their heart of hearts that the National Party will abuse that instrument in this method of government, which is a normal and natural way of doing things. I want to quote from what the hon. member for Zululand said. I know him to be someone who tries to give matters thorough consideration. He said: “A proclamation which is not even to be laid on the Table of the House for discussion as is the proclamation referred to later in the Bill in clause 10 (a).” I now want to ask the hon. member for Zululand if he is really convinced deep down that the standpoint he adopted yesterday is in fact an altogether correct one. He is a legal man; I am not. He is probably also versed in law. Is he absolutely certain that the proclamations mentioned in this measure may not be discussed in this House. My personal feeling, after having viewed this matter, is that this will, in fact, be possible and that the hon. member miscalculated when he made that statement. I did not discuss this relevant matter with the hon. the Minister. There was no opportunity to do so. I should like the hon. the Minister, with his superior knowledge, to interpret this for us. The proposed insertion of section 1A in the principal Act, however, also brings many other interesting considerations to the fore. On the one hand the hon. members of the Opposition are objecting to the introduction of proclamations, but on the other hand they request the Government—and state it very urgently in their arguments—please to make rapid progress so that this council will eventually consist fully of elected members. It seems to me they are contradicting themselves slightly. While our side of the House, in the light of history, in the light of the South African situation, wants to handle this matter so that, on the one hand, we give the Indian community what they ought to have, on the other hand ensuring that there is no disturbance in our community, they are specifically the people who, by objecting to the proclamation, are preventing us from carrying out our normal obligations. We do want to move as far as the Indian community is concerned, but we do not want to do so in such a way that we allow problems to develop in South Africa. Just allow me to tell the hon. member for Houghton that even though it may not always appear so to her, the National Party and its members are people who are sensitive to the rights and privileges of people. I want to tell her that if there is a population group in South Africa which partially obtained its freedom through hardship and difficult days, and whose freedom is probably more threatened than the freedom of any other population group in the world, it is the group represented by the National Party. I can also tell her that in our discussions with the Indian community we are perhaps also much more geniune and sincere than many—I do not want to include her— of the so-called “enlightened intellectuals” that revolve around her. Here I just want to remark that what we in South Africa need is not “enlightened intellectuals”, but more intelligent people.

Actions speak louder than words.

What is of further importance is that this proclamation has been introduced after consultation with this Indian Council. This is very important and I also want to put it to the hon. members of the Opposition that, owing to the situation that history or circumstances have placed us in, in what we are doing for these people we want to join them in insuring their development, growth, security and peace in their own community. That is why we have inscribed so very clearly in this legislation that we are doing this after consultation with these people. I should like the hon. member for Port Natal to tell me how they want to consult with the Indians, because I gain the impression that they only want to do certain things and then by a certain “token representation” tell the general public that they did liaise with them. I should very much like to know that. In other words, we do in fact want to act here only after consultation with these people. Incidentally, allow me to say that the hon. members of the Opposition frequently speak, I almost want to say disparagingly of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. That side of the House very frequently levels the accusation that it is simply a matter of his being very disinterested in the Indian community and the Indian Council. This hon. Minister handles sporting matters, Indian Affairs and tourism. I find it interesting that when some or other English newspaper drew up a cabinet for that side of the House, that newspaper simply appointed three Ministers to handle this hon. Minister’s portfolios. As far as I am concerned this legislation embodies the fact that the Minister and his department, and ourselves as members of the National Party, really want to talk to the Indian community. The hon. members of the Opposition had many objections because this council is not immediately going to consist solely of elected members. When I read their 1968 speeches, an interesting fact was that I actually had to look, reading between the lines, to find out where the people felt so strongly at the time about this matter that the members should now suddenly be elected. I read the speeches of the hon. members for South Coast and Durban North, but I could find no indication there. It seems to me as if they want to fit the National Party’s policy into their whole race federation plan. If the United Party agrees with us to such an extent that they also accept these amendments in principle, and are in favour of us making rapid strides —the hon. member for Durban Point said in a 1968 debate that the United Party had already been thinking along those lines 14 years previously, i.e. in 1954—I am amazed they do not have more appreciation for those members of the Indian Council who were appointed by the hon. the Minister. They must have more appreciation for those members for the work they did and the dedication with which they did it, if that is, according to them, the direction in which we must move. If the hon. members agree with the principle contained in this Bill, why do they not trust the National Party as a good Government, and why do they not accept the fact that we are responsible people who can handle the matter?

I also want to make a few general remarks about what the hon. member for Mooi River said. He raised, inter alia, the following few matters. He said:

In addition he made the following remark :

Ourselves apparently—

My problem with the arguments of the hon. members of the Opposition is that they make use of a terminology, of random snatches from human history that are either foreign to the South African situation or very wrongly used here. The hon. member for Mooi River speaks here of the French Revolution, but I cannot see why he, as a responsible member who would like to converse with the “moderates” in the community, latches on to the events of the French Revolution, particularly when we look at the atmosphere in which the French Revolution developed and the consequences it had. I want to tell the hon. member that in viewing the United Party’s history I can never really see what their standpoint was in respect of leftist groups that developed in the Indian community. If, in the language of the hon. member for Mooi River, one is then a “moderate”, and if one wants to involve the normal people in one’s community, I cannot see that one can do it any way other than the way the National Party wants to do it. When the National Party makes its choice of the people it designates to serve on this council, it specifically chooses the really moderate and responsible people in the Indian community. The National Party then tells them :“Gentlemen, we must handle the situation in South Africa. We want to do so as moderate and normal people because the majority sent us here and we specifically want to co-operate with them because you represent that particular element in your community.”

What is the ultimate destination?

It is a very interesting question the hon. member is asking. He asks what ultimate destination of these people is. I now want to tell the hon. member—and I am being very honest when I say this—that in many of the fields in which one works one cannot see the ultimate destination, because what the ultimate end will be is a “hypothetical” question. What I can tell the hon. member is that the fundamentals of our reasoning are that we recognize the diversity of peoples living in South Africa. The attitude with which one implements one’s policy is the attitude of the normal, the natural and the good in every member of those groups. The end of it all one can never see, because even the Caucasians cannot see that far. Then one knows that the road one is travelling will be a road that will normally give satisfaction, prosperity and security to the majority of people in those groups. This is to a certain extent in contrast to the United Party’s policy and in absolute contrast to that of the hon. member for Houghton. If one wants to judge the amendment of these Acts one must particularly do so in the light of the basic aspect. With that I want to conclude, because I know, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday evening you were particularly strict about the rule that members must confine themselves to the Bill. But I just want to quote you the National Party’s point of departure. In 1962 Dr. Verwoerd very clearly stated (Hansard, col. 95):

In just these few short sentences all the principle elements of this Bill were summed up by Dr. Verwoerd, and that as far back as 1962. But let us just briefly contrast with that the Opposition’s point of departure, the fundamental basis according to which they want to attack these amendments. I just refer them once more to their constitution, to the point of departure in the top paragraph, according to which they want to deal with the population questions of South Africa for the sake of racial peace. They refer to the Bantu, to the Coloured people and to the Indians, but without determining any real basis. I also want to refer to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who in his work simply writes off the Asiatic group as a minority that one need not really discuss.

With that I have made my speech. I want to say that the amendments in this Bill are faithful to the principles of the National Party and are aimed at ensuring peace and prosperity in South Africa, for the benefit of the Indian community as well.

Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member who has just sat down, that I always listen to him with a great deal of interest and a good deal of respect; because I respect his views, which are generally put to this House in a well considered manner. But today I must say that he surprised me somewhat by trying to present an argument which was so illogical. If the hon. member has any basis for the principles he stated here this afternoon, that of separate development for the Indian group, I would say to him that he has no moral foundation for it unless he can offer them a homeland as well. Until he can do so, there is no moral justification for the stand that he takes. However, I accept the hon. member’s sincerity. All I do is to question his ability to understand the position and to think it through to its logical conclusion. He also dealt with proclamations. Other members on this side of the House will respond to that particular point.

He asked me, in particular, to explain how, according to our principles we could support this Bill while at the same time criticizing the hon. member for Houghton for opposing the measure. I will deal with that very shortly. Before I do so, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it surprises me … I should like to have his attention for a moment; he is not often with us. Sir, the hon. the Minister does surprise me. I think this is the first Bill he has introduced in the House for some while. When he is in the House he continually interjects in regard to other Ministers’ Bills, but when he has one of his own he is not even in the House to see it presented.

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

Sir, I should like to return to the Bill and, in doing so, I should first of all like to say that I was particularly disappointed with the hon. member for Houghton’s attitude to this legislation. It disappointed and surprised me that she should have decided that she could not support this amending Bill. I must confess that I, too, had serious doubts when I first read the Bill, but the decision I had to come to, and most of us had to come to, was: What is the criterion of the Bill? As I see it, the criterion of this Bill is to bring a benefit to the Indian community. In that respect, it is certainly a step forward. I am surprised that the hon. member for Houghton did not see it in this light. It certainly is a step forward. The improvement may be very slight and in that respect I would agree with the hon. member for Houghton, but let us face the facts. Over the years there has been little enough improvement in the lot of the Indian community. I know, probably as well as anybody, the problems they face, the day-to-day problems in respect of housing, proclamations, reproclamations, and problems under the Group Areas Act. As much as I would like to see this Bill go a great deal further than it does, I find myself, and my colleagues find themselves, in the position that we have no alternative but to support it, because it is nevertheless, despite our criticisms, an improvement on the existing legislation. The hon. member for Houghton’s attitude is particularly strange. It is tantamount to saying: “Since I cannot let you have the whole loaf, I do not think you should even have a slice of the bread.”

It is not even a slice; it is a crumb.

This Bill clearly states that the Indian community, through the new council, is going to have some say, although not enough, in certain matters which they did not have before. I think the hon. member for Houghton’s attitude is particularly strange in this regard. For instance, one of the powers they will have is in connection with community welfare. There is probably nothing which has affected the Indian community to a greater extent than community problems and community welfare. I am particularly pleased to see that at long last they are going to have some voice in this respect. The hon. member for Houghton, I know, will agree with me that their problems in regard to housing, their amenities generally, group area enactments and social welfare have hit the Indian community particularly severely for many years.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton agrees. Surely, then, this Bill deserves support, because it is giving to the Indian community some say in these very aspects, and for this reason I think her attitude was strange. For the hon. member for Rissik’s information this is to my knowledge the first time since 1946 that something positive is being done for the Indian community in South Africa. It is the first time since 1946 that they will be given an opportunity to have their voices heard in matters that vitally affect them. They will now have a voice—this was ignored by he hon. member for Houghton—in matters such as the 38 000 families moved under the Group Areas Act. They will now be able to say what they wish to say without any fear of being intimidated or victimized, because they now have the right to free expression of opinion in regard to these matters. Surely the hon. member for Houghton must be big enough to admit that her attitude to this Bill was wrong. If she is prepared to allow things to go on as they have been over the past years, and if she is prepared to say to the Indian community that she cannot see them having any voice at all in matters such as their community welfare, I think she has nothing to be proud of, and I want to say that I personally am surprised, knowing her attitude in regard to matters of this nature in the past. Not only am I surprised, but indeed very disappointed, knowing what her attitude is.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort again spoke of the 1946 Act. In fact, he made the same speech as he made in 1968. All he needed to do was to have it photostated and Tabled, and it would have meant the same thing.

That is quite wrong.

It is true, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort says, that the 1946 Act did offer more, much more, than we are offering today, in fact than the Government is offering. If I were to say that that is not so, obviously it would not be true. I admit that it is so. But what the hon. member did not say was that the 1946 Act was rejected by the then leaders of the Indian community. They rejected the Act of 1946 because their attitude then was that they wanted all or nothing.

Yes, that is so.

The hon. member agrees. They felt then that they wanted all or nothing. This brings me back to the hon. member for Houghton. The Indians in 1946 wanted all or nothing and decided to take nothing instead. The hon. member for Houghton today says that she wants all or nothing, and she prefers to take nothing instead. I have spoken to a great many of the past leaders of the Indian community in regard to their attitude in 1946, and I can assure you, Sir, that they admit today that that attitude was wrong. If given the choice and if they could turn back the clock, they would now accept the 1946 Act. If they had done so then, how much less would the problems of the Indian community have been than they are today. The hon. member for Koedoespoort also omitted to say that not only did the Indians reject the 1946 Act because they wanted all or nothing, like the hon. member for Houghton does in 1972, but that in 1949 the Nationalist Government of the day rescinded the franchise proposals in the 1946 Act. I am particularly dealing with the 1946 Act in regard to franchise because this Bill deals with franchise. The other aspects I shall ignore. In 1949 the Government rescinded the 1946 Act franchise proposals. Then, of course, it scrapped the Act entirely in 1951. I do not think that the hon. member for Koedoespoort can refer to the 1946 Act with any degree of pride. He should rather refer to it with a good deal of shame.

You cannot refer to it with pride.

I should now like to turn briefly to the hon. member for Newcastle. He deserves no more than a brief reference because his knowledge of the Indian community, I must confess, and sadly so, is very limited indeed. He has a large Indian community in his constituency and one with a great many problems at the present time because of developments in the Newcastle areas. It is very sad that he cannot even agree with his own M.P.C. in the Newcastle area with regard to the treatment of the Indians. I hope that when we discuss this particular group …

Are you referring to the stinking Prog stories?

Order!

It seems to me you poke your nose into everything.

Sir, in dealing with groups such as the Indians and Coloureds, I am not concerned with anybody’s stories; I am only interested in their particular plight, and I say to that hon. member that he is not in the least interested in the plight of the Indians in Newcastle. Be that as it may, I do not want to waste time …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I have no time to answer questions from an hon. member who knows nothing about this particular problem. I would like now to turn back to the hon. the Minister, since this is his Bill, and refer to a remark which he made in his Second Reading speech, in which he said that the Indian community had made great strides over the past 10 years. I want to say to him that I agree with him entirely. The Indian community has made great strides indeed, but I would also like to say to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs: No thanks to the Government whatsoever. The strides which the Indian community have made, they have made entirely on their own, despite all the difficulties that have been placed in their way. I see behind the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Planning looking at me in a particular manner, and I want to say to the Minister of Planning, too, that it is only in the last 18 months that I personally have seen a better attitude on the part of Government departments to the problems of the Indians.

There is no question about it, Sir; the Indian community has been shamefully treated over many, many years. I am not going to say that they have only been shamefully treated by this Government; they have been shamefully treated by previous Governments in the past as well. I make no excuse for that; this is in fact history. This particular group was shamefully treated even before Union, but to their everlasting credit they have continued to make progress; their self-help has been remarkable and, as I said before, they owe no thanks to the Government for the progress they have made. Sir. I do not want to refer to the history of the Indian franchise in South Africa over the last 100 years, but I would like to remind the House and the Minister, who had so much praise for the Government’s actions in regard to the Indians, that 100 years back the Indians had a great deal more franchise rights than they enjoy today; they enjoyed more franchise rights than are being offered to them today.

I mention this merely because this Bill deals with franchise rights. I do not wish to detail these rights, but I hope hon. members will study this Bill and history and see just what in fact this Bill is offering the Indians. This is only the second occasion in 100 years, to my knowledge, in which an improvement is being offered to them as far as their franchise rights are concerned. Sir, the Minister is on record as saying that he would give them a fully elected council the moment they asked for it. I have not got the reference here, but the hon. the Minister said that he would grant them a fully elected council the moment they approached him and asked him for an elected council, as I remember it. The Indian Council have now asked for an elected council, and it is for that reason that the hon. the Minister has presented this Bill, but, strange to relate, nowhere in this Bill does he say how many members of the council are going to be elected. This, to my mind, is a most strange thing. The Bill certainly makes provision for elected members of the council; that is quite clear, but for the life of me I cannot understand why the Minister does not say that there will be five, 10 or 25 elected members. Nowhere in the Bill does he say what the number will be. Surely the number should have been stated in this Bill?

Order! That point has been adequately made.

I submit that this is probably the most important part of the Bill.

: Yes, but the argument has been made repeatedly and very adequately.

Can I suggest then that the Minister owes this House a detailed explanation as to why it is so. This faltering, nervous step towards a democratic elected Indian Council is certainly to be welcomed, as I said before, but I would like to remind the Minister that the Indian Council will have no strength whatsoever until it is a fully elected council. We may pass all the plaudits we wish on the activities of individual members of the council and of the council generally, but until that council is a fully elected council it will not earn the respect and get its due from the Indian community.

What about the Coloured Council?

I am not dealing with the Coloured Council, but I would say exactly the same thing applies.

Order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by interjections.

The hon. the Minister knows that if he wants an effective council it must be a fully elected council and I would appeal to him to ensure that this council be fully elected as soon as possible. We welcome the Bill because it heralds a new era in Indian affairs in South Africa, but for democracy to work, as I said just now, the people must have a choice of their representatives.

There is a clause in this Bill which gives me some concern. It is portion of clause 6 (h), which says that a member of the council may be dismissed for being guilty of conduct which in the opinion of the Minister after consultation with the council makes that person not a fit and proper person to be a member of the council. Well, obviously under certain conditions a person should be expelled, as happens in this House too, but I would like to see that those conditions are clearly defined in this Bill; because I would like to warn the hon. the Minister that should he choose, for perhaps some very good reason, to dismiss a member of the Indian Council, and that reason is not clearly stated in the legislation, and that member happens to be an elected member of the council, one can foresee the difficulties which will arise with the people who sent him there to hold that office.

So I would say to the hon. the Minister that for the sake of the strength and the safety of this council, if he does not want to see the council completely destroyed, he must clearly define every single ground on which, and every step he can take to dismiss a member of that council, particularly if he is an elected member. It does not really matter if he is a nominated member, because the Indian electorate would no more tolerate him dismissing a member whom they elected except on clearly stated grounds, than would any member of the White electorate do so. I think this is one point which must certainly be cleared up during the course of this Bill. I would like a detailed explanation here as well from the hon. the Minister.

The Indian council has set out certain things that they would like the Minister to consider in regard to the new council and he has set these out in the Press statement of 20th January of this year. These included certain items which rightly fall under the definition of community welfare. I hope that these things which are set out in the Minister’s Press statement of 20th January will be included in this definition of community welfare. That deals with the trading difficulties of the Indian traders. Another item deals with free trading areas and the encouragement to Indian traders to resettle themselves and the question of alternative accommodation. This appears in the Minister’s own memorandum, and I would like to know from him whether he believes that community welfare does not also fall within those headings which appear in his memorandum. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes that community welfare includes the provision of provincial travel permits. This is nowhere mentioned in the Bill and yet it is probably one of the greatest bones of contention among the Indian community. I am surprised that it is not mentioned, but I take it to mean that under community welfare he would be able to include this as well. I do not believe that he can just choose to ignore this particular aspect.

In conclusion I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that the socio-economic upliftment of the Indian community is all very good—it is something which is essential—but it is absolutely worthless in legislation unless it is accompanied by political rights. In terms of the Bill the Indians will receive political rights. We do not know to what extent. However, we welcome the Bill because it is a move in the right direction and I personally hope that it is a move too, away from the prejudices which we still have in the late half of this century which is nothing more than a carryover from the past.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot neglect to congratulate the hon. member for Port Natal on a portion of his speech. I almost felt like just leaving it to him to plead the National Party’s cause, because he even went so far as to attack the hon. member for Houghton because she did not support these amendments.

The United Party’s actual objection, as far as I can see it, really boils down to a few points: that considerably more executive powers are not being given to the council; that the council is not totally an elected council; the fact that certain matters will be regulated by means of proclamation by the State President; and that the Minister does not give a more detailed explanation of what is to happen in the future. I would actually not be able to blame them if I could accept that these are people who do not know the circumstances in this country. However, in the amendment of this Act we must take into consideration the circumstances in the country. We must identify the circumstances of the Indian group in South Africa with the Amendment Bill now before the House. We must look at the position of the Indians on the continent of Africa and compare this with their position in Southern Africa.

He will not speak about that.

We must take into consideration the fact that since 1961 the Indian population has been accepted as a South African population group. What is more, that Indian population group has itself accepted this. That Indian population group in South Africa is absolutely not in favour of integration. They fully support the separate development of their group as such, as the White population group of South Africa also does. If we examine those few points we can better understand the amendments we want to introduce to the Act and we can also better understand why it is like this and not as the United Party wants it.

In passing I just want to say—I see the hon. member for Houghton is on the point of leaving; I am sorry that I did not get to her sooner, but I did not know that she wanted to leave the Council Chamber—that the hon. member for Port Natal found fault with the hon. member for Houghton. I can also understand this, because the hon. member for Port Natal and the United Party regard the hon. member for Houghton with jealousy. If one goes back in history to the Indian legislation of 1946, it will be found that the United Party’s policy of that period is the present-day policy of the Progressive Party and the hon. member for Houghton.

That is correct.

That is actually why the hon. member for Port Natal is so annoyed about the matter, because that policy was their policy of integration, of representation in this House …

It is still their policy !

It is today the policy of the Progressive Party. They took over that policy. The Opposition no longer has the policy it had in those days, and that is why the hon. member for Port Natal and the United Party are jealous of having lost that policy of theirs and of the fact that the present-day Progressive Party has taken it over. Before the hon. member leaves us, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that she must remember one thing, i.e. that her party advocates integration and that her view of the future is that her descendants must merge with the Indian population, but the Progressive Party does not take into consideration that the Indian population is not prepared to integrate with the Whites and the hon. member for Houghton. They do not support integration and want to remain a pure group on their own. We must live with the existing circumstances. The United Party is in a tremendous hurry and they now want the Minister or the Government to determine the future existence of that elected council. Specifically because the Government co-operates with these people—that is what is very important and the hon. member for Rissik also mentioned it—these words are used each time in this legislation: “after consultation with the Indian Council”. In other words, the Government and that Indian Council are on a friendly footing and they reason matters out and consult each other. That is why it is better for us not to lay down a fixed policy now or make provisions in connection with that Indian Council with a view to the distant future. This is unnecessary and actually ridiculous when one can co-operate well with people, when one can consult with them, to decide what must be done. Quite a few of the executive powers this council is going to have and to implement, have already been determined. Why, then, already decide today that in the future it is going to be done this way or that way? It is surely ridiculous, and adults do not argue in that way. When one is on a good footing with a certain population group one can reason these things out from time to time. The hon. member for Zululand’s argument that with these proclamations the United Party does not have a chance to discuss them, is surely nonsense. That Minister surely has a Vote that is discussed by the House each year. When proclamations are issued and agreements concluded with that Indian Council, the United Party surely has the fullest opportunity to discuss what has taken place, to point out mistakes and to say what they think about that. I think there was also an insinuation—I do not know whether it was stated—that the Minister and the Government are also allocating too many powers and that after that consultation they can refuse to do certain things. The United Party must now remember that it is specifically the policy of the National Party and this Government to let those people develop individually and independently. Therefore, when they come along with concrete requests, acceptable to the party, they will not be refused. Neither will it be wrong at all if this council comes along with proposals not acceptable to the Government, because this Government has its policy and is not ashamed of it, and we stand by our convictions. I cannot see anything wrong in that. I think these amendments before us are an asset to South Africa, that they are definitely an asset to the Indian Council and that it is the object of this Government, after all, to let them develop in the course of time, by consultation, as they are able to do so. They can develop fully and independently, and all the possible rights they can manage will certainly be granted to them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mayfair almost frightened me when he rose to his feet and began to tell us how well the hon. member for Port Natal had stated the policy of the National Party. I hope he does not want to follow the example set by his M.P.C.

The hon. member for Rissik had a few words to say here about the repatriation policy of the National Party. It is very interesting and we would like to know from the hon. member what became of this repatriation policy of the National Party. What I find even stranger and what astonishes me more all the time is what the hon. the Minister said yesterday afternoon in his Second Reading speech. When he concluded, he said—

In view of this I want to know from the hon. the Minister how it is that the hon. member for Rissik can say that this legislation is a purposeful part of the course adopted by the National Party? For how long has the National Party been pursuing this course? Since 1961? This is, after all, a party which has been in power for such a long time in South Africa.

The hon. member for Rissik also attacked us in regard to the question of proclamations. I see the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is in the House. I think the hon. the Minister should consult with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and submit to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs his legislation on the Coloured Persons Council so that the hon. the Minister could possibly follow an example and come to this House and make it clear to us what his aim is with this Indian Council. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs told us what he envisaged, and we were able to discuss the matter in detail. We could see what the hon. the Minister’s aims were. But with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs we simply have to guess what is going on in the back of his mind about the future of the Indians.

The hon. member for Rissik said that the end of the road for the Indians in terms of Government policy was a hypothetical question. I know that the hon. member for Rissik and those who think as he does, the hon. members for Waterberg and Sunnyside, are homeland people. If it depended upon them they would steer the Coloureds and the Indians in the direction of a homeland.

The original institution of the Indian Council was, in the words of the hon. the Minister, a nominated, administrative-consultative body with 21 members, appointed by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. The then Minister told us, and this hon. Minister repeated and confirmed it in 1968, that the National Indian Council was only an interim measure in order to establish the ultimate pattern of representation. The ad hoc committee of February, 1967 recommended to the hon. the Minister that this Council should be a representative council, in other words, an elected body of the Indian community. But the only development has been more rights by way of proclamation under this hon. Minister. We can only continue to hope that this hon. Minister will allow more people to be elected to this Indian Council than he appoints. The original legislation established the framework and one would have expected that four years, from 1968 to the present, would have been sufficient time for the hon. the Minister to complete his consultation and to give substance to this framework by means of positive steps. But what do we find? We find that this hon. Minister is merely requesting rights for further consultation in order to supplement then the framework of this body by way of proclamation—his opinion, and not the opinion of this Council. The question of elected members as against members appointed by this hon. Minister is a matter of the utmost importance. Here we are dealing with a population group, the Indian community of South Africa, which certainly has at least the standard of civilization and the standard of responsibility of the South African Coloured community or the Coloured population. Nevertheless we find with this legislation that there is still a backlog in regard to the constitutional development of the Indians compared to that of the Coloured persons of South Africa. Why cannot this body become a full-fledged elected body? Why does this hon. Minister want to hold even further consultations now? Why does he not take an example from the Coloured Persons Council, where they are absolutely frustrated because they do not have the right to elect their own representatives, but where the majority are appointed by the Government? The Indian community has surely reached a much higher level of civilization than the Coloured community in South Africa, and the hon. the Minister is still retarding the development of these people. Are these people, in terms of the opinion of the hon. the Minister, not responsible enough? Are they not yet equal to the task? The hon. the Minister accepts only that this council may develop into a partially elected body. I want to quote the hon. the Minister’s words which he used in his Second Reading speech. He said the following—

That is quite correct.

I do not dispute the sentiments expressed by the hon. the Minister, but can the hon. the Minister tell us why this body cannot be a fully elected body? The hon. the Minister is so sensitive about the expression “Government stooges” that he referred to it in his Second Reading speech. He is also very sensitive about the words “hand-picked men”, which the hon. member for Mooi River used. After all, the Minister is the man who appoints these people, and he is the man who selects these people. If an idea along these lines were to develop among the general public and particularly the Indian community in South Africa, the hon. the Minister would have only himself to blame. He has only himself to blame, because he is not giving the Indians in South Africa the right to elect their own people. Nevertheless we can congratulate the hon. the Minister because he accepts the principle of an elected body, even if it is only in part. As the hon. member for Zululand indicated, fewer powers have been allotted to this Council than, for example, to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. There is however, one very very interesting measure contained in this Amendment Bill in respect of which the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs could perhaps take his cue from the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. This is in respect of clause 7 of this Amendment Bill …

Order! That is not under discussion now. We are dealing with this Bill and not with the Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to clause 7 of this amendment Bill …

Yes, I know, but the hon. member must confine his ideas to this Bill.

Clause 7 of this Bill is intended, inter alia, to amend section 10 (2) (b) of the principal Act, and I want to quote it to hon. members. Clause 7 begins with the words—

by, inter alia, I quote from section 10 (2) (b) which is amended by clause 7 (a)—

We must at least congratulate the hon. the Minister on this, because I do not think anything like this is possible in the Coloured Persons Representative Council. In the Coloured Persons Representative Council it is not possible for an elected member of the executive committee to be removed from office by a two-thirds majority of the members if they think he has not done his work thoroughly. Another matter which I should like to raise with the Minister in principle, so that we can discuss it to better advantage in the Committee Stage, relates to clause 4 of this amendment Bill. Clause 4 provides that a new section 3 be substituted for section 3 of the principal Act. I am referring specifically to the new section 3 which is being inserted by clause 4. Clause 4 provides, inter alia—

1. 3. No person shall be appointed or be capable of being elected as a member of the Council …
   1. (c) if he holds an office of profit in the service of the State.

My problem here is specifically in respect of the Indian teacher, if I may mention an example. What arrangements could be made so that a person may stand as candidate for this body if he were, for example, a teacher in the employ of the Department of Indian Affairs? For the Whites and the Coloureds specific exceptions, exemptions and concessions are made in this respect. Possibly the hon. the Minister can throw further light on this matter.

The principle contained in this South African Indian Council Amendment Bill, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs in his Second Reading speech yesterday afternoon in this House, is the so-called orderly continuation of separate development. Sir, this is a further theoretical separation between the Whites and the Indians as far as the constitutional development of the South African set-up is concerned. This amending Bill elaborates further on the development, as I see it, of an Indian Parliament parallel to or separate from this hon. House. During the course of this debate members on the opposite side once again rejected with the greatest measure of disapproval representation of the South African Indian community in this House.

The only link between this hon. House and the South African Indian Council is the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. Once again it is apparent that this hon. Minister, in the same way as the hon. Ministers of Coloured Affairs and of Bantu Administration and Development are doing, is trying to appropriate for himself the greatest possible measure of authority in respect of, in this case, the Indian Council, in order to ensure that the control and authority of this hon. House is exercised to the least possible extent over the South African Indian Council and that he is then able, all on his own, to hold consultations and allot to these people their rights. For that precise reason we on this side of the House want to know from the hon. the Minister what his objectives are. What are his ideas? What was his idea when he came to this House with this Bill? I am referring to clause 8 of this Bill, which amends the principal Act by the insertion of clause 10A. This deals with certain powers which may be delegated to the executive committee of the South African Indian Council. I just want to quote this—

Subsection (2) (c) of the proposed section 10A then reads—

What are these “other matters” which the hon. the Minister has in mind? Probably, when the hon. the Minister came to this House with this Bill, he perhaps had certain proclamations on his desk which he wanted to have promulgated, there must have been certain ideas milling around in his head. He must have thought that he needed this legislation because he wanted to have certain proclamations promulgated. Now the hon. the Minister must tell us what he has in mind when he speaks of “other matters”. These “other matters” can mean anything. If this Indian Council could possibly develop into an Indian Parliament, which would then be the highest authority—because hon. members on the opposite side deny the Indians representation in this House—it is the right of this House and the general public to know where this Government wants to take the Indian community of South Africa in the constitutional sphere. Will this South African Indian Council develop into a third Parliament within the geographic area of South Africa? Will there eventually be a White Parliament, the Coloured Parliament and thirdly, then, the Indian Parliament? This hon. House cannot for all time remain the supreme authority in South Africa, with the Coloured and Indian Parliaments subordinate, to it. Even if the Minister of Indian Affairs is maintaining liaison with these people, this cannot surely be the case ad infinitum. If we are going to have these three bodies in South Africa, I think that somewhere at the top there will have to be a central supreme authority, possibly a central Parliament, through which liaison between the White Parliament and the Indian and Coloured Parliaments respectively will be necessary. Hon. members on the opposite side kicked up a great fuss about why we on this side of the House criticize, yet support, this legislation. This amendment Bill is a step in the right direction as far as the approach of the United Party is concerned. While we on this side of the House determine the direction and accept the goal for which we regard this legislation as essential, hon. members on the opposite side support this legislation without knowing where this legislation is going to lead them. They simply say that this is the right step towards the implementation of separate development. What is the implementation of separate development in terms of this Amendment Bill for the South African Indian community? Does it indicate a future homeland? Does it indicate a future Indian Parliament in South Africa? Does it indicate a body for South African Indians with more rights, or at least the same rights as this hon. House? Are these parallel, equal rights? There is also doubt and speculation among some intellectuals in this regard. The hon. member for Rissik prefers to talk about intelligent people. I want to quote two people, and I hope they will conform to the intelligence Qualifications set by the hon. member for Rissik. These are people exchanging ideas on the future South African constitutional set-up. The remarks of two very well-known Nationalists in particular are interesting. I want to quote them this afternoon. The one is Mr. Dawid de Villiers. These days the National Party is no longer so fond of Mr. “Lang Dawid” de Villiers, but he is still a Nationalist, and he is still working for their Press group.

I quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 19th July, 1971:

There is another very interesting observation, made by Prof. Nick Rhoodie. The hon. the Prime Minister said the other day that he is not a leading Nationalist, but as far as I am concerned, he is still a Nationalist, unless they have kicked him out. Perhaps the hon. member for Rissik will say he is intelligent. Prof. Rhoodie said the following:

The report from which I am quoting, continues:

The report then went on to say:

Prof. Rhoodie says:

Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs will reject this idea. The report continues:

This is what Prof. Rhoodie said, and the hon. member for Pretoria Central can tell us whether they still accept him as a Nationalist. The report continued:

Mr. Speaker, I want to …

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill now; he has quoted enough. We do not want to hear the entire speech.

Sir, I should just like to complete this quotation.

No, the hon. member has quoted enough now. He must return to the Bill.

Sir, I accept your ruling. These people are speculating over where this hon. Minister wants to go with this legislation. Why do we on this side of the House support this legislation? It is simply because the principle contained herein, as we read the legislation, fits in with our idea of an Indian Communal Council which will control, administer and govern matters affecting the Indian community personally and intimately. We foresee that the Indian community will have its say in regard to national matters within the framework of a federal, central parliament. That is why we are not objecting to the handing over of matters as summarized in this Bill, matters such as education and community welfare.

But, Sir, we do in fact object inter alia to the vagueness in regard to the allocation of other matters which are not described in this legislation, but which will be determined by the hon. the Minister and will then be allocated by way of proclamation, which will merely be proclaimed here in this House. In other words, we object to the method of liaison between this hon. House and the Indian Council, as this legislation provides. In terms of our policy the Indian Council, or as we prefer to call it, the Indian Communal Council, will have its liaison with this hon. House through, in the first place, representation of the Indian community in this House, as the highest authority in South Africa.

We accept the South Africa, Indian community as permanent. We do not regard them merely as having been permanent since 1961; we accept them as having been permanent since these people set foot on our shores, in the same way as anyone else. In the second place the liaison between this hon. House and the Indian Communal Council will take place by means of standing statutory committees.

We support this amendment Bill because it supports our policies and our trend of thought. I am referring to this matter in principle now. It prepares the way, so that when we take over the government of South Africa we will be able to apply our policy more rapidly. Hon. members on this side, particularly the hon. member for Zululand, have already indicated which matters we shall take further during the Committee Stage. We shall then thrash out those matters with the hon. the Minister.

I want to conclude by saying that we on this side of the House know why we are supporting this legislation, for, as we see it, we have an aim with this legislation. It is an aim in the direction in which the United Party is going. Hon. members on the opposite side are supporting this measure, and when they have to tell us where it is going, then the hon. member for Rissik says that that is a hypothetical question. While hon. members on the opposite side are supporting this legislation for obscure reasons, and because they do not know where this legislation is going, we are fortunate in being able to say that we can use this legislation in the direction which the United Party wishes to take. More than one supreme authority, more than one parliament in South Africa, is an absolute absurdity, if it is not a reason …

Order! We have heard that point so frequently; we do not want to hear it again.

Sir, then I want to conolude by saying that we accept this legislation in principle …

Yes, but the hon. member has said that frequently too.

There are matters which we shall take further in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to the speech of the hon. the Minister yesterday afternoon and to correct an inaccuracy—I believe it to have been an inadvertent inaccuracy—on his part when he said this—

I would like to refer the hon. gentleman to a speech made in the Other Place on the 7th February, 1961 (Col. 528) by Senator Friend. He said this—

Apparently this statement was made the previous year 1960 when Sir De Villiers was overseas, so this was before 1961. This is what Sir De Villiers said, as quoted by Senator Friend—

Sir, this just goes to show that what the United Party propounds, the National Pary takes over or imitates, usually slowly and usually only in part, but inevitably, just as inevitably as we will take over the Government of South Africa sooner than hon. members opposite think.

I had hoped to make reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Houghton, but I see that she is out of the Chamber again, so I will merely refer to the fact that she indicated that her policy was a common roll franchise. I would like to draw her attention to the fact, and say for the sake of the record, that when the Molteno Commission, hand-picked by the Progressive Party, asked Dr. Cooppan, the only Indian to serve on the committee, he expressed substantial disagreement with the high franchise qualifications it laid down. I believe that the hon. member for Houghton should remember this and tell people that she cannot claim the support of the Indian community as far as the franchise is concerned.

The changed attitude of the Government toward the Indian community was announced originally, I believe, in the policy statement by Minister Maree in 1962. He indicated that it was a radical departure from traditional policy, and he made it plain that the Indian community should be guided towards achieving a measure of self-government. He said quite clearly that it should be more or less on the same pattern as that of the Coloureds, but he continually stressed consultation with the Indians. He then went on to say that the Government’s declared policy was that a governing body, parliamentary in character, with legislative and administrative powers, should be created for matters affecting the Indians. This was in 1962, and then in 1963 Minister Maree went on record as saying—

Well, Sir, this is nine years later and I think it is fitting just to review briefly what has taken place. We have before us here a vague Bill which in clause 2 provides that an unspecified number of Indians will be elected to a slightly enlarged council. We find in clause 4 that a nucleus of educated, informed opinion, such as members of the teaching profession, will be excluded from election or appointment to this council. We have no indication whatsoever when this is likely to come about, because it will be done by proclamation, and we have no indication to what extent the elected members will form the basis of the council. I want to refer to the fact that Mr. A. M. Rajab, the chairman of the executive committee, is on record as having indicated that he has always striven to see this council a fully elected council. When Mr. Rajab came to deal with the activities of the council, prior to the coming into being of the second statutory council, he said this—

Then he went on to say—

Mr. Rajab indicates quite clearly that the administrative arrangements are fairly far advanced, so it would seem that there should be no administrative difficulty now in making arrangements for a council composed largely of elected members. I ask the hon. the Minister what the reason is for the delay, when the Indians themselves are anxious to have this council and when the groundwork seems to have been completed or almost completed.

Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that time is not on the Government’s side; time is on the side of the Opposition, because the Opposition is prepared to go forward and to make progress in this matter, but the Minister and the Cabinet are dragging their feet over this matter. I am beginning to wonder whether the Government is not afraid of its own frequently announced policy in regard to the Indians and the other races in South Africa, because 10 years have elapsed since this statement on fundamental policy change, took place, and I believe that the progress in this particular Bill is too slow and too vague. I believe that this is a snail-pace evolution for what Mr. Maree described as a governing body, parliamentary in character, and with legislative and administrative powers.

In the meantime the Indian community themselves have not been standing still. They have made remarkable progress in many aspects and in the part they play in the community. In 1961, for example, there were 181 industrial projects managed by Indians, employing approximately 4 600 Indians, and in 1969 this number of industrial projects had grown to 620 and no fewer than 12 000 Indians were being employed.

A good Government.

Here we have a growth of responsible industrialists who still find themselves in the position that they are not considered competent to elect their own governing body. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Where is the Indian Development Corporation? Has it been called into being yet? This was one of the first topics discussed by the original council, the members of whom were nominated by this Minister in 1964. This recommendation has been endorsed by subsequent councils. I ask the Minister: Where is the Indian Development Corporation? We have a Bantu Development Corporation and we have a Coloured Development Corporation, but for this most advanced section we do not have a development corporation to assist them in their endeavours.

Then, Sir, I think it is fitting to review briefly some of the activities and possibly some of the successes which have been achieved by the three councils which have already served the Indian people, the first of which was set up in 1964. After the council had been operating for a few years, we find that 12 recommendations were submitted to the Minister, one on job reservation, among other things. In one of these initial recommendations, after the council had deliberated for a few years, we find a request for the establishment of faculties of medicine and engineering at the University College for Indians, as it was then, and we find that only now there is a committee investigating this proposition after years of representations from the Indians themselves. Then let me take the Indian Council which had its term of office from 1968 to 1971. We find in answer to a question which I put to the Minister that 12 submissions were made to the Minister as the result of the deliberations of that council. Of those 12, three were received favourably, two were rejected and six were pending at that stage. One of the matters pending was an appeal to the Minister for some sort of arrangement whereby Indians could employ Bantu domestic servants. This appeal has been reiterated by a subsequent council, but as far as I know the matter is still pending. This is not progress; this is almost stagnation, Sir. Then we have the question of the payment of the rate for the job. The Indian professionals want to see the gap narrowed as far as their professional salaries are concerned. What can the Minister tell us about progress in this regard? It is still pending—a matter which affects the Indian community deeply and which I believe is causing South Africa to lose highly trained people, people who could be an asset to the country, to other countries where a more enlightened attitude is taken with regard to payment for professional services.

I referred to the manner in which the Indians themselves have taken over responsibility and have advanced. The report of the Department of Indian Affairs confirms this because it indicates that in 1961 27 per cent of the posts in the Department of Indian Affairs were occupied by Indians and by 1970 the percentage had grown to over 75 per cent. Surely the department would not employ these people if they were not satisfied with the services they rendered. Yet we see this picture which was painted in 1962 of an Indian council with elected members developing so slowly, too slowly.

Now I want to refer to clause 2 of the Bill because it gives no clear promise of meaningful progress. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have heard from him and from members on that side of the House how satisfied the Indian community has been with this particular council. That may be so, but there are certain sections of the Indian community who feel differently. They point out—and I will not go into detail about this because the point has been made frequently—that they are not on a par with the Coloured Representative Council, which has its elected members. They say, with every justification, that they are the most sophisticated non-White race in South Africa that educationally, commercially and in the professional field, they are more highly advanced and qualified than the other non-White races, and yet they are making the slowest progress towards self-determination in terms of the Government’s own policy. They also say, and perhaps the Minister can endorse this for me, that the Council and executive members of the Indian Council are the lowest paid council members of all council members.

Tell me, has this anything to do with the Bill before us? I can well understand it being raised under my Vote.

As far as I am concerned it has, because as far as I remember, the original Bill laid down conditions under which they should be paid. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to give the hon. the Minister some expression of opinion from someone who does not feel as he does in regard to the council. I believe he must be objective about this; there are always two sides to a question. Cannot the other side be put? This is what Dr. Fatima Meer has to say—

That is a negative approach, just like yours.

Other members who criticize the achievements of this council, point out that the progress which has been made—and I will come to that aspect later —has not relieved the discomfort and the suffering of the Indian traders. They point out that many of the Indians who have suffered under group areas legislation, have had the raw end of the deal. But I want to talk about one of the advantages which I believe is a tangible advantage and one which I think we must accept with satisfaction, and that is in regard to education.

As far as education is concerned, I believe that the Indians have been very generously treated, more generously in certain respects than the Bantu and the Coloureds. Mr. Rajab himself said that he believed that shortly compulsory education could be introduced and also that they expected to do away with double sessions. This in itself is an achievement of which I believe the Minister can be proud.

I want to come back to two minor aspects of the Bill itself. Clause 6 (f), the vacation of office, says that a member of the council shall vacate his office under certain circumstances and that the Minister lays down the grounds for it. I want to ask the Minister whether he will give further consideration to this. I believe that these provisions are not entirely satisfactory and consequently it is our intention to consider moving an amendment which we believe will make the position more satisfactory. I trust that if we see our way clear towards doing this, the Minister will treat our recommendation sympathetically.

Then in regard to the executive functions, we have a position which I believe to be completely illogical. We have in clause 8 the provision that education and community welfare will be handed over to this council. But what about health? Only this week in this Parliament we agreed to hand over to the Transkeian Government the responsibility in regard to the administration of health, and everybody who heard that debate will remember that the personnel is sadly lacking there. Among the Indians we probably have the highest proportion of qualified medical men—specialists and others, who all make up the health team— and yet we find that with this nucleus of qualified people, who are supposed to serve their own people in terms of the Government’s own policy, the Council will not be called upon to take part in the administration of health services for the Indians.

Finally, let me say that we have indicated our support for this Bill. We have indicated too what little progress has been made and we trust that the desires of the Indians for a fully elected council will not be much longer delayed, but that the Minister will give urgent consideration through the powers he is asking for in this Bill, to effect this change by regulation.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I would like to apologize to you and to the House for my absence from the House when this Bill came forward. Perhaps I was misled because I have always listened to the United Party supporting a measure and then saying that they will have certain criticisms to offer in the Committee Stage. Unfortunately in the case of the Bills that preceded mine, this did not take place, but here in my case, as you see, Sir, they are supporting the Bill but yet they have taken up quite a few hours of debate in criticizing it. But I apologize to you, Sir, for my absence, as well as to hon. members.

What I would like to say on this very point is that the Opposition supports the Bill, … but … Now I quite understand that and I appreciate that criticism can be offered at all times, and the fact that you support a measure does not mean that you do not have certain comments to pass. But I would like to say this to my friend, the hon. member for Mooi River. He also said “I support the Bill, but”, and then he proceeded to harangue this side of the House for supporting this Bill which was a cloak and dagger measure, and he said he could not understand how we could support this Bill. I thought that was the choicest remark of the debate, that this hon. member stood up and said that the United Party supports the Bill and then tries to pick us out on this side of the House because we support the Bill. I must say I think that should go down as an epic standpoint in this House.

I felt I would like to tackle the first speaker and the theme that other speakers followed in their criticisms. That was the general statement that there is a vagueness about the Bill, that I do not convey to the House my plans with or views on the Indian question, nor the plans I have for the future of the Indian Council. This theme was followed by every hon. member on that side of the House. My view has always been—I want to repeat this for the benefit of the hon. member for Zululand because I said it when my Vote was under discussion—that I prefer to consult with the Indian Council, because there I do not find the political exploitation which I get from the Opposition of any measure that is brought into the House and in my case particularly on Indian affairs. I discuss matters with them fully and that is why in this Bill I say specifically “after consultation with the Indian Council”. I stated this specifically in the Bill, because this is the method which this Government is going to adopt in handling matters of this sort.

I want to say to the hon. members—I listened to the hon. member for Turffontein particularly—I know why they are asking all these questions. Only for one purpose: Not to benefit the Indian community, not to try to solve problems which may occur in a country like this, but only for the purpose of party political exploitation and I am not prepared to play that game with hon. members opposite and they better know it.

How can you say that? It is an unworthy remark.

Look to what extent the hon. members go. They say in their criticism: “We believe that the Council should be fully elected; that there should not be such a thing as nominated or appointed members of the Council”. I want to ask them whether they, the United Party, control the Provincial Council in Natal; whether they control the local authorities in Natal? I want to read an ordinance which was published by the Provincial Council of Natal in 1963, the Local Government Extension Ordinance, 1963. This Ordinance has never been changed.

What about Verulam?

No, the hon. member should not try to get away from this. This is what the Ordinance provides—

Hear, hear!

I was waiting for that. I read on—

Look at all the atmosphere that was created here: “We, the United Party, only believe in fully elected bodies”. However, they themselves have bodies operating at the present moment under their jurisdiction, bodies over which they have control and yet they appoint members to those bodies.

What about Verulam? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Zululand wants to get away from the general statements which were made here. These are the issues we are discussing. Listen to the hon. member for Durban Berea. He said that my statement about 1961 was a fallacious statement, the statement that from that date only have the Indians been recognized as a permanent section of the population. I immediately asked for a full reply to this question. I knew what it was, but I wanted to give it to him in writing, so that he could hear what the actual position was. Let me read it. “All Governments since Union, 1910, upheld the policy of repatriation.” That went for the old S.A.P. Government and also for the United Party Government. “This policy was finally discarded by the National Party when it was announced in the Senate by the then Minister of the Interior, Senator de Klerk, that the policy had failed and that the Indians were here to stay. They were therefore offered similar development opportunities to the Coloureds, and they were accepted as part of the permanent population of the Republic.” That is what I was conveying, and it was not fallacious.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are you prepared to concede that Sir De Villiers Graaff made this speech before that? This is my point.

The hon. member said that the statement I made was fallacious and here I have the actual position stated in writing. It is factual and I will give it to the hon. member. It is the constitutional background of the indian population in this country. The hon. member for Berea also talked about how we had gone backwards in our treatment of the Indians.

Not backwards, but so slowly forward.

I want to ask the hon. member if he is proud of the fact that the United Party in 1946 was prepared to have three White representatives for the Indians in Parliament, and that in 1971 they were only prepared to have two? The United Party is always so honest and wonderful in their treatment of the Indians. I want to ask the hon. member another question. The hon. member talked about the development of the Indians and, to use his words and those of other hon. members on that side of the House, how the Indians were basically superior to other non-White groups.

I am afraid you will have to table that question.

What question? I can see they are getting a bit nervous now. I want to ask those lily-white members on the other side: If they feel that Coloureds can have Coloured representatives in Parliament, and that if the Indians are superior in so many ways, why then do they insist that only White persons can represent the Indians in this Parliament? There is so much sham and bluff about all this. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Port Natal and I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that I hope she appreciates the fact that a little lovers’ quarrel is going on. We on this side of the House all know that the hon. member for Port Natal has been her bench mate, or shall I say at a bench very near to hers, and we also know that his policies are directly connected with hers. It is well known. The hon. member for Port Natal is very disappointed that the hon. member for Houghton has let him down. In fact, he would rather be voting against the Bill with her, but he was forced to vote in favour of the Bill by the United Party caucus. That is the whole story. The hon. member for Houghton must therefore not take offence, and I hope they both make it up again very shortly.

Perhaps I should go back to the actual speeches and the questions put to me by hon. members, and I want to start off with the hon. member for Zululand. I think I have answered the general points. The hon. member may not be satisfied, but that is my view of the situation and that is the policy I shall adopt when handling matters of this sort. I shall regard my consultation with the Indian Council as a better method than the party political exploitation that I get from the Opposition. That is how I feel about this matter.

The hon. member for Zululand firstly made a big issue of the proposed insertion of section 1A. He said that it is not laid down that the proclamation referred to in the proposed section 1A will be tabled in this House. He said that that means that the matters referred to in section 1A can presumably be discussed only under my Vote Of course, that is not so. I want to tell the hon. member—and this will answer the hon. member for Rissik—that at the time I was also determined that this should be done after consultation with the Indian Council. My attitude was that that should be put in the Bill. I am not a legal man by any menas. Then the legal situation was submitted to me by the legal advisers. Perhaps the hon. member for Zululand may appreciate it better than I do. The situation was put to me as follows:

It is automatic. They went on to say:

It has to be tabled. Section 1A differs from section 8 in which “proclamation” is specified. I think the actual statement by the law advisers was that these proclamations will have to be tabled because actual rules and regulations are dealt with here. I have the whole statement on the position by the law advisers.

Tell us about the proclamations.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must not run away. He accused me of avoiding discussion in this House on this particular point. Now when I put the position to him and he realizes that he was wrong, he flees away to something else. I am not prepared to say any more than is in this Bill. The hon. member must understand that as far as I am concerned I am answering that question that he put to me with regard to the fact that the proclamation would not be tabled.

Alright, I am wrong. Now tell us about the proclamation.

I am having my own debate and I shall say what I want to say. Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that the hon. member has now found that he is not as right as he thought he was. He realizes that the accusation he made against the Government and me, namely that we were not prepared to table that proclamation, is incorrect.

Well, few of us are perfect.

It is just as well that the hon. member realizes that, because he gives us the impression that he thinks he is perfect.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to refer to a few of the other points which the hon. member also referred to in his speech and to the questions he put to me. He referred to the new section 6 (f) proposed in clause 6 of this Bill. I think the hon. member for Berea also referred to it. I can tell the hon. members of the experience that the Indian Council and I had with regard to section 6 (f). The late Mr. Moola was a member of the Indian Council. He had a stroke and was completely paralyzed and speechless. He could not in any way perform any task whatsoever. There was no machinery or regulation by means of which he could be excluded from the Council and somebody put in his place. It was because of that that the Indian Council asked me to bring in this particular section.

One medical practitioner?

Yes, a medical practitioner. The Bill says “a medical practitioner”. The point is that the ulterior motives that the hon. member sees in this, do not even exist. Every one of these matters are handled in conjunction with and after consultation with the Indian Council. That is why I say to hon. members that I appreciated it when the hon. member said “two medical opinions”. If I were really mala fides in the matter, even two medical practitioners would not assist. This is done with the idea that the man’s family medical officer will give a certificate to that effect. In this instance the late Mr. Moola’s medical practitioner was prepared to give a certificate, but there was no provision in terms of which I could act.

Could Mr. Moola not resign?

He was not able to write. He was not able to make any contact with those around him. There is no provision in law which would regard Mr. Moola under those circumstances as being fit to give an opinion. He was completely paralysed in speech. That was the situation we were faced with and that was the situation the Indian Council was faced with. [Interjections.] The hon. members must understand the conditions. The man died eventually. Hon. members know that there are many cases where the same thing happened elsewhere. What I have said is all that is intended by that particular clause.

With regard to the new section 6 (h), which is inserted, and which reads—

I want to give hon. members the background. Let us say Mr. X is the treasurer of a welfare organization and he is a member of the Council. He is found guilty by the court of misappropriation of the funds of that society, but he is only fined. If he is not removed from that office of trust by his society, he would be immune from removal from office as a member of the Council, notwithstanding the fact that the ad hoc committee of the Indian Council had found that he was not a fit person to remain a member of the Council. That is the only reason why that power is required. It is there to assist the Indian Council in getting a person in whom they have confidence instead of the one who is guilty of misconduct. That is the only reason.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I accept what the hon. the Minister says in this respect, but I would like to remind him of what I said in my speech about things not being stated clearly enough as a reason to remove any member.

Order !

All I would say is that much legislation has been passed in this House, the basis of which was bona fides in every way. The reasons cannot be described in the legislation. This is the situation that we are facing, and that is why I made it clear in my Second Reading speech that this Bill had been submitted to the Indian Council. It has been submitted to them and it has been fully discussed with them. The Indian Council approved of the Bill. I hope hon. members are not going to create an atmosphere between the Government or the Minister and the Indian Council. Whatever hon. members say, and I would like to thank the hon. member for Houghton for what she has said, the progress of the Indians in South Africa has been remarkable during the last 10 years. Although the hon. member for Berea may say that we are dragging our feet, I want to say to him that 10 years in the history of a country and 10 years in the development of a people is a very short time indeed. I say: Allow this basis of consultation with the Indian Council and their development to move along steadily. To the hon. member for Berea, who also quoted the case of Mrs. Fatima Meer, I want to say that she and the hon. member for Houghton think entirely alike. For them it is all or nothing. They want everything or nothing whatsoever. They want the lot and they do not want any basis of consultation or any basis on which the communities can work together for the benefit of everyone. That is why when the hon. member quoted this, I was surprised. The hon. member for Mooi River also quoted a spokesman of the Indian Congress who is completely inimical to a basis of working with the White population other than all or nothing. That is why I say that on that basis of full integration this Government, this Party, and I myself are not prepared to concede to the demands. I think that is why the hon. member sits alone in this House. The majority of the White people in South Africa are not prepared to accept that sort of dictation from the Indian population.

I won’t be here alone for long.

The hon. member for Houghton made a trip to Zambia, and she came back full of praise for Dr. Kaunda. I want to know what he has done for the Indian people of Zambia. I know the position, because the Indians talk to me. It shows you how wrong the hon. member is in her judgments and how wrong she can be in her attitude.

It is completely irrelevant.

What is completely irrelevant?

Your statement.

No, the point is that the hon. member may be liberal in mind, but when one catches her out, she is not liberal at all. She does not want to hear anything one has to say. That is the position. We will continue handling the problems of South Africa without the assistance and advice of the hon. member for Houghton.

You are doing very badly.

The hon. member says we are doing very badly. I want to see the hon. member’s party grow, because at the present moment she is the only one who represents them in this House.

The other point the hon. member for Zululand referred to was the fact that they wanted a fully elected Council and that they considered it anathema that one should not have a fully elected council. Now that I have pointed out to them what in actual fact is taking place in Natal with the provincial Ordinance, perhaps they will change their mind also on this particular point.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? What is the position in Verulam? Do they have an elected town council?

There I can point out to the hon. member for Houghton that her facts were completely wrong. She said Verulam’s council was the only council that existed as an Indian council.

No, I said “the only fully elected council”.

No, the council of Isipingo is fully elected. There are a number of local councils that are also operating on this principle. The hon. member said that Verulam was the only one …

[Inaudible.]

Well, it seems that the hon. member is not as accurate as she thinks she is.

The hon. member also considered that matters concerning finance and local government should also have been specifically assigned to the Executive Committee of the Council. This matter was also raised by the hon. member for Houghton and other members. This clause deals with the delegation of powers and executive functions. It makes specific mention of education and community welfare, as well as other matters which the State President can assign to them by proclamation.

Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know exactly what matters were going to be handed over to the Indian Council. Time will tell what matters will be handed over to them. Obviously that is why this clause was inserted in the Bill. It specifically mentions education and social welfare. I think it is unreasonable for the hon. member to offer that criticism. Other matters which the Government may decide to hand over to the Indian Council will be handed over to them after consultation with them.

May I ask the hon. the Minister where the finance is to come from for the handling of these portfolios of education and social welfare? I see no provision in the Bill for money to be voted to the council.

The money is voted by this Parliament to the Department of Indian Affairs, and the Secretary of the Department of Indian Affairs will remain the accounting officer for moneys handed over to the council. The position is quite clear in that regard. This Parliament votes the money, nobody else.

But not directly to the council?

No, to the Department of Indian Affairs. This department will control the financial arrangements between this council and the Government. Sir, I do not know whether I have failed to reply to any points raised by the hon. member with regard to the details of the Bill. If so, I will be very happy to deal with them if he will draw my attention to them.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to hand-picked members. Before he used the term “hand-picked”, I asked him to be careful.

No, after I had said it.

Well, I meant to say it before, because I was anticipating what the hon. member was going to say. The hon. member knows why I said this, because last year he referred to the members of the Indian Council as “stooges”.

Not I.

Oh yes, the hon. member did, and he was hauled over the coals about it. That is why I told him to be careful. I did not want the hon. member to get into trouble again; I was trying to protect him from his foolishness. I think I was wrong when I said that he was a friend of the Indian Congress. I quite appreciate that that was wrong, but I do want to say to him that he should not quote Indian Congress men and then say that that is the opinion of the moderate Indians.

I did not say that.

I have the hon. member’s Hansard here. He referred to “moderate opinion”.

Will you study my speech, because I did not say that?

I think the hon. member could also study it. I am quite prepared to allow the hon. member to change it.

His name is not Albert Hertzog.

Sir, that is exactly what happened. He talked about the moderate point of view and then quoted a statement made by one of the Indian Congress leaders.

As a contrast.

As a contrast.

Sir. I can quite understand why the hon. member for Houghton calls this a pale measure. I think she referred to it as a “no-Bill”. She suggests that the only thing that means anything to the Indian people is meaningful political rights. But then, of course her view is quite different from mine. I consider that there are many other important matters affecting the Indians which need attention. These so-called “political rights” which the hon. member wants for the Indians will break down, in my opinion, and create a backlash in South Africa which will not be in the interests of the Indian community. That is why we differ, and that is why this Government will carry on as it has done in the past.

Sir, I cannot understand how the hon. member for Port Natal can support this Bill in view of the sentiments which he expressed in this House. He says that the Indian has been treated shamefully. He did not even give the Government or the department credit for having improved education for the Indians.

It has improved.

Yes, but the hon. member did not give the department credit for it, and yet the hon. member for Houghton did. The hon. member makes no reference to the fact that a university for Indians will be opened at Westville, a university which will be a model university. I doubt if there is anything better in any part of the world.

It is the only thing.

Now he says that this is the only thing; in every other respect the Indians have been treated shamefully, according to him. The hon. member should go and join the hon. member for Houghton and vote with her. He should not talk against her because he is upset because of the mood in which he spoke.

Just deal with the points I raised.

Sir, I say to the United Party, as I have said to them on many occasions—and I do not say it with any malice—that they will not appeal to the country when they have members like the hon. member for Port Natal sitting in their midst, just as they used to have the hon. member for Houghton sitting in their midst. They can never appeal to the country because the country will have no confidence in them.

The hon. member for Turffontein also talked about teachers being precluded from serving on the council. Let me read out the note which I have from the Secretary of the department : “Teachers are precluded by regulation from criticizing the department on a public platform, and it would be detrimental to discipline to allow them to stand for election. It is also in the interests of the Indian community that the members of the council should be able to speak freely and express criticism of the department where necessary.” If I am not mistaken, I think the Indian Council itself suggested that this provision should be incorporated in the Bill, or they at least approved of the incorporation of this provision in the Bill. That is because they themselves want freedom to offer criticism, and they do not want a situation to arise where disciplinary action hes to be taken against a teacher member. The fact that we refer in the Bill to other matters which may be handed over to the Council also worries the hon. member. I have explained that the Government will decide from time to time what other matters can be handed over to the council. Sir, I think that that covers the points raised in this debate. Other matters of detail which may be raised in the Committee Stage can be dealt with at that stage.

Motion put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

These few clauses of the Bill to amend the National Institute for Metallurgy Act, 1965, are consequent upon recommendations made by the board of control of the Institute. The amendments contemplated, are not of a drastic nature, and some of the more important changes we want to effect, will in fact merely bring the Act into line with the statutory provisions already applicable to the C.S.I.R.

Before saying a few things about the Bill, I just want to mention that the National Institute for Metallurgy has for a long time been doing extremely important work for our country, without any fuss and with very little publicity, and that the elimination of a number of deficiencies in the Act applicable in respect of the Institute, should be seen as only one of the various steps required for enabling the Institute to play the increasingly more important role it will have to play in the exploitation of our mineral wealth. For some time now we have been giving attention to steps for developing the institute into a research institute of world standing, because the increased processing of our minerals is of cardinal importance to the national economy. I have no doubt that in years to come hon. members are still going to hear a great deal about the achievements of the Institute.

In coming back to the Bill, I want to say that there is no need for me to pause at the first two clauses. All that is being done here, is to add another definition for the sake of convenience, and furthermore, whereas amendments are now being effected to the Act, we are taking this opportunity to change the designation of the chief executive officer of the Institute to that of director-general, which is in line with the practice followed at other research institutes in countries abroad and in South Africa.

Clause 3 of the Bill only seeks to effect a minor amendment to section 8 (1) of the Act, which provides what moneys the funds of the Institute shall consist of. As a new section 11A is being added by clause 6, in terms of which it will be possible for the Institute to enter into agreements in order to have discoveries, etc., developed or exploited, and as financial benefits may accrue to the Institute from such agreements, it is necessary to supplement section 8 (1) of the Act by also referring to moneys which may be paid to the Institute by virtue of such agreements. At the same time a deficiency is supplied by also referring now to moneys which may be paid to the Institute by virtue of an agreement entered into in terms of the existing section 11 of the Act. Under the latter section the Institute may enter into agreements in order to carry out special investigations or to have them carried out for the purpose of making a discovery, invention or improvement in regard to any matter coming within the scope of the Institute, and although this will not be a frequent occurrence, the possibility must be foreseen that revenue may accrue to the Institute from such agreements as well.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, it is being provided that the rights in inventions, etc., made by an officer or employee of the Institute, shall under certain circumstances vest in that officer or employee— and not in the Institute—for instance, if it is clear that the invention, etc., was made otherwise than in the course of his employment at the Institute and is not connected with his employment. Provisions of this nature are not foreign to research institutes and it is unnecessary to dilate on the matter, since amending provisions similar to those contemplated in clause 4, were incorporated in the Scientific Research Council Act, 1962, as far back as 1964. Just as it is in the case of the C.S.I.R., the decision as to whether any discovery, etc., was made by an employee in the circumstances foreseen in the clause, shall vest in the Minister, and I suppose I need hardly say that action will only be taken with due regard to the recommendations made by the board of control of the Institute.

And now to come to clause 5. In connection with clause 3 I have already said that section 11 of the Act authorizes the Institute to enter into agreements with other persons or bodies in order to carry out special investigations or to have them carried out for the purpose of making a discovery, invention or improvement. As the section reads at present, the rights in a discovery, invention or improvement so made, shall vest in either the Institute or in the other person or body, depending on what was stipulated in the agreement. If the discovery, etc., vests in the Institute, it may make it available for use in the public interest and it has to apply by itself for the necessary patent. However, if those rights vest in the other person or body, that person or body has to use the discovery, etc., in the public interest or make it available for such use subject to such conditions as may be provided by the agreement, and he, in turn, has to arrange for the necessary patent rights.

This state of affairs causes practical problems in cases where the Institute and a private body finds it necessary to undertake such special investigations on a basis of collaboration, and for that reason clause 5 seeks to extend the provisions of section 11 to a certain extent so that in such cases it may be possible in law for rights in the discovery, invention or improvement concerned to belong jointly to the Institute and the other person or body in order that they may—if such agreement has been reached—jointly apply for the necessary patent.

In regard to the penultimate clause of the Bill—clause 6—I should just like to explain that any discovery or invention which may be made by the Institute in the course of its research projects, may sometimes be of such a nature that for practical or other reasons it would be better to have that discovery or invention developed or exploited by the South African Inventions Development Corporation, which was established by legislation in 1962, or any other statutory body specially geared for undertaking such tasks.

As hon. members know, the Institute is, just like the C.S.I.R., more specifically geared for research, and that is why section 13 of the Scientific Research Council Act, 1962, already contains provisions in terms of which the C.S.I.R. may request the Inventions Development Corporation to develop or exploit a discovery, invention or improvement in terms of the provisions of the Act under which the Development Corporation was established, subsequent to which the rights in and any patent in respect of the discovery, etc., in question are deemed to have been ceded to the Development Corporation. Unfortunately similar provisions were at the time not incorporated in the National Institute for Metallurgy Act of 1965 as well, and clause 6 merely seeks to supply the existing deficiency in order that the Institute may, when necessary, take steps similar to those taken by the C.S.I.R. by entrusting a particular discovery, invention or improvement made by the Institute to the South African Inventions Development Corporation or any other competent statutory body for the development or exploitation thereof.

As far as clause 7 of the Bill is concerned, I just want to point out that in terms of the existing section 14 of the Act, the provisions thereof are already applicable in South-West Africa. However, the wording used at the time was not correct, since it referred separately to the Rehoboth Gebiet, which actually forms part of South-West Africa. All we are doing now, is to substitute, in the interests of uniformity, the existing section by a new section, in which the more correct and shorter wording is used which is followed nowadays when we make some of our legislation applicable in respect of South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough to indicate that the few amendments we wish to effect, are by no means of a drastic nature, but merely seek to eliminate a number of deficiencies in order that the Institute may carry out its important task properly.

We on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to join with the hon. the Minister in paying tribute to the excellent work that has been done in the past by the National Institute for Metallurgy. We trust that their future progress will be even greater than that of their very successful past. This institute is world-renowned, and I am sure many will join with me in this. The metallurgical discoveries in South Africa up to now have only scratched the very surface of our country and the future holds high hopes for us in the world of mining. It is here that this institute will play its great part. We are fortunate in having some very excellent people associated with this institute and they deserve all the praise that has been coming to them from many parts of the world.

Having said that, I feel that it is a pity that we have to come to Parliament and bring in a Bill virtually only to change the name of an official who is working for the Institute. There should be a shorter cut to this sort of thing. This is not the first time it has happened. We have had to do it previously, in order to change the names of a director to a director-general and an assistant director to an assistant director-general. Surely we do not have to come to Parliament and pass Bills to do this sort of thing. I think the Minister must give this some thought and see whether he cannot do it by agreement or by regulation or by any other way except by coming to this House. Let me just say that it seems that there will be more and more demands from directors to become generals! In many organizations we are going to find that people who are called directors are now going to be called directors-general and their assistants will become assistant directors-general. Surely it is not necessary to pass a Bill to do this. I know how important these people are and how important they consider their office, but to me a rose by any name smells as sweet. I think I said that once before in this House when we changed the names of the directors of the Atomic Energy Board.

What is in a name?

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have some very, very brilliant men working in the institute as we also have them in the CSIR and the Atomic Energy Board. These are people who make discoveries and are working on a salary basis, but I feel that they are entitled to some sort of bonus and appreciation for the discoveries that they make. It is difficult to achieve this but I feel that the hon. the Minister would perhaps agree with me that we should make provision for these people to share in the large sums of money that can be made out of some of their discoveries, inventions and the patents which are registered as a result of those discoveries and which are utilized by the institute or other organizations. I feel that in some material way, the people who have done the work, should be rewarded.

Otherwise I have no fight with the clauses of this Bill. I think it is necessary that we should discuss these matters in the House from time to time. I do not think that these amendments which we are bringing in today will need any close study nor will it need amending again in the near future. I really mean what I have said to the hon. the Minister, namely that we should simplify the process of naming the designation or office and that it must be remembered as well, that these people who deserve this designation should enjoy the fruits of their discoveries.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Rosettenville in regard to what has been achieved in the research work carried out by the Institute. It is, of course, true that our research institutes in South Africa have taken up a prestige position, not only in Africa, but also in the rest of the world. I am thinking, for instance, of the work done since the beginning of this century in regard to veterinary research, which was initiated by Sir Arnold Theiler at Onderstepoort. At present we find that there are other institutions carrying out similar research work, at which the world must necessarily look today. We sincerely hope that the Institute for Metallurgy, too, will be a beacon of light on the continent of Africa and for the rest of the world.

I want to make a few general observations. In the first place, I want to say that throughout the world ores are declining in grade and quality, and we must accept that extraction metallurgy will become increasingly more important. Coupled with this there is, of course, the economy of processing techniques which will have to be used in such beneficiating processes. Of course, these economic aspects are extremely important since the economy is something which changes from time to time. These factors remain of the greatest importance and may be the nucleus of the successes or failures of any extraction method. Of course, the application of an invention made through research in regard to a beneficiating process which has a bearing on a certain element, may also be valuable in the application thereof to something else. As a very result of the increasing need for metal elements, the beneficiating processes of ores have today become an important facet of any national economy throughout the world. In this regard I should like to refer to the comments made by the hon. the Minister when he stressed the importance of the Institute for Metallurgy in so far as it was doing very important work for the national economy in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to both members, the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Etosha, for the words of praise and appreciation to the staff of the National Institute for Metallurgy. I think it is not only proper but also very well-deserved. I am quite sure that the board, the Director-General, Dr. Robinson, and his staff will certainly appreciate what has been said here. I may inform hon. members that a start has been made with the new building on a new site at Randburg for the National Institute for Metallurgy. This building will only be completed in a few years’ time, but a start has been made with the building of it. I can not agree more with both hon. members in regard to the important role this institute has to play in a country such as ours where we are blessed with such vast mineral deposits of such variety. The hon. member for Rosettenville made the point that the name of the official, or the title of the official, ought not to be in the Bill and that it should perhaps be indicated by regulation. I think we should keep that in mind for future Bills. I want to say, however, that in this particular case the guilt is on his side. He was in the House in 1956 when the Act was introduced but I was not. I do, however, admit that there is truth in what he says and that in many Bills the name or title of officials could be indicated by way of regulation. The hon. member also mentioned the matter of financial gain or material reward for a scientist or individual who has made a certain discovery. This is a very difficult matter and has many aspects about which we will have to be very careful. I may point out to the hon. member that there are other ways of honouring such an esteemed scientist. It could be done by the State President himself or by way of such funds as the Verwoerd Funds which has materially recognized the work done by some of our scientists. I think I have now replied to all the points raised by hon. members and I want to thank members once again for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is designed to effect certain amendments to the Act which experience in the administration thereof has shown to be necessary in order to clarify certain of the provisions and to remedy certain omissions.

Firstly, the object of clause 1 is to clarify the intention of the provisions of section 2 of the Act which deals with the donation of human bodies or human tissue for therapeutic or scientific purposes, by making specific provision for bodies to be donated for the purpose of post-mortem examination thereof and not merely for the purpose of removing tissues therefrom. It is an addition to post-mortem examinations.

Secondly, the intention of the clause is to provide that a legal guardian may make donations or give consent for the purposes contemplated in section 2 of the Act. At present this may only be done by a first degree relative of the deceased, such as, for example, the spouse, or a major child or parent. The inclusion of a legal guardian as proposed, is for obvious reasons logical.

Thirdly, clause 1 clarifies the position of a district surgeon who in an emergency is required to arrange for tissue to be made available from the body of a person who has died, for use in a person whose condition is critical. This provision is only applicable in emergency cases where first degree relations cannot be traced. In this regard the clause provides for the district surgeon to donate the required tissue in place of merely authorizing the removal thereof as at present.

Fourthly, clause 1 clarifies the position, regarding approval by the Minister, of institutions which may issue identity tags to be worn by persons who wish to make it known after their death that they had donated their bodies or a part thereof for therapeutic or scientific purposes as contemplated in the Act.

Finally, clause 1 remedies an omission in the Act by providing for consent given under that section by persons for the performance of post-mortem examinations on their bodies, to be revoked by them. This was an omission.

Clause 2 merely rectifies the omission from section 15 of a reference to the penalty for contravention of the provisions of section 7 (1) of the Act, which makes it an offence to use a gonad removed from the body of any person in the body of another person without the consent of the Minister.

In conclusion, I wish to mention that the Bill has been drawn up in consultation with the Attorneys-General, the Medical Council, the Medical Association, the Directors of Hospital Services of the different provinces and other interested parties, all of whom support the proposals.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill. There are only one or two small points that I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister. With regard to the question of the giving of consent by outside people for post-mortems, I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should not forget that we must at all times take into consideration the religious beliefs of people and that before consent is given in any way, the feelings of the families should be respected in so far as postmortems are concerned. Even in those cases where a person feels that he does not have long to live and donates his body for research or for scientific purposes, we must, as I say to the hon. the Minister, hear what the family have to say about their religious objections, if they have any. That is the one point I wanted to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

In connection with the next point I want to deal with, I should like to refer to page 5 of this Bill, where we deal with the procedure that is to be adopted if the family cannot be traced and where it may be desirable to get authorization for the donation of a body. Here we allow the district surgeon to give permission. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that the Medical Council and the Medical Association have looked at this measure and have agreed with him. I wonder whether it would be ethical for a district surgeon who is attending a person who may have been injured in an accident and whose family cannot be traced, to give his consent on finding that that person is on the verge of death, that the body may be used for scientific or surgical research, whether that person has given his consent himself or not. I wonder whether a district surgeon who is disinterested in the treatment of that patient should not give permission for donation of the body.

In other words, I am not at all in favour of allowing the district surgeon who is treating the patient to be the district surgeon who will make the donation of the body or part of it. I do not know how my colleagues feel about this, but it is a thought that has come to me and I thought that the hon. the Minister ought to know how I feel about it. I do not know whether he thinks that an amendment may be necessary as far as that is concerned, but I leave the matter in his hands and I am sure that he will give it due consideration.

The next problem I would like to refer to is the matter of consent where the members of the family are brought in. Here we not only have a spouse or any major child or any parent, but the words “or guardian”, are brought into this clause as well. Let us take a family of three or four adult children and a mother. I wonder whether the hon. Minister could tell us what will happen if the eldest child gives his consent that his father’s heart can be used for a transplant while the other members of the family disagree. What do we do in cases like those where there is not agreement in the family? Whom do we ask, whose advice do we take and whose permission must we get? The hon. Minister must look at this clause again and tell the House how he feels about it. I think there could be serious conflicting opinions in the family. Here, as far as I can see, it is not indicated whether the spouse has precedence over the eldest child or whether the eldest child has precedence over the younger children.

With these comments I say to the Minister once again that we will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr.Speaker, since the new Act came into operation and has been implemented in practice for a long time, certain problems have inevitably emerged, because it is almost impossible to anticipate all the practical problems all the time. Therefore it is necessary for Acts, and that includes this particular Act which has been implemented since 1970, to be amended from time to time. If one looks at the principles contained in this Act, there is, in the first instance, the question of the consent that may be obtained for the right to remove tissue, and this is supplemented by this Bill in respect of the right to have post-mortem examinations performed and to give such consent. Then there is the question of by whom such consent may be given. Consequently the original Act is rightly being supplemented so that the guardian of a deceased person may also give consent. Under specific circumstances the district surgeon may also give consent. Then the Bill goes on to provide that a person who has given consent, may cause his consent to be revoked, and, finally, the Bill provides the penalties that may be imposed if the provisions contained in it are not carried out. The question that arises is to whom donations may be made in terms of the original Act. A person may make a donation of his body tissue to a hospital, a medical practitioner or a dentist so that it may be used for certain specified purposes. The purposes for which it may be donated, are mainly for education, for research, for therapy and for organ or tissue transplants. In addition, the donation can be made to a medical school, a dental school, or to a university. Finally, a donation can also be made to a person. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not give us an indication in regard to this matter at the Committee Stage. It seems as though the original Act has left certain deficiencies which may be supplied here, because I cannot readily imagine what a person who is not associated with either a university, a hospital or a medical school could do with such a donation. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this problem to us and effect an amendment, if necessary.

As regards the consent which the district surgeon may give in specific circumstances, there are certain conditions. In the first instance, if those persons referred to in the proposed subsection (2) (a) as having to give consent, are not readily available, the district surgeon may give such consent. Furthermore, it is provided that two medical practitioners are to state that it is essential for this consent to be obtained. The hon. member for Rosettenville has objections in regard to this matter. He mentioned the example of a district surgeon treating a particular case. I think his objection may be a quite valid one; perhaps it is necessary for the provision to be defined more clearly in that respect. I do not think that it is quite in order for a district surgeon who has treated a particular case and is also acting in his capacity as a public servant, to have to make that decision.

There are certain other aspects in regard to the consent by the district surgeon which I should just like to emphasize. The fact remains that this procedure will only be followed in exceptional cases. But allow me to emphasize that we must be sure that this provision in the Bill will not be abused. Let us state very emphatically that this procedure shall only be followed in exceptional circumstances; for we have certain human rights to protect. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville also mentioned that we should pay regard to certain religious objections which people might have in this regard.

In the paragraph concerning post-mortem examinations, section 2 (a) of the original Act was not quite clear about this matter. In the years when I was in practice, I often received requests from people who were keen to have post-mortem examinations after their death. Other people refused to have post-mortem examinations. In this Amendment Bill it is stated clearly that consent may be given beforehand. But I just want to point out, though, that there can be no restriction concerning the performance of a post-mortem examination in the case of an unnatural death. Therefore I think that in this respect this Bill is supplying a deficiency that is to be found in the original Act.

On subsection (2) (b) (i) of the existing Act I have another question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. While we are dealing with this Act, we may just as well look at this particular aspect. The reason advanced is that tissue may be donated when the life of a patient is at stake. Now, I feel that in specific circumstances it may be essential that we also provide in the Act that tissue may be donated when the permanent malfunction of a patient is involved, and not only when his life is in danger.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was saying that subsection (2) (b) (i) of section 2 of the existing Anatomical Donations and Post-Mortem Examinations Act provided that a district surgeon may authorize the removal of any specified tissue from the body of such person after he has died, provided that no such authorization shall be given unless, in the case of any tissue other than eye tissue, two other medical practitioners have stated in writing that in their opinion the use of such tissue in the body of another person is immediately necessary in order to save the life of such other person. That is the position if consent cannot be obtained in terms of the other provisions of the Act. I should like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister who is dealing with this Bill. The plea is that at the Committee Stage we should take another look at this particular section of the original Act. I am of the opinion that this provision ought to be made applicable in a case where it is essential to prevent the permanent malfunction or damage of an important organ or system. That may mean the difference between a healthy person who can help himself and, on the other hand, such a person being an invalid for the rest of his life. I think it is extremely important that we should also give consideration to these particular circumstances. This provision will in particular be more applicable in the near future owing to the rapid development which is also taking place in the field of micro surgery. Specially now, with the visit of Dr. Lee, who is a world expert in the field of micro surgery, this science is the subject of very close scrutiny. In fact, at the moment he is demonstrating techniques in South Africa in this regard.

This Bill is obviously not a contentious one, and it contains many good principles. It may be improved even further so as to meet the needs of our modern science. Of course, it is not easy today to keep pace with the rapid development of science.

Mr. Speaker, the two hon. members who spoke, i.e. the member for Rosettenville and the member for Newcastle, raised a number of important points. Just before dealing with them, I may inform the House that, unless legislation was passed in other countries during the past month or two, there can be no doubt about the fact that this legislation of South Africa is the most modern legislation in this regard in the entire world. In fact, I have been told that at a recent congress in San Francisco in regard to the transplantation and donation of tissue, the South African Act was held up as the pattern on which they designed their own. I think it is good for us in South Africa to know this.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made the important point that the wishes of the family or nearest relatives had to be taken into consideration when a post-mortem examination was performed. He also emphasized that there were various religions and that there were various approaches to this matter. The point to which he referred, has in fact been covered in this legislation. Previously such a person could also donate his body for a post-mortem examination, but he could never undo it again. Now we are also making provision to the effect that if his family should convince him or his religion should compel him to alter his donation, he may in fact do so. The second point raised by the hon. member was that he had misgivings about the fact that the same district surgeon who was treating the patient, would also make the decision laid down in paragraph (b). In such circumstances the medical ethics of that member will in any case dictate to him the line of action he is to adopt. That is the first point. In the second place, we should be careful not to complicate the donation and the use of the tissue. It may happen that there may only be one district surgeon available. I also want to mention the other point to the hon. member, namely that I think something of that nature will not happen often in practice. One will not find very often that the district surgeon is also the person attending to the patient. This can happen, but I do not think it will be a frequent occurrence. The fact of the matter is that this only happens in emergencies. I want to agree with the hon. member for Newcastle, who also raised this point. I want to tell the hon. member for Newcastle and the hon. member for Rosettenville that the present Act provides that a district surgeon may in any case authorize the removal of tissue in cases where the next of kin cannot be traced and where he is convinced that they cannot be traced. This is what the present Act provides in regard to the removal of tissue from the human body. Now the lawyers tell us that this is not enough. If the tissue has been removed, one still cannot use it. All we are doing on page 5 of the Bill is, instead of retaining the words “authorize the removal”, to provide that he may donate the tissue. Now both are being covered. It can be removed and it can be used immediately. In principle, therefore, we have not deviated from the provision in the previous legislation. This is only being done in order to make the use of such tissue possible.

There is another point I want to point out to hon. members. Reference is only made here to eye tissue. Hon. members know that things have to be done very quickly if one wants to save a person’s sight by using the eye tissue of a deceased person. It is also provided very clearly that he may only give authorization in the case of eye tissue, and in the case of any tissue other than eye tissue, two other medical practitioners are to state in writing that this is necessary. In other words, in any other case it must be two medical practitioners. But in the case of eye tissue, where time and speed are important, he may carry out this function. If there were to be any delay, one could endanger the life of the recipient —in other words, the very person one wishes to help.

Then the hon. member raised another point, i.e. that there might be differences of opinion in a family. To me it is obvious that the authorities wanting to obtain the tissue for use, would from the nature of the case accept the authority of the senior person in the family. I simply cannot imagine that hospital authorities or a district surgeon would, in a case where the body of the father of the family is involved, accept the affirmative reply of a child if the mother refuses to give permission. Therefore I think that we should give this provision a chance in practice, without placing any unnecessary obstacle in the way.

Then there is a last point that was raised by the hon. member for Newcastle. He expressed misgivings about a certain term used several times in this legislation, i.e. that it may also be donated to a person. It may happen in practice that a person wishes to donate a part of his body or certain tissue in his body to a specific person. In this regard I am thinking of the case of, say, a father who is suffering from an incurable disease and who is aware of the fact that his son or his wife is blind; he is keen to donate his eye tissue, but he does not want to donate it to anybody; he wants to donate it specifically to that son or wife of his. Then there is the case of a person who, humanly speaking, only has a few days to live. He may know that a close relative of his, a good friend of his, desperately needs a normal kidney. He wants to donate that kidney, but before his death he wants to stipulate to his own satisfaction, that he is not going to donate that kidney to the kidney bank, but to this close relative of his. Therefore I think that one should retain in the Bill this provision in regard to a donation to a “person” In my own mind I have some doubts as to whether in certain cases, it does not in fact go to the person who wants to do the transplant. Therefore, from the legal angle, I think we should retain the word “person” here.

Sir, I think I have now dealt with all the points raised here, and I thank hon. members for their interesting contributions and for their support for this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Prior to the passing of the Dental Mechanicians Act, Act No. 30 of 1945, the S.A. Medical and Dental Council exercised control over dental mechanicians in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of 1928. Since the date of the coming into operation of the Dental Mechanicians Act this function which includes, inter alia, control of the training of dental mechanicians, has become the responsibility of a new statutory body, i.e. the Dental Mehcanicians Board.

In terms of section 16 (1) (c) of the Dental Mechanicians Act, read with section 16 (3) (c), no person, other than a dentist or an apprentice dental mechanician, may carry on the work of a dental mechanician, unless he has been registered as a dental mechanician under section 12.

The requirements for registration laid down in section 13 of the Act are as follows—

1. (a) possession of a prescribed certificate of competency granted after examination; and
2. (b) training through an apprenticeship course for a period of not less than five years or employment for a period of not less than five years in the work of a dental mechanician— in both cases under a contract registered by the Board in terms of section 15.

In the past the aforementioned system of training provided a considerable number of problems to the Dental Mechanicians Board, because it was virtually impossible to ensure that a dental mechanician received proper training in all ramifications of dental mechanics.

Consequently the Dental Mechanicians Board instructed its Education Committee to investigate an alternative system of training which would eliminate the problems experienced with the present system. After a careful investigation into the matter, in co-operation with the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Education, this committee made recommendations which were unanimously accepted by the Board. I want to emphasize the fact that the Board, which is a representative one, accepted them unanimously. In brief, what these recommendations amount to is the abolition of the present system of training and the change-over to a full-time course of years at a College for Advanced Technical Education followed by an orientation training period of one year at an approved laboratory for dental work; in other words 3½ years altogether, and not the dual system which existed before. This proposal has the support of the Department of Higher Education. The matter was discussed with representatives of the Departments of Bantu Education, Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs as well. All three these departments are in favour of the new system and are also prepared to arrange for the establishment of facilities for the training of each non-White race group at suitable educational institutions.

The proposal also has the support of my own department as, on the one hand, it will effect uniform standards and supervision of the training of dental mechanicians and, on the other hand, will contribute much towards changing the attitude of dental mechanicians from a labourer-orientated one into that of a professional para-dental group. Hon. members themselves know that we have progressed a long way in the direction of the registration of para-medical services.

The Dental Mechanicians Act, however, makes no provision for a course and practical training of the nature envisaged, and consequently the provisions contained in clauses 4, 5 (b) and (c), 8 (c) and 18 (b) and (c) are being proposed for the granting of the necessary powers. Clause 4 deals with the registration of students; 5 (b) with the training of dental mechanicians abroad; 5 (c) with training in the Republic; 8 (c) makes provision for exemption from the prohibition in section 16 (1) (c) for students for the purposes of study; and 18 (b) and (c) makes provision for authority to the Board for making rules regarding the registration of students, training centres, the standard of education for admission as a student in dental mechanics and the approval of laboratories for practical training and matters related thereto.

In view of the fact that the proposed new method of academic and practical training replaces the present method of apprenticeship, provision is being made in clause 7 for no new contracts to be registered, so that persons who are receiving training at present according to the present system, are protected. At the same time provision is being made in clause 5 (a) for persons who are receiving training according to the present system abroad, to be protected as well. In other words, everyone who is studying at the present moment is being given the necessary protection.

In consideration of the technological development in dental prosthetics it is also important to create facilities for providing specialized post-basic training to dental mechanicians, who have undergone their training under the apprenticeship system, so as to inform them of new developments, and also so as to train dental mechanicians who want to specialize. In other words, at present one already has specialization even in this field. Provision for such courses is being made in clauses 6 and 18 (c) and (gE).

Since the establishment of the Board it has consisted of, inter alia, a dental mechanician contractor and two dental mechanicians carrying on the calling of dental mechanicians as employees. The interested parties made representations for this position to be entrenched in the Act and for a clear definition to be included that only contractors may elect their representatives and that only such employees may elect their two representatives. These representations are being implemented in clause 2, because we regard this as being a very reasonable request.

The present provision concerning the payment of annual fees by dentists and dental mechanicians gives rise to many administrative problems. At present it is only provided that a prescribed annual fee is payable which becomes payable on different dates for the different people registered. In order to simplify the procedure, provision is being made in clause 3, inter alia, for all fees to be payable on 1st January, and provision is also being made for exempting persons who are not practising or who are over 70 years of age from paying the fees.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are aimed at intensifying the control of the illegal trade in artificial teeth. This is a rather serious matter. As hon. members know, only medical practitioners and dentists are, because of their training, qualified to diagnose mouth conditions. If anybody else were to do so, it could seriously harm the patient and if untrained persons were to supply artificial teeth directly to a patient, the patient could experience serious health problems. Hon. members will remember only too well how in earlier years many people had their teeth in their waistcoat pockets more often than in their mouths. This was as a result of the fact that the teeth had been made by people who did not have the necessary knowledge. Consequently it is absolutely essential that the public be protected against the action of untrained persons in this regard. In order to implement this, the following measures are being proposed—

1. (a) In clause 8 (a) the onus is being placed on the accused to prove that he is innocent and has not performed an act which may be performed only by a dentist or dental mechanician. This is being done because the Police are experiencing endless problems in finding evidence for convicting persons who commit malpractices.
2. (b) At present it is illegal for any person who is not registered to perform dental work. However, there is no provision that another person may not employ an untrained person to perform such work. This shortcoming is being eliminated in clause 8 (d).
3. (c) Clause 9 provides that the Board has to be notified within a prescribed period of any laboratory in which dental work is performed, so that the Board may exercise control over such laboratories.
4. (d) The objects of the Act can be circumvented by establishing companies and partnerships through which untrained persons acquire control in such a company and partnership. In order to eliminate this shortcoming, clause 10 (a) prohibits companies from performing the work of a dental mechanician, and clause 10 (b) restricts partnerships to either dentists or dental mechanicians with regard to the work of a dental mechanician. This is a wise step.
5. (e) Clause 11 places a prohibition on—

1. (i) any person other than a dentist or dental mechanician contractor dealing in unmounted artificial teeth; and
2. (ii) on any person supplying unmounted artificial teeth to a person other than a dentist or dental mechanician contractor.

1. (f) Experience has taught that as a result of the numerous ways in which unmounted artificial teeth can be obtained, the keeping of a register by a dentist or dental mechanician serves no purpose and is a waste of time. Consequently the keeping of such a register is being confined to a person dealing in unmounted artificial teeth.
2. (g) In terms of clause 15 the Board may appoint inspectors to inspect laboratories for dental work, and the rest of the clause deals with the obligations, functions and powers of inspectors.
3. (h) Clause 16 deals with penalties. In this regard the offences in respect of acts which may be performed only by a dentist or dental mechanician (section 16); control of laboratories for dental work (section 17); and dealing in unmounted artificial teeth (section 19) are regarded as being so serious that the penalties are being doubled so as to deter offenders. In addition, provision is being made for penalties for persons who obstruct inspectors in the performance of their duties.
4. (i) At present section 30 makes provision only for the forfeiture of unmounted artificial teeth upon offences. In clause 17 forfeiture is being extended also to material used in the manufacturing process.

Clauses 13 and 15 simply contain provisions for bringing the Act into agreement with the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, and clause 19 simply modernizes particular expressions in the Act.

In conclusion I should like to mention that the proposals for the provisions of this Bill came from the Dental Mechanicians Board, on which dentists and dental mechanician contractors and employees serve. The Dental Association of South Africa, the South African Master Dental Mechanician Association and the South African Dental Mechanician Employees’ Organization were consulted as well. All these organizations support the provisions of the Bill.

We on this side of the House welcome this Bill and we will support the Second Reading. There are one or two observations I should like to make regarding the Bill. Let me start off by saying that we have here a peculiar position and it would appear to me that dental mechanics are divided amongst themselves, although the Minister has indicated that the dental mechanics as a whole and their various organizations have supported the Bill. The anomaly that has arisen is that we have not only the dentist who employs a dental mechanic, but we have the dental mechanics who are employing dental mechanics under contract, and both these people have an opportunity of negotiating with the dentist as to the value of their services. I am hoping that through this Bill we may obviate what has been going on in the past and that the dental mechanics whether they be master dental mechanics or whether they be the contractors or the employers of cither the dentists or the contractors, will have a uniform tariff of fees and will come to agreement amongst themselves as to what they should charge the dentists.

Talking about fees, I would like to recommend that the tariff for fees should be in line with the method that has been used by the Medical Association and that they should have a standard tariff of fees especially when they are dealing with people who belong to medical aid schemes, so that the members of the medical aid schemes requiring dental treatment, will know that for this type of work they will only have to pay so much towards the work that is being done by the dental mechanic through the dentist. Now, it is all very complicated. The charges go through several hands, and it means that the final result could be rather prohibitive to the person who is having, say, a set of dentures made. For that reason I say we must try to shortcut the handling of these procedures.

I have had a complaint from the dental mechanics about their name. A little while ago we spoke about directors-general and assistant directors-general instead of directors and assistant directors. Let us take the case of a dental mechanic. Now, the status of the dental mechanic has been raised somewhat, particularly through this Bill, and if ever a person should not be called a mechanic, it is a dental mechanic, because he is not a mechanic or mechanician.

What is he?

He is a technician. I think the time has come that we should call these people dental technicians. Whether we can do it in this Bill or not is another matter because I understand that the term dental mechanician goes right through the original Act and it would be difficult for us to amend only parts of the Act and leave the other parts untouched. But I should like the Minister to bear this in mind and perhaps on another occasion we can bring up the descriptive status of the dental mechanic and call him a dental technician. I think that would serve the purpose.

The new section 16 (1) (A) is one that perturbs me. It is the provision that the accused must prove his innocence. Our legal people will know much more about this than I do, naturally, but I am a little perturbed about this tendency in legislation today, not only to accuse a person but to put the onus on him to prove that he is not guilty. To me that is what this clause is meant to do. It assumes that a person is guilty; it does not go out to prove that he is guilty. The person who is accused must prove that he is not guilty.

What clause is that?

Clause 8 (a) on page 9. He has to prove that this has been an oversight of the law. I cannot call it a crime or even a misdemeanour.

You call it an oversight?

Let us call it that; it is not really a crime, is it? The dentist, of course, will say that it is a very serious offence for a dental technician to make a set of teeth, but is that worse than committing a murder? The man who commits a murder does not have to go through the same procedure as the man who has illicitly made a set of false teeth. This seems to me quite ridiculous. I wonder how my dental friends feel about it.

A little down in the mouth.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister sometime to have another look at this clause to see whether we could not include such an offender under the ordinary law and not take such extreme measures as are being taken in this Bill.

It is common practice in France.

There will be inspectors appointed to see that the work and provision of this Bill are carried out. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is making provision for inspectors to be trained to do their work properly, nor do I know what his field of inspectors is like at the moment. However, if the inspector is going to have to accuse the dental mechanic of doing something wrong, he should at least be properly trained to do so. These are not Police officers. The inspector who goes from one dental mechanic’s laboratory to another will be the person who will report the mechanic to the authorities when the mechanic has done something irregular. He is not a policeman and yet he is going to accuse this man of doing something illegally. The person concerned, whether he be innocent or not, may have to defend himself in a way that is becoming prevalent in our courts of law. Perhaps our legal people will give me some assistance on this matter. We wish to hear what they have to say about it. To me it does seem an extreme measure.

Leave it to us doctors.

That will double the price !

The dental mechanics are also perturbed that the formation of the board, which has been brought into being particularly for their own use, may be top-heavy with dentists. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister inferred that the dentists themselves, members of the Dental Association, will not have a majority of members on the board.

The dentists are not represented at all.

They will not be represented?

Not at all.

So that objection of the dental mechanics falls away. Is that so?

Yes. They accept it.

What I am interested in as well is the courses of study that are going to be prescribed for the dental mechanics. I take it they will be open to non-Whites as well as Whites?

Yes.

Will the Minister then allow a trained dental mechanic who is not White to work for a dental mechanic who is White or a contractor who is White?

You mean a black man can make white teeth? [Interjections.]

This is an important matter and I think we must have clarity on it because, if the hon. the Minister is going to allow non-Whites to train for two and a half years …

Three and a half years …

Two and a half years, training and a year with a dentist. Well, which dentist is he going to work with? Where is he going to get his clinical training from seeing there is only one qualified Black dentist? I think he has forgotten about that. Where is the Black man going to do his extra year’s clinical training if he cannot work for a White man? Will the hon. the Minister please explain this to the House? It is no good making provision for these people to be trained if one then finds that they cannot complete their training. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we must get clarity in regard to this matter once and for all. If he is going to train Black, Coloured or Indian people, let them work for White people. Let them be trained. No harm will be done. This is most important and it will at least provide an opening for those persons, especially Indian, Coloured and Bantu people, to do this work. I believe they will do it very well indeed. They should be able to find employment immediately after they have completed their training. These are the only observations I want to make and as I have said before, we will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this Dental Mechanicians Amendment Bill is of very great importance. If there had been no prosthetics, no dentures in this Republic, I would not like to imagine, with all due respect to the Chair, all the sour faces you would have to look at here every day. I think there is insufficient appreciation for what is being accomplished. As far as this amendment Bill is concerned, and since the term dental mechanicians is being used, I just want to mention that the designation “dental mechanicians” was laid down in 1945 under another Government. I want to agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville that “dental mechanician technicians” would be a better designation. The hon. member for Durban Point said by way of interjection: “Can a Black man make teeth for a White man?”

No, I said “Can a Black man make White teeth?”

The hon member for Durban Point asked if a Black man can make white teeth but with due respect, I would like to see the White man that can make teeth for a mouth like the hon. member for Durban Point has got. The hon. member for Rosettenville is a medical colleague of mine and we have served on several Select Committees together. There is a very strict professional code, a code which I appreciate very much, between the dental and the medical professions, but I have a funny feeling that my very good friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville did not get his information from trained dental technicians and that he has unfortunately received certain information from people that have abused this occupation.

*In this Bill a very important …

Just elaborate on that.

I should like very much to explain it. I was a member of this profession for many years, i.e. 20 years, before I came to this House. During that time I practised full-time. Since 1966 it has been my pleasant task, no longer to extract teeth literally, but to extract the teeth of the United Party figuratively. This Amendment Bill makes provision for the improvement of the training of dental technicians in the Republic of South Africa. That is the entire object of this Bill. During the many years I was in practice I had to watch dentures being made by people who did not have the necessary training, who did not have the necessary technical skill to do this properly. This results in injuries which could cause permanent damage. This is a proven scientific fact. That is why I am half surprised that the hon. member for Rosettenville should nevertheless want to break a lance for these people who have not really received any training. I also want to say that this Amendment Bill will be welcomed be the dentists in the Republic, as well as by the dental mechanicians who have received training. This is also in the interests of the general population. Ample provisions is being made here for the technical training of young people. Any young person who has the technical skill to work with his hands, who is artistic, can make a particular success of this profession. It has repeatedly been proved that dental mechanicians who know their work have a high income. The hon. member for Rosettenville wants to know what the position in respect of fees is. Specific fees are being laid down as well as minimum salaries which have to be paid to mechanicians by dentists. I do not want in any way to see this Amendment Bill as one which will mar relations between dentists and mechanicians. On the contrary; it will be conducive to good relations. Our experience in the country areas was that a person applies for work, and when he turns up he knows so little about making dentures that it is pathetic to see how little knowledge he has of his own subject. Then one pays him a full month’s salary simply in order to get rid of him because he is a danger to the public. This happened in our practice. That is why we must be careful to entrench the position of the bona fide mechanician. I therefore want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this amendment Bill. The inspectorate will now have far more powers. The Dental Mechanicians Board will also, through this legislation, have more powers. It will now be a Board which will be able to fulfil its duties. I am also grateful for the clause in this Bill which exempts dentists who are no longer practising from paying the levy fees. Since 1966 I have had to submit a sworn statement repeatedly every year to the effect that I was no longer practising. Now it will no longer be necessary for me to do this. So, in all kinds of ways, provision has been made in this legislation to establish better relations.

The complaint put forward by the hon. member for Rosettenville that a person will now have to prove his innocence is not a new legal concept. On the contrary. If the hon. member for Rosettenville knew how there quacks carried on, he would realize that there is only one way of dealing with them, i.e. to stipulate that they will have to prove their innocence. We must look after the health of the people in South Africa. Sound dentures, a set of false teeth which can be used, is in the interests of the health of the individual. This amendment Bill is therefore of great importance at our population.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is being supported by the Opposition. So far the only speakers we have had were the Minister himself, who introduced it, and the hon. members for Rosettenville and Rustenburg. All members who have taken part so far are medical men—the hon. member for Rustenburg being in the dental profession. Therefore one enters this debate with temerity in the light of the medical knowledge which has been displayed so far. However, it is a Bill which affects the dental mechanicians and therefore I think it is important that some of the views that have been expressed by them should have the consideration of this House when we consider this Bill. The main principle involved in improving the existing legislation is one which we support and it is obvious from the provisions of this Bill that it should bring about a more satisfactory situation. However, there are some aspects I would like to discuss. The hon. Minister indicated that this Bill has the support of dental mechanicians generally and of their association. The position is of course that there are certain persons who are interested in this profession and who have expressed opinions and doubts in regard to certain clauses of the Bill. This evening I would like to put forward some of these doubts to the hon. Minister for his consideration. Firstly, the position of the dental mechanicians is one which causes a great deal of concern to the Dental Technicians Association and those persons connected with the occupation of dental mechanician. If you look at the history behind this legislation, you will see that the original Act of 1945 created certain machinery whereby this occupation would be subject to industrial council agreement and that it no longer would be an occupation of a para-medical group. When he introduced this Bill, the hon. the Minister indicated this evening that he has been thinking along the lines of a para-medical group. The situation has existed since 1945 that these people, the dental mechanicians are entirely dependent upon the dentists for their employment and for their work. One only has to look at the history involved to see that there have been certain shortcomings and that representations have been made to the present hon. Minister of Health and his predecessor to consider various aspects concerning the principal Act. The various disputes which arose were placed before the Minister and the Minister himself accepted that these difficulties existed. He appointed a departmental committee of enquiry, a committee known as the Marr Committee of Enquiry, to investigate the whole position. It would appear from the Bill that is before us that there are still certain difficulties in this regard as far as negotiations between the dental mechanicians and the Dental Association are concerned. Although amendments are being made by clause 13, which deals with the labour committee which functions as an industrial council, it would appear that it virtually remains unaltered in many respects. Certain amendments are being incorporated in this clause, but the position seems to remain unaltered in regard to the difficulty that arises when it comes to the ratification of these agreements. It appears that the dental mechanician contractors have had a court case against them which has been taken on appeal to the Supreme Court by the Dental Association. This has placed in doubt the effectiveness of the bargaining power which was intended in the 1945 Act. This is a matter which affects the labour relations and the question of the labour position of the contractors and of the Dental Association. I think the hon. the Minister should give us some indication as to the reasons why he has not deemed it necessary or advisable to incorporate the recommendation of the interdepartmental committee of enquiry into the diffiulties that existed between the Dental Mechanicians’ Association and the Dental Association. I do not want to weary the House with these various recommendations, because you would possibly rule me out of order as being irrelevant. However, there is this one aspect which is incorporated in the Bill. I believe it is of vital importance to ensure that we have a workman-like arrangement as far as this type of legislation is concerned.

The other aspect in this Bill which I think requires further consideration, is that which is contained in clause 8 and deals with the provisions concerning the type of work to be undertaken by qualified persons. Here I realize it is important in an occupation such as this that a qualified person, a person who is fully trained, should be the one responsible. Provision is made for the training of these people to ensure that the highest standard of workmanship is obtained by these dental mechanicians. However, I wish to deal with one aspect in clause 8 (d), which adds the following subsection to section 16—

The hon. the Minister mentioned this clause when he introduced the Bill this evening. However, it has been brought to my notice that in certain instances it might be necessary for certain work to be undertaken by a person who might not need the requirement set out in the clause. Here I understand that the master dental technicians have expressed opposition to this particular aspect in a memorandum which they submitted. I presume they also submitted this memorandum to the hon. the Minister. In it they state that there is certain work which can be undertaken in a laboratory by auxiliary labour, such as plaster work, polishing and cleaning. The legislation that is now proposed could prevent them from utilizing such labour. This has a bearing particularly on the costs involved. In recent times, in line with many other things, the costs in this field are increasing. Dental mechanicians, particularly the contractors themselves, from time to time make complaints that they are unable to make a satisfactory living from their occupation. There can be difficulties with the dentists, too. But the concern here is to endeavour to keep costs down, if it is at all possible. Provision to enable these people to employ such auxiliary labour in order to keep down costs would seem to be necessary. Any increase in the costs the dental mechanician might have, he passes on to the dentist, and is in turn passed to the patient. In recent times one has seen tremendous increases in costs as far as dentists are concerned. On the 14th March there was a report which indicated that the Dental Association feels that an overall 25 per cent increase in fees might be necessary. It also referred to the fact that the cost of false teeth, for instance, had increased by between 20 per cent and 25 per cent during the past year. I believe that this has an important bearing on the possibility that a person should be enabled, without in any way lowering his standards, to employ auxiliary labour for certain aspects of his work, which would help to reduce costs, however slight. I believe a person should be allowed to do so, provided his standard of workmanship is maintained.

There are other items on various clauses which one can discuss perhaps in the Committee Stage, but it is obvious that this Bill is one which would improve the situation, and therefore we on this side of the House believe it should be supported at the Second Reading. However, we would like further elucidation of some of the provisions of these clauses during the Committee Stage.

I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Rustenburg saying what he did. He has a unique position in this House, in that he is the only dentist here. He indicated that he did practise as a dentist, but has given that up now. As I heard him, he said that when he came here he was here to draw the teeth of the “Sappe.” But I do not think he has been very successful in that operation, because when he came here in 1966 there were not so many Sappe. There are more here now and there are more coming. It looks therefore as if he will have to get someone to help him.

He probably will not be here by that time.

Yes, that could be.

He will be out of business.

The thing I ask myself is: What does this Bill achieve and what does it not achieve? I believe that this Bill will not solve all the problems which face this particular activity of dental mechanicians, dentists and their trainees. I understand from the hon. the Minister and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that the training should be strictly controlled. It should also be of the highest possible standard. I am very glad to hear that the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Education will provide a laid-down standard of training. But what I ask myself after that is: What can the man who has completed his training really expect as protection or security when he enters this profession? It seems to me as if there are certain factors which are still in doubt, certain problems that have not been resolved and certain matters which could make it very difficult for a young man entertaning this profession to make a reasonable living.

I know that there has been consultation. I too have tried to find out opinions from the various sectors involved in this particular Bill. It would seem from the reaction of the dental profession that they are not unduly concerned with the position as it stands now. The main objections come from the Master Dental Mechanicians Association. They have raised several objections, which I do not believe have been completely answered in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech.

In the first instance they are concerned about the question which the hon. member for Umbilo dealt with very adequately, namely in regard to negotiations in connection with charges made. I would welcome the assurance of the Minister that this Bill would put the matter beyond any dispute at all. Another matter which they raise is that they believe there have been certain hardships which they were prepared to accept when they gave up the position which existed when they had direct contact with the public. I would be the first to agree that it is undesirable for a dental mechanician to have direct contact with the public. All his activities should go through the services of a dentist. The hon. member for Umbilo has referred to the question of the price. The memorandum which we have received indicated that there could be a disparity which leads one to believe that one section in this tier of activity is doing well from a profit point of view, whereas the mechanician who is actually making the dentures is faring rather badly. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has any figures. The figures represented in the memorandum which we received last year, indicate that the dentist pays a dental technician contractor R14,95 for full upper and lower dentures. The patient, through medical aid, is charged R74. If he does not come under medical aid a higher charge is levied.

Is the R74 only for the dentist?

For the upper and lower dentures. It includes the impression, the fitting and the services which the dentist renders.

Extractions?

Extractions, yes. I am not implying that the dentist is making too much profit at this stage. It would appear that the dental mechanician contractor is hardly getting a fair price or reward for his labours. The claim is that he takes a minimum of five hours to make a double set of dentures. This provides the dental mechanician contractor with a rate of R3 per hour. The claim is that the minimum rate for an employee technician is 90 cents per hour. In practice, however, it works out at R1,34 per hour if you want to get people to work for you. On this basis it is claimed that on an eight-hour working day with the variant factors of wages, material, rent and overheads, there is simply no profit for the dental mechanician contractor. I am just quoting this example which appears in the memorandum which I regard as having been compiled by responsible people. I would welcome the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the amendment in this Bill will make provision for suitable negotiation and arbitration if any of the parties is at any time aggrieved in this particular respect.

Reference has been made to the employment of unregistered persons, and the claim is that if these persons are not employed on the normal, simple work, unskilled work, it could effect an increase in costs. The hon. the Minister has also indicated that training facilities will be made available for non-Whites. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it might be possible under certain circumstances for provision to be made for non-Whites to carry out the semi-skilled work providing that they have the necessary minimum educational qualification which would enable them to proceed to a period of training and ultimate qualification as a dental mechanician. I believe that we would then be providing some sort of training ground, giving them an opportunity to earn a living and to learn to serve their own people in their own areas later on.

I now come to clause 10, and I listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of it when he said that existing companies would be protected but that in future there would be no more companies of dental mechanicians. In future there would only be partnerships. He indicated that there could be abuses in so far as companies were concerned. I hope that when he replies, he will give some indication of the nature of the abuse. As I read the Act and the Bill, the companies consist only of dental mechanicians themselves. No lay people or dentists are entitled to be directors of those companies. This group of people might find it more convenient from an administration point of view to operate as a registered company rather than a partnership. In any case I believe that if the Minister, who is aware of this position, could transplant this legislation on to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, he would have in South Africa a much more satisfied profession in that respect than he has at the moment. He knows only too well of some of the troubles which are being encountered in that direction. But I will not incur your wrath by going any further into that, Mr. Speaker.

Would you like that position for pharmacists?

That is virtually what they are asking for.

But would you like to see it?

Yes.

Then I want to refer to the question of the levy in clause 3. I have no criticism of it at all. Any dentist or dental mechanic after the age of 70 will not be called upon to pay this levy. This of course does not apply as the hon. the Minister knows, to the medical profession or the pharmaceutical profession. I am just wondering what provision there will be to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the age of the people to whom this exemption will apply, because I understand that as far as dental mechanics are concerned, this could be done by regulation under this particular Act.

It is purely a levy.

I understand that, but you would surely have to produce some evidence of age. Anyway, Sir, I leave that point. It just seemed to me that there could be a problem in regard to the regulations, particularly in the case of dentists who come under another Act.

Sir, I think the other points have been adequately dealt with by previous speakers. I only seek the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the difficulties will be covered by this Bill and that it will not be necessary to come to the House in a year or two to clear up some of the apparent problems which exist amongst the various tiers of the organization.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. member for Berea need be all that pessimistic about this Bill. The history of this whole issue was given here by the hon. member for Umbilo; it has gone on for years, and it is quite true that the dentists on the one hand and the dental mechanicians on the other hand have been at loggerheads for years. That is why we had this interdepartmental commission; for many years we made very little, if any, progress, and for the first time now I can come to the House and say that we have the overwhelming support of all these people. I am quite aware that there are certain people who have misgivings, but they represent a small majority. I may say to the hon. member for Umbilo with regard to the problem that he has with clause 8 (d) that we have had no complaints about it whatsoever. As a matter of fact, there was a meeting of the board only yesterday and they all agreed; they are quite happy with the Bill as it reads now.

They sent in a memorandum.

I have not seen that memorandum; it may be in the departmental offices. I am being quite honest; I have not seen that particular one, but even so, that must be the view of a very small minority. I am only too grateful that I can come to the House and say that we have made this progress. There was even this court case.

The other point which the hon. member for Berea made was with regard to the question of costs. Let me say quite clearly that in this Bill there is no provision whatever to deal with the question of costs, but as far as dental mechanicians are concerned, they are now brought under the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956; previously it was the Act of 1937. I do not, therefore, foresee any problems in future, because newer, modern legislation will now be applicable in this case. On this question of costs I am, of course, as worried as hon. members, not only about medical costs but the costs of dental treatment and of dentures. Let me put it to the hon. member this way: As far as medical schemes are concerned—and about 80 per cent of our people today belong to medical schemes—the fees are fixed by the Remuneration Commission which has just sat, and I hope to be able to make an announcement in this respect tomorrow week with regard to new fees which are to come into operation as from the 1st April. An over-all fee is fixed for all medical schemes for the services of a dentist and for supplying dentures. There is no possibility, therefore, that that fee can be exceeded as a result of overcharging or as a result of unduly high salaries paid to these people. The other point which the hon. member for Umbilo made is that dental mechanicians are entirely dependent on the dentist for their livelihood. That is quite correct, but that is how we want it. That is the only way in which we can exercise proper control. The only person who should deal with the public when it comes to dentures is the dentist who is a qualified person.

Provided there is machinery for equitable agreement between the two groups.

We have now made provision for that machinery.

*The hon. member for Rustenburg has facilitated my task, and I think hon. members will agree with me that it is always a pleasant experience to listen to someone who is an expert in his own field and who can speak on that subject with authority. I think I should really tell the House and the country, in pursuance of what was said by the hon. member, that our people do not always realize the importance of a proper set of teeth in one’s mouth. I hope that this legislation, with the attempts made by us on the part of the State to ensure that there is a properly controlled service for the public, will at the same time lead to a renewed awareness of the fact that it is the duty of every individual to care for his own teeth.

+The hon. member for Rosettenville wanted to know whether the inspectors would have a certain amount of training. We are not making specific provision here for training, but I should think that the department would be sensible enough to appoint a person who would not only be qualified to do the job, but who would have the necessary status with the dentists so that when visiting dentists he would be able to speak with authority and also give advice to them. I think that is the only way in which we can handle this situation. I can also give the hon. member the assurance that dentists will not be in the majority on this board. Furthermore, the hon. member was worried about clause 8 (1) (a), in terms of which the accused has to prove his innocence. I can tell the hon. member from experience that we and the Police have had over the years that it is really necessary to do it this way, but may I point out to the hon. member that this only applies to trading in artificial dentures by unqualified persons for gain. This clause is limited in its scope therefore. It applies specifically to cases where there is trading in artificial teeth and where it is done for gain.

Then the hon. member raised the question of the training of non-Whites. I have indicated that the Departments of Bantu Administration, Indian Affairs and Coloured Affairs are quite prepared to make courses available if there are students interested in this course. The hon. member wanted to know where they are going to do their year’s training after the 2½-year course. We are making no provision whatsoever in this Bill to control the activities of a student either during his student days as to the place where he will work, or his activities after he is qualified. Say, for instance, that vou have a White contractor who would like to employ a non-White technician. I can see no problem at all, because that person would not be handling the public at all. He would be working in a factory; and these cases could be dealt with in the same way as we arrange matters in our factories today. One would, of course, use one’s persuasive powers to try to influence these non-White students to go and serve their own people after they have qualified. But, of course, at the moment there is the problem that there are very few dentists. We would be only too happy if non-Whites would enter for the course in dentistry which is available today and which might become available in the near future in the Western Cape for our Coloured people.

The hon. member then referred to the term “dental mechanic” and said that these people were perturbed because they are not described in a better way. If the hon. member will look at the Bill, he will see that they are described not as “dental mechanics” but as “dental mechanicians”. That is an improvement: they are not described as dental mechanics.

Who discovered that term?

They did. I believe they feel that they would like to be called “dental technologists”, but I am afraid it is too late now.

Some want to be called technicians.

You see, Sir, some people have one idea and others have a different idea. In this Bill we are describing them as “dental mechanicians”, and as far as I am concerned it is not a derogatory term at all.

They feel it.

I do not think that I have missed out any points.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that this Bill as a whole will put up the cost of dentures to the public?

No, I cannot see that at all. May I make the point again that tomorrow week I will announce in public, and it will be published in the Gazette, what the findings are of the Remuneration Commission in regard to dental and medical fees. [Interjection.] There is no reason whatsoever for the costs to go up. I cannot see that at all.

Is it a question of only employing qualified persons?

That is quite correct. It is the only way of having proper control.

Do you not think provision should be made for auxiliary services?

No, if we make provision for auxliary labour there will be an impossible situation where you cannot draw a distinction between the work of mechanicians. Because to make dentures today, every process in the making of the denture is a very specialized act. The making of the teeth as such, or perhaps the other appliances, is done by other people in any case. Those things are bought in bulk and are not necessarily the work of a dental mechanician.

What about the polishing?

Once the denture is being made, that is the work for one person. If the teeth have to be polished before —and they are usually bought and come in as polished teeth—it is not done there except for the finishing. But I think it will be a step backwards to make provision for that, because the whole crux of this Bill is the fact that we are now creating here a professional group with proper protection for themselves, so that we can give our people a high standard of dentures and also of dental mechanicians’ work. I may also say that we cannot possibly, because of lower cost, have a lower standard or less control. You cannot have it both ways.

There is the plastering and the polishing of the teeth.

I do not know what the plaster work is. They might be plasterers for all I know, but the point is that here you have a definite type of work which is almost a speciality, and we must confine that to those people who are trained to do the job. Because, do not forget, they must train for 2½ years plus one year; and we are doing this right through the medical profession today. That is also in answer to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member will know that last year we had the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act and we amended it to make provision for the registration of the different categories of para-medical services, and quite a number—I cannot remember off-hand how many but perhaps ten—have already been registered. But that in no way, as far as I know or as far as the commission could establish, has affected the cost of medical services to the country at all, but it has given us the assurance that there is a much higher standard of work done by these people.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As a result of the application of the Medical Schemes Act, 1967—that is five years ago now—certain practical problems have come to light which have to a certain extent hampered the efficient functioning of the Central Council for Medical Schemes and which interfere with the proper implementation of the Act. These problems can be briefly summarized as follows:

Firstly, when the Act came into operation, there was only one organization which could be regarded as representative of medical aid schemes and which needed to be consulted in regard to the composition of the Remuneration Commission which was established in 1969. Provision for this exists in section 30 of the Act. In addition, I may tell hon. members that at a round table conference I had with the interested parties in 1969, there was still only this one association, so that there was no reason to make any change when the Act was amended at the time. The situation has changed now. There are at least three now, of which two work together and the other is independent. The two which work together and the one which is independent of them have more or less the same number of members and the same number of dependants whom they represent.

As I have said, the position has changed now. As a result of interests, group formation has taken place which has led to the establishment of two new organizations. It would be unfair to recognize and consult the original organizations, which are mentioned by name in the Act, in regard to the composition of the Remuneration Commission and not any other organization, especially since the other two organizations in fact represent more members than the organization mentioned. I have said that they are more or less equal in number. It would not be unreasonable to extend consultation to all organizations which are regarded and recognized as being representative of medical aid schemes, and therefore we are now making provision for that in clauses 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d).

Several interested parties have recommended that the Act be amended to provide that the commission be appointed during a specific month of the year and that if an amended tariff of fees is recommended, it should come into operation on 1st January of the following year. Furthermore, the view is held that the period of two years within which a remuneration commission must be appointed, is too short to afford sufficient opportunity for the implications of the findings of such a commission to be evaluated in practice. As the position is at present, new tariffs come into operation during part of a financial year. As the position is at present, they would come into operation on 1st April. On a previous occasion I think they came into operation on a completely different date. Before the end of the subsequent financial year the next commission is appointed. Consequently it is not possible to evaluate the implications extending over a full financial year. These problems have now been experienced very clearly by the respective associations which recently had to submit evidence to the present commission.

Furthermore, the cost such a commission involves for the Government as well as for the various associations is very high, and I think that, in view of the high cost alone, the appointment of the commission within a period of two years is not justified.

These arrangements will contribute towards the determination of tariffs taking place in a more ordered way. Since three years is a relatively short period, the necessity of an interim appointment of the commission in fact does not exist, and the existing provisions in this regard are therefore being deleted. Provision for the new procedure is made in clause 3 (a) and (e) and an amendment in regard to the period appears in my name on the Order Paper, as hon. members have seen. It is a period of three years now. I may tell hon. members that I did not have much time to consult about this, but I take personal responsibility for it and I am sure that I shall receive the support of the responsible bodies and persons concerned here.

A further problem in respect of the tariff of fees is that different bodies and persons interpret the tariff of fees differently. As a result, there are disputes from time to time, which is not in the interests of any of the parties. It is absolutely essential that only one body should interpret the tariff of fees and that all the parties concerned should be bound by its interpretation. The Central Council for Medical Schemes is regarded as the most suitable body to deal with matters of this nature, since the Council continually has to deal with such matters in practice. Provision is being made for this in clause 3 (f).

For various reasons it is essential that the providers of services present their accounts within a fixed period and that the accounts be paid within a specific time. Naturally, medical schemes cannot build up large reserve funds and they are severely affected by the late submission of large accounts. Some accounts are received as late as 18 months after the service concerned was rendered. Members of schemes are prejudiced by this, since the rules of most schemes make provision for the payment of benefits on a reducing basis, with the result that all benefits are lost after certain fixed periods.

There is no reason why an account cannot be rendered within three months after a service has been rendered and why a doctor or a dentist, if he has failed to render an account, should not after four months forfeit the “guaranteed payment” of his account by a medical scheme. He will not necessarily have to forfeit the payment, but he will in fact have to forfeit the guarantee.

In clause 4 provision is made for regulating the administrative procedure in respect of the payment of accounts, and in clause 6 (1) provision is made for issuing regulations in this regard. Since such regulations have in fact already been issued and have been accepted and are being applied generally, but are ultra vires the Act according to the lawyers, the power of issuing them with retrospective effect is being granted in clause 6 (2).

The proper functioning of the Central Council is sometimes seriously hampered and slowed down as a result of the failure of medical schemes to comply with the provisions of the Act.

As yet there have been no prosecutions in terms of the provisions of the Act. Hon. members will find this interesting. The Council is hesitant to prosecute since it may eventually prejudice the ordinary members of medical schemes in that penalties will affect the finances of schemes, which may eventually affect the financial contributions of the ordinary members as well. However, in order to emphasize the importance of all the requirements of the Act and in order to bring them to the attention of all interested parties again, the amendment in respect of penalties is proposed in clause 5.

Clause 2 merely contains amendments which have become necessary as a result of the substitution of section 2 by Act 95 of 1969 and which were overlooked at that stage as a result of an oversight.

I may inform hon. members that the Bill is supported by the Central Council for Medical Schemes. It has also been submitted to the Medical Association, the Dental Association, the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes, the Federation of Medical Schemes, the Advisory Association of Medical Aid Schemes, and the National Association of Medical Benefit Schemes.

The Medical Association, the Dental Association and the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes are not in agreement with the provisions of clauses 1 and 3 (b), (c), (d) and (f) since the Associations do not wish to see any fragmentation of the body which represents medical schemes and they are of the opinion that the Central Council for Medical Schemes is not the appropriate body to decide disputes about the application of the tariff of fees. However, I am of the opinion—and I have devoted a great deal of attention to this— that all the proposed amendments, including those in regard to these two matters, are essential to the efficient functioning of the Central Council for Medical Schemes and the proper regulation of the functions connected with the administration of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, we will support the Second Reading of this Bill, but there is one clause here which I regret the hon. the Minister has had to bring before the House. The reason for this appears to be that there is at the moment some disunity amongst the medical aid schemes. This clause unfortunately might well encourage a further splintering up of those unified schemes which are in existence today. The hon. the Minister has told us that there are virtually three main bodies today, namely the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes and two other large groups of schemes. The way I see it is that the Minister should have done his best to keep the national body as the main body and that that should have been the body that would have negotiated with those persons who fix tariffs, and so on. The Minister may have great difficulty in getting the three main bodies which are left today to act in unison. They may break up again and may give him a headache when he comes to trying to fix tariffs or fees with the doctors. The doctors stand together unified and speak with one voice. There are those people in the medical profession who have opted out and who do not want to belong to medical schemes. They play no part in the negotiations whatsoever. The national body of medical schemes should be the negotiating body for all medical schemes and the Minister has seen fit this evening to suggest that because there happens to be disunity amongst these people, because they cannot bring their own house in order, he is prepared to negotiate separately with them and he mentions in the Bill that the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes will be no longer the only contracting and recognized body, but will be one of many. As long as there are more than two schemes which come together the Minister will recognize them as official bodies with whom to negotiate. I hope that the Minister will be able to carry out his duties and I am hoping that this will not lead to disruption within the medical aid schemes. I am also hoping that as a result of different people negotiating for the same thing, there will not be an increase in the present tariff of fees which the public may find difficult to meet. They will find difficulties, because if there is an increase in tariffs their subscriptions to medical aid schemes will increase. Perhaps we will hear more about this this evening.

I again want to say to the Minister that I do not know why he wants to penalize those people in the medical profession or those people who deal with the medical profession. The new section 40 of the principal Act, substituted by clause 5 of the Bill, means that if a medical practitioner who works under medical aid conditions does not send his accounts in, he can within three months of giving the service be charged under this new section. The penalties are rather extraordinary. A person who fails to comply with any provision of this Act “shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred rand or to imprisonment for a period of not exceeding twelve months”, and if he does it again, the punishment goes up to a fine not exceeding R1 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years. I do not say that the provisions of this section will be executed, but a person could be punished in this way. It does not end there, and that is why I am perturbed at this clause. It means that a medical practitioner who is guilty of not sending out his accounts properly on two occasions can be called before the Medical Council and that disciplinary action can be taken against him. All this may happen because of this clause and it is quite possible that he can be suspended from practice. I think this punishment is very unfair. I wonder if the Minister will not be good enough to have another look at this clause. I am not suggesting to him that he should bring in an amendment now, but I want to ask him to tell us in his reply whether the doctors themselves are satisfied with this. He did say that it was laid before them, but I would like to know whether the implications were shown up at the time. If the doctors themselves are satisfied we have to abide by their decision, but if they have put up a case whereby this clause should be amended, then I ask the Minister to bring in an amendment during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister that in recent times a certain practice has unfortunately reared its head. This is that even before a remuneration commission is appointed by the Minister, certain officials of the medical aid schemes go to the newspapers and then slander the profession and blame it for the high medical costs. This mars relationships between the profession and the patient. I know the sub judice rule cannot be applied here, but I wonder whether something cannot be done to prevent these people from running to the newspapers and then marring relationships between the medical practitioners and the public.

Secondly, I just want to say that I am not very happy about this change from two years to three years. If, however, the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the medical associations are satisfied with it, I shall not argue further about it.

I do not feel happy either about clause 4, which amends section 32 of the principal Act. A new principle is being inserted here in the form of a penalty clause. A medical practitioner must now furnish an account within 30 days of the date of the rendering of a service; if not, he is guilty in terms of the provisions of the penalty clause as set out by the hon. member for Rosettenville. It is not clear to me when these 30 days expire and when a medical practitioner must send in his account. If, for example, he closes his books on the 25th of the month and a patient comes under treatment on the 20th of the month, must he send in an account on the 25th already in respect of those five days? The patient may be under his treatment for five or six weeks. If he does not send in an account in respect of those five days, but in fact from time to time, as he treats the patient over those six weeks, and several weeks pass after he should have sent in his account in terms of the Act, would he be punishable or not? As the Bill reads at present, it seems to me as if he would in fact be guilty in terms of the penalty clause and may be sent to gaol for 12 months or be fined R200. After serving his sentence, he comes back, starts practising again and a pregnant patient comes to see him. He treats that patient and she sees him once a month over a period of eight months. Must he send in his account every month in that case, or must he wait until after the confinement? Say, for example, the patient leaves before the confinement and the doctor is not aware of the fact that the patient has left and sends in his account after a month for the eight treatments he has given her, will he again be guilty of an offence in terms of the legislation as it reads at present? Then he may be goaled for two years, or be fined R1 000. I am mentioning these cases because I feel this should be stated more clearly. I do not think it is very clear at present, and I agree that the penalties prescribed here are very harsh. I am afraid that if it is going to remain like this, it may perhaps encourage the medical practitioners not to work under this legislation and that they will possibly opt out again. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to pay attention to this matter and to make clear to the medical practitioners what the intention here is. I want to repeat that I am of the opinion that this penalty clause is rather harsh.

Furthermore, we see here that the medical practitioners or dentists are now being obliged to render their accounts at certain specific times. But the medical aid associations are not obliged to pay those accounts within a certain period. The new section 41 (1) (e), which is proposed by clause 6 of this Bill, reads as follows—

It is done by regulation. I hope the present Minister will be here for many years to come, but there may be another Minister in future who feels quite differently about the matter and who would then issue different regulations. Is it not possible to lay down a period in this legislation within which the medical schemes must pay their accounts? I can tell you, Sir, that there are some schemes which receive the full account from the medical practitioner and which pay only part of it, and not the full amount. Are they not obliged to pay the full amount instead of waiting until the following month or the month after that before paying the account which they have already received? For that reason I want to request the hon. the Minister to give attention to this clause. It is mainly this clause which bothers me in the entire legislation, and if the hon. the Minister would undertake to give attention to it, I would be very satisfied and very grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I do not belong to the trade union which so far has been debating this measure. I look at it from the consumer’s point of view. In the case of previous Bill which we have just dealt with I have fortunately not yet become a consumer but I have been a victim in the sense that I have had to pay accounts. In this case I am a consumer, and I feel that the consumer should also be entitled to express his views in regard to the issues which are raised here. I refer particularly to the question of the Remuneration Commission against the background of the ever-rising cost to the man in the street and particularly to the family man of subscriptions towards medical aid schemes, and against the background of restriction of benefits, the first payments which the member must make and the maximum limitations which are placed on the members of some medical aid schemes. I accept that these schemes operate and do their best to operate to the benefit of their members. But the fact of the matter is that as a result of the Remuneration Commission’s recommendations the contributions are continuously rising and there very often are limitation benefits. It means that the member of the scheme is facing ever-rising costs. Here we are accepting a measure which says that the Minister has no say at all. If the commission recommends an increase, it becomes an accomplished fact. There is no protection from the Minister, there is no protection from the Government and there is no protection from anyone; if the commission which the Minister has appointed says that the fees shall be raised, the Minister must—and we are amending it now to come into effect on the 1st January of the following year—approve of that increase.

Or decrease.

The hon. the Minister says “or decrease”.

Yes.

Don’t make me laugh !

You are still going to eat your words.

I hope I will. I have been paying to a medical aid scheme for a long time and I have never yet had a decrease. I hope this will happen, because it is going to be the happiest day of my life. Nevertheless the point is that the average contributor is paying ever-increasing fees. There may be a decrease and I hope there will be a decrease; in fact there are rumours that there will be one, and if that is so, fine. But if I think what I was paying ten years ago and what I am paying now …

What are you earning today?

The earnings do not matter. If your earnings go up beyond a certain figure you pay a higher subscription. Relatively, however, the average man who used to look on this as a protection often finds it a burden simply to pay his contribution. The limitations are such that very often the protection for which he is paying does not materialize when he strikes ill-fortune, against which he is trying to protect himself, because the maximum limits come into force and he is faced then with additional costs over and above the contribution. The last Bill we discussed dealt with dental fees. Most schemes have a limit. As soon as your bills exceed R70 or R80 a year in the case of one person, or R100 to R150 for a family, you are no longer covered. You only need one major dental treatment and your protection under the scheme has gone out of the window. One or two major dental treatments, one set of dentures, one major dental surgery and your protection is gone. The point I want to make is that I do recognize the right of the trade union, the medical people, to look after their interests. Worries have been expressed here that they may be adversely affected. I ask the Minister to remember that there are other people who are worried, and they are the people who face these ever-rising costs.

I am sorry, in addition, that this Bill does not go further with regard to the interchangeability of schemes. The hon. the Minister’s own CSMBA, the Government medical aid scheme, has regulations which often react very harshly on members. The hon. the Minister knows of a case which I raised with him, where a person who did not exercise an option because he was covered by another scheme, could not join the Government’s own scheme, when the other scheme fell away. The hon. the Minister says he is trying to encourage medical aid protection, but when it comes to practice, when it comes to a specific case where a man finds himself in the middle, having fallen between two schemes, the hon. the Minister closes the door and says “I am not prepared to let him join the Public Service scheme, because he did not opt at the right time”.

You can really talk a lot of nonsense.

No, Sir, I have all the correspondence. I have the Minister’s own letter to me in which he turned my representations down flat.

I will give you a reply to that.

We will raise it again on a future occasion.

I will answer you tonight.

Good. I say, Sir, let us not be “holier than thou” about this wonderful protection. I would like to see greater protection for the people who have to pay, the consumer who finally has to pay the costs and whom I believe we, as a country, should protect to a far greater extent against the fear of illness and of being financially crippled as a result of ill-health. I believe we have not gone nearly far enough in the coverage and protection which we as a government, as a state, give to the ordinary person against this fear.

You want a socialist scheme.

I do not want a socialist scheme, I want a national scheme which will give protection without all the fine print at the bottom of the contract which, when you come to make the claim, often invalidates that claim. We support these technical amendments, but I do not believe we are giving the people of South Africa the full protection which they need in the light of the growing cost of medicine and medical attention.

Mr. Speaker, one hears strange things in this House. This evening I heard one of the strangest things one can hear. An hon. member rose here who regards himself as the “victim” of some or other medical practitioner in Natal. I am sorry for him that he should be such a “victim”. But what surprises me most is that hon. members on that side who continually plead for protection by the courts and by a judge, come here this evening and say, through the mouth of the hon. member, that they are not at all satisfied with the protection provided by a judge; they rather want the protection of the Minister of Health. Just fancy that! Sir, I simply do not understand that.

It is true that medical costs are high. There is no doubt about it. Nobody has ever disputed it. For that very reason this Government appointed a commission as long ago as, I think, 1962, to investigate the high costs of medicine. They produced a bulky report, which eventually led to the introduction of this Bill, which creates the possibility of predetermined insurance for medical costs.

Surely the premium one has to pay on any insurance policy depends on the risk the insurance company has to take. If the hon. member for Durban Point wants to take out life insurance, I am very sure his premium is going to cost him a bit more if he does not reduce his weight a little. It is simply a fact that if one sets higher requirements, one has to pay more, and since this amending Bill proposes to reduce administrative costs by expediting payment and to eliminate dissatisfaction, it is a step in the right direction. I know that contributions to medical aid schemes will continue to place a heavy burden on people, but the fact that people may make provision beforehand for the day when illness strikes, does at least alleviate the burden to a certain extent. The hon. member for Durban Point has pleaded for a general scheme, presumably a compulsory one. His plea is that everyone should contribute towards such a scheme. He is pleading for socialism.

No, he did not.

Where did you suck that from?

Hon. members opposite are pleading for at least a tremendously large contribution from the State. I want to ask them merely to give a moment’s thought to all the things for which they have pleaded here this year and which would entail increased expenditure by the State. The hon. member for Durban Point can calculate for himself what contribution the State would have to make to the scheme for which he pleaded here. Sir, I leave it at that.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. members for Rosettenville and Geduld said here. As I interpret clause 5, a doctor is obliged to send out an account, and if he does not do so, he is fined. It seems to me this will also push up the costs to a certain extent. I do not want to say that there are a great many doctors who do not send accounts, but I think that we should pamper rather than fine those doctors who do not send out accounts. It seems to me that a change should be made in this regard. Therefore I should like to associate myself with the amendment suggested here.

In my opinion the proposed amendments do not affect the essence of the scheme. I think they will only contribute to better and smoother operation and the speedier settlement of accounts. Furthermore, I think it is absolutely essential that someone should make a final decision in respect of whether an account is in order, i.e. whether it is not excessive and whether it serves its purpose or not. I cannot imagine that any person or body is more suitable for that purpose than this very Central Council of Medical Schemes. I think that, on the whole, this amending Bill is acceptable to all and should contribute to the smoother operation of the entire scheme.

Mr. Speaker, as a consumer like the hon. member for Durban Point, I have been rather interested to hear from the hon. member for Fauresmith, who is a member of the trade union, that, should a doctor be penalized or punished for the non-rendition of an account, the penalty is to be passed on to the patient by way of increased medical fees. I hope that is not going to happen and I hope that he was only flippant in that regard this evening.

I want to raise with the hon. the Minister one question which I believe …

He is never flippant. He is a serious fellow.

I trust that he will on reflection of what he has said, treat it more as a flippant than a serious remark. I want to raise with the hon. the Minister one of the problems which I find particularly with younger married persons who are members of medical aid schemes. I want to refer to the amendment to section 41, which deals with regulations. Clause 6 of this Bill provides—

I take it that that refers to the medical practitioner who has rendered service to a member of a medical aid scheme. I find that in certain schemes the member is required to pay the medical practitioner before he is entitled to a refund from the medical aid scheme. That applies in respect of certain schemes. I am sure the hon. the Minister will realize that it is all right for people who can afford it and who have the financial resources to lay out the medical charges and then to claim a refund. But it is a hardship, particularly to young married couples, to have to make their disbursement before they receive the refund from their medical aid scheme. That applies to a number of schemes, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will ensure in the regulations which are now to be made, that this burden will not be placed on to a member of a medical aid scheme.

After all, a person who joins a scheme joins it in order that he might be relieved of the responsibilities and often the embarrassment which arises from having to meet medical accounts. On the terms which apply in certain schemes, that unfortunately is not achieved. Although he is contributing to the scheme, he is called upon to make the disbursement to the medical practitioner before he is entitled to a refund into his own pocket. I believe it applies mainly to those schemes which do not give 100 per cent cover. Those in respect of which a percentage cover applies only effect refunds after the payment has been made. I do hope the hon. the Minister can give an assurance in this regard. This responsibility which is still there despite membership, namely to find the cash to pay the bill before they get the refund, is a cause of concern to many. I will be grateful if the hon. the Minister would indicate to the House whether this amendment of the regulations will deal with this particular problem, which I believe is an unjust one under some of the medical schemes.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, in the first place, that I should like to associate myself with the statement by the hon. member for Fauresmith that the cost of being ill is high today. Let me also tell the hon. member for Durban Point immediately that he and his people are not more concerned about this than we on this side are. We are as concerned about it. The only difference is that we have taken positive, new steps to combat it.

That is not the solution.

Let me also say that the last thing we should do is to make a political issue of this matter. [Interjections.] I shall come to the hon. member for Durban Point just now. He said here with a pious face, “I am a consumer.” We can well say that he is a frighteningly big consumer. He pretends to have in mind steps which we fail to take, but which can be taken. I must say that I was flattered by him, for what did he say? He said that a judicial commission was not good enough, but that the one man in this world he trusted to keep the costs down was the Minister.

We can call the Minister to account.

No, that is the whole point. The hon. member does not want to call the Minister to account; he wants to gossip outside this House. Because we have appointed this commission, he can gossip about all the costs of living, etc., but he cannot gossip about medical costs, because he is co-responsible for them. This evening I want to repeat very clearly and in detail how these things work, so that our people may know once and for all. Previously there was no protection whatsoever against medical costs for any member of the public. There was no machinery or method for providing that protection. The schemes and the medical practitioners used to determine the tariffs by negotiation. If the negotiations failed, the doctors and dentists asked whatever they liked. In fact, there were years in which they could not see eye to eye, as hon. members know. Then we decided that things could no longer continue in that way. I want to ask any member in this House—all of you supported it—and any member of the public whether they can suggest to me a better method, a more correct and acceptable one, one which will be able to instal more confidence, than the one we have at present, and, if so, what that method is? A commission is appointed every three years. A judge, retaining his status as such, is the chairman. One of the members is a member of the medical profession. He is appointed by me from a panel which I get from the Medical Association. The other member is one who is chosen from a panel submitted to me by the medical schemes, in other words, the representatives of the public, the patients or “consumers”. It may even be Mr. Vause Raw.

Then you would get some lower fees.

That may be so. When it concerns dental fees, a dentist, who is also taken from a panel, is substituted for the medical doctor. The dentists sat just recently; I have their report in my office. The fees which are determined scientifically by them, are announced in a report in which the whole basis and method are set out for the world to read. The previous report was more than six inches thick. Did the hon. member for Durban Point give evidence before that commission? He did not. But now he comes here and is very concerned. He did not go to give evidence, and why did he not do so? They sat here on the other side of the street.

I do not have the knowledge. I am only the representative of people with problems.

There was an opportunity to give evidence. Hon. members may read on what basis the previous tariffs were determined. The hon. member can go and tell that commission that that basis is wrong. This report I have now, will again be made available to the public. The Judge and his assistants reviewed the fees on this basis. I want to ask any right-minded person whether the Minister should now be given the right to tamper with those tariffs submitted to him by that commission, to increase or decrease them.

If they are unreasonable.

Who is to determine whether they are unreasonable? Must the Minister do so? I now ask whether the Minister should have the right to determine, over and above the decision of the Judge and his assistants, whether the Judge is unreasonable? Is that what the hon. member wants?

Carry on.

The hon. member just wants to carry on gossiping if the Minister has the right and then to say that the Minister did not do his duty. I want to state here candidly this evening that no Minister, neither I myself nor any future Minister or Government, will be capable of doing better work than a judicial commission such as this. This evening I want to extend an invitation to hon. members opposite and to the public that if they can offer me a better method of determining a reasonable tariff for medical or dental services, they should do so. That commission deals with about 7 000 items and I say without any fear of contradiction that every hon. member in this House, on whatever side he may be sitting, can go to the public and tell them with an open mind that if there are any tariffs in South Africa that is determined in a fair and an irreproachable way, and in a way in which they can have confidence, it is these medical and dental tariffs since 1969. I am grateful to hon. members on the opposite side for having supported this legislation. I think about this matter night and day, but I still have not been able to think of a better method. However, I am not prepared to take the power out of the hands of a judicial commission and to place it in the hands of other people, who, to my mind, do not possess the competence of those people.

I now want to mention a second point with reference to what the hon. member for Durban Point said here, and that is that he should not stir up suspicion against medical schemes. We have a system in South Africa today which is not 100 per cent perfect, but which is as good as you can get, i.e. health insurance in terms of which 80 per cent or more of our people are covered, and which has not yet turned South Africa into a socialist state. We must not stir up suspicion. We should rather point out the good and important points of medical schemes. The hon. member scornfully referred to “trade unions”. These are the only things he knows, but there is no such thing as “trade unions” among medical doctors and dentists. We have professional associations. He will not know what that is; I shall tell him when we are outside this House. I do not think it does the relations between doctor and patient any good to speak in this way about things of which he knows nothing.

Another point I want to mention, and this is the only one I want to mention in regard to medical schemes, and which I also consider to be the salient one in respect of this legislation, is the fact that the Act which we passed five years ago, now provides for the first time that when a person retires he remains a member of the scheme concerned. In other words, within the next 10 or 20 years we are going to find the situation that the indigent person whom the State must look after today through its district surgeons and others, will no longer be an indigent person as far as medical and dental services are concerned. He will be covered by his own scheme for which he will pay during his working life. I think this will create a wonderful situation, for our aged as well. These are the fine points of the scheme that I want to point out to the hon. member.

There are many good schemes, but there are also schemes which are misleading.

There are no schemes which are misleading, because every scheme has to be registered with the Central Council. A misleading element may arise from the fact that the hon. member does not understand what he reads. However, there is no scheme which may mislead a member, and if the hon. member tells me of one which misleads a member, I shall see to it that the Central Council takes immediate action against it.

The hon. member for Geduld voiced his concern here about clause 5, which proposes to substitute a new section 40 for section 40 of the principal Act. The new section 40 reads as follows :

This section bothered me too, and I must say I am still not quite happy about it at this stage. The legal people tell me that this does not relate to medical doctors and dentists. They say that the words “any person” relate to the person in whose name the medical scheme is registered, because a medical scheme must be a corporate body. That is what the legal people tell me. The second point is that the Medical Association raised no objection to this clause. It is not the intention here that medical practitioners should be penalized. The hon. member for Fauresmith is right. We really must not be annoyed with the person who does not send in an account. We must not penalize him. I then went further and was prepared to move in the Committee Stage that medical doctors and dentists should be specifically excluded from this section, if there is any doubt. The rules of the House unfortunately do not allow this. The only way in which we would be able to do this, would be to withdraw the Bill and to introduce a new one.

What about an instruction?

No, apparently we cannot do it in that way either. I now want to suggest that, since some of our legal people say that this does not relate to medical doctors and dentists and since it is not the intention that this should be the case, we should pass it in this form in view of the practical problems we have as a result of the procedure here in Parliament. If it appears that medical practitioners are prosecuted in terms of this section for not rendering accounts within a month and for not sending reminders within four months, I undertake to put this right. In addition, I want to say that the penalizing of the medical practitioners is in any case to be found in a different aspect of this Bill, i.e. that if the four months have expired and he has not sent the account and has not followed the necessary procedure, he forfeits the assurance that the scheme will guarantee his money. In other words, he is penalized in a different way.

I think it is dangerous to leave it as it is.

Well, I cannot change it. That is my problem.

The hon. member for Green Point raised a point in regard to the payment of a bill and said that he was especially worried about the young couple. However, it could apply to anybody. In other words, his fear is that people might not have the money to first pay the doctor and then be refunded by the scheme. That fear does not exist. May I point out to the hon. member that regulation 8 (1) reads as follows—

The supplier is the doctor—

In other words, if the account is rendered in accordance with the regulation, the scheme shall pay directly to the doctor.

Is that a new provision?

No; the date is 11th September, 1970.

I will give you the name of one fund which does not …

That may be so, but it is not in accordance with the regulations.

The insurance companies did that once.

Let me just go further. If for instance, it happens to be a scheme where only 80 per cent is paid, the scheme must recover that money from the individual.

The 20 percent of course.

Yes. We have now gone further. In clause 6 we are giving this regulation the effect of law; that is what we are doing here. This regulation will in future be part of the Act and not be a regulation any more. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

Yes, that satisfies me.

The hon. member for Rosettenville raised the point of the fragmentation of the different associations. I am sorry about that; I have done my best to bring them together, and I have had some success. The Federation and the Advisory Association have now come together. I have assisted them in making that decision. They have seen me in that regard some months ago and I was glad to receive a telegram from them a week later conveying the message that they have come together. However, the practical situation is that the number of members of the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes is 226 954. The number of members of the Federation and the Advisory Association totals 255 742. The number of dependants of Namas is 346 148 and the number of dependants of the other two totals 405 006. Therefore the hon. member will see that I could not possibly in the legislation before the House exclude the Federation and the Advisory Association and not recognize them—at least they are not being recognized now as such but they could be recognized as separate entities— when they have a bigger membership than the National Association. I cannot see that this fragmentation will in any way ever affect the cost of medicine and the cost of medical services. I am sure that this can never happen because in what way can it possibly be affected? The Association is merely a representative body of these schemes; as a matter of fact I would prefer them to give evidence before the commission in more than one instance, because the evidence emanating from these bodies would be evidence serving to keep the cost of medicine down and not to push it up.

Will they compete against one another to bring it down?

No, I do not think that they can compete against one another, because the Association is not there for competition. It is merely there to represent them, as the hon. member knows. If there is one body, it will be welcomed, but I think it is only wise and proper that we should make provision in the Bill that if there is more than one body, which is the de facto situation at present, both of them could be recognized. I may tell the hon. member that I have done my best. When I had to appoint the commission last year, I made it quite clear to Namas that I could not accept, even if it stood in the Bill—perhaps it was illegal; I do not care because we have to be practical about it—the opinion of one scheme only. I told them they represented one half of the people only and the others the other half and they should try to get together and make a recommendation to me for appointment to the commission. This they did. So we have had success as far as that is concerned. If in future they cannot find one another, the practical situation will be that there will be no problem at all for the Minister to appoint this judicial commission, because all of them can make representations to me. To the best of my knowledge and on the information that I have at that stage, I will appoint an individual from those suggested to me. I think he will be best to represent the consumers. At that stage it might well be the hon. member for Durban Point. In this last instance it was the previous chairman of the Civil Service Medical Benefit Association, Dr. Enslin.

I must come back to the hon. member for Durban Point, because he said that action by the Minister had made it impossible for this particular friend of his …

A constituent.

… or a constituent of his, to become a member of, as he called it, the Government Medical Scheme. That is not true. It is not a Government scheme. The hon. member knows it. I have no say in that association at all, nor has the Prime Minister or the Cabinet. He knows it, but he wants to create the impression that the Government is not doing its job, that the Government is guilty of something in that it could have handled this in a different way.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that the medical scheme for civil servants is entirely run by the civil servants themselves.

The administration of it, yes.

And the regulations and the rules—everything.

The hon. member was specifically referring to the regulations debarring his constituent from becoming a member of that association. It is not the responsibility of the Government. We have no say in that, and we do not want to have any say. The civil servants are running their medical scheme quite well, and we are happy with it. All the Government does at this stage is to contribute to that scheme. For every rand contributed by the civil servants, the Government contributes an amount of R1-50.

You have no say at all?

None whatever. Would the hon. member like the Government to have a say in it?

Are you satisfied with the case I outlined?

The case outlined to me raises a completely different point, and that is whether there should be interchangeability between schemes. I am now talking about the scheme for civil servants. The hon. member said in this House in clear-cut words that it was the fault of the Government that there is no interchangeability, that it is because of the Government’s action that the rules are such. I am saying to the hon. member that there is no truth in that whatsoever.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that a civil servant who had not opted at the correct time, would have to resign his job in order to get protection under the Civil Servants’ Medical Benefit Association?

If the hon member brings the case to me, I will look into it.

I have taken it to you. You turned me down flat.

I did not turn the hon. member down, I pointed out to him where the fault lay, because I have no powers whatever in that matter, and I am not going to take them, for the following reason.

*If I take those powers, the hon. member can go and gossip in Durban again. His problem this evening is that he cannot go and gossip about any aspect of medical costs or about the administration of medical schemes or about the public servants’ medical benefit association. And yet he does so. He comes to this House and makes a statement in which there is not a grain of truth, and he knows it just as well as you and I do, Sir.

I think you should withdraw that, you know.

Yes very well, I know it is unparliamentary. I may not say that the hon. member knew that there was not a grain of truth in it. Sir, I and all of us, except the hon. member, know that there is not a grain of truth in it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.