Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, I move

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

An explanatory memorandum on the Bill was tabled and I take it hon. members have found it useful. I shall consequently only deal with the clauses.

Clauses 1 and 7:

The relevant provisions of the constitutions of the Bantu homelands and the proposed amendments thereto are of the same nature and for that reason I shall discuss clauses 1 and 7 simultaneously. In terms of existing arrangements, the revenue fund of a Bantu homeland government has the following sources of revenue—

1. 1. Income which I shall refer to as “own revenue”, and which consists of the following:
   1. (a)
      1. (i) taxes or levies payable by citizens in terms of the Bantu Taxation Act, 1969, the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, and an Act of the legislative assembly;
      2. (ii) taxes which, in terms of Act of Parliament or an ordinance of a province, are imposed on the incomes, profits or gains of a private company operated in the area and in which Bantu have a controlling interest;
      3. (iii) estate or succession duty levied by an Act of Parliament in respect of the estate of a citizen who, at the time of his death, was ordinarily resident in the area concerned.
   2. (b) All revenue, including licence fees, taxes, fees of office, fines, forfeitures, rents and other moneys derving from the administration of matters in respect of which the legislative assembly may make laws.
2. 2. An amount determined by statute and which I refer to as the “statutory amount”. This amount consists of an annual grant to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund approved by the Minister of Finance of the Republic after consultation with the Controller and Auditor-General and corresponding to the expenditure by the Government of the Republic in respect of the matters the administration of which is transferred to the Government of the area concerned, during the financial year preceding the date of the transfer, less—
   1. (i) the income from existing sources which no longer accrues to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but will accrue to the Revenue Fund;
   2. (ii) the salaries, allowances, pension contributions and other benefits payable in respect of seconded officers of the Republic.
3. 3. An additional sum of money appropriated by Parliament for the due performance of services and duties assigned to the Government of the area concerned.

Mr. Speaker, you and hon. members will recall that the hon. the Prime Minister announced during 1974 that, arising from discussions with homeland leaders earlier that year concerning the fair distribution of certain tax revenue, the Government has given consideration to the matter and is prepared to consider revising the existing system after further consultation wit the homeland leaders concerned. After due consideration had been given to the basis of financing, detailed proposals in writing concerning the revision of the system, were submitted to the homeland leaders concerned and, after comments had been awaited and the proposals had been accepted, the draft legislation was submitted for comment to all the relevant homeland Cabinets/Executive Councils, and agreement was obtained.

Arising out of the said negotiations it is now being proposed to effect certain changes to the pattern of financing, which I shall discuss now.

The sources of revenue which I referred to as “own income” are being left unchanged, but before I begin to discuss the proposed amendments in respect of the “statutory amount”, I should just like to mention briefly that although the Act empowers the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to determine, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to what extent direct taxes will accrue to the homelands, the said Ministers have already determined that such taxes will, as a whole, be so distributed irrespective of whether the taxpayer is resident in the White area or in the homeland area.

As hon. members know, the basic year for the determination of the “statutory amount” is the year preceding the transfer of a particular matter to a homeland. On account of this the basic years of respective homelands differ because responsible government was assumed by the homelands on different dates. The basic year in respect of particular matters for the same homeland also differs because the responsibility for different matters was taken over on different dates after responsible government had been assumed.

As regards the matters which had been transferred to homelands governments or are transferred to them after 31 March 1973 and in respect of which no amount was credited to the Revenue Fund during the 1973-’74 financial year, the basic year will still be the year preceding the transfer of the matter.

It is well known that the costs of services and administration are gradually rising. Since the basic year for the determination of the “statutory amount” differs, the element of increases in costs has been compensated for to a greater degree in “statutory amounts” in respect of the younger homeland governments than in the case of an older homeland government.

The aforementioned position does not mean that the one homeland government will be better off financially than the other, but it does mean that an older government is being financed to a greater degree by means of the additional appropriations than by means of the “statutory amount” which creates the impression of greater economic dependence.

These amendments seek to make the basic year for all existing homeland governments in respect of matters already transferred, the same, i.e. the year 1973-’74, so that all homeland governments will be treated on a uniform basis. Of course, the result of this will be that the “statutory amount” will increase in relation to the “additional amount”. Existing legislation does not provide for the “statutory amount” to be increased, save through the transfer of additional matters, and this amount has in fact decreased over the years, to the extent to which increased amounts in respect of salaries and allowances of seconded officers of the Republic have been deducted, and the “statutory amount” has been reduced in relation to the additional amount.

The salaries and allowances of White seconded officers were taken into consideration as expenditure at the time of the determination of the “statutory amount”, but since the Act lays down that salaries and allowances have to be deducted from the “statutory amount”, this has created the erroneous impression that homeland governments have to provide for the expenditure themselves whereas it simply means that the amount was first added and subsequently deducted. To eliminate any further confusion the provision that salaries and allowances should be deducted in this way is now being deleted.

The method of determining the “statutory amount” is being amended further by providing for the “additional amount” credited to the relevant Revenue Fund during the financial year ended 31 March 1974 (less the amounts determined which will accrue to the Revenue Fund in terms of paragraph (iv) and (v) (customs, excise and sales duty as well as company tax)) to be added in the calculation of the “statutory amount”.

To be able to compensate for the increase in the costs of services, provision is also being made in the amendment for the said amounts to be adjusted by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, with due regard to factors such as, for example, the general cost structure.

As indicated, tax on incomes, profits or gains of private companies operated in an area and in which Bantu have the controlling interests, accrue to the Revenue Fund of a homeland. However, it is considered fair that tax on the incomes, profits or gains of all companies carrying on industrial, commercial or business undertakings in a homeland, irrespective of whether these are private companies and irrespective of whether Bantu have the controlling interest in them, should accrue to the Revenue Fund of the homeland concerned, and this is in fact being done by the amendments.

Homeland governments have no legislative powers over customs and excise, but since a certain part of the revenue which accrues to the Treasury is generated in the homelands through customs, excise and sales duty, it is also deemed fair and desirable that the calculated amount of such revenues should accrue to the Revenue Funds of the homelands.

It may just be mentioned that the amounts which are made available to homelands by means of additional appropriations are considerably more than the total revenue of the said indirect taxes generated in the homelands.

At present no records and facilities exist for the direct apportionment of the said indirect taxation and for that reason it is being proposed to calculate and apportion the amount on the basis of available statistics in respect of total revenue, domestic expenditure and population. The calculation will be subject to periodic redeterminations/ recalculation.

The Government is fully aware of the fact that although the statutory revenues of homelands will be increased considerably, it will still be necessary, for the foreseeable future, to supplement homeland revenues by means of additional appropriations. However, such additional appropriations will (in relation to the “statutory amount”) be less than in the past and this reflects the smaller degree to which homelands are dependent on grants from the Government of the Republic.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4

Hon. members are aware of the fact that Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have been established and that the boards have taken over from local authorities certain duties in respect of the administration of Bantu in urban areas. Such boards have now also taken over the management of district labour bureaux to a large extent. The running of the aforementioned bureaux involves expenditures to the boards and it is consequently the intention to allow the revenue from district labour bureaux, which is at present being credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to accrue to the body which runs and finances the bureau, i.e. the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards.

Clause 5

The present legal provisions provide for voting to take place in an election of members of a legislative council in the territory of South West Africa, therefore outside the relevant homeland as well, but they do not authorize such voting in the Republic. Due to the fact that considerable numbers of voters are in the Republic, the amendment also proposes to make voting possible in the Republic.

Clauses 6 and 8

Just as in the case of the Transkeian Constitution, provision is also made in the constitutions of the other homelands in the Republic and South West Africa for the establishment of High Courts. When the High Court was established in the Transkei certain minor difficulties were experienced in respect of the application of certain existing Acts in the area of jurisdiction of a High Court, the pension rights of a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa seconded to serve as Chief Justice of the High Court, the interpretation of certain terms in existing Acts in respect of the High Court and the validity of process of a High Court in the area of jurisdiction of divisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. These minor difficulties in respect of the Transkei were rectified during the past session and this amendment serving before the House now envisages similar adjustments in respect of the other homelands in the Republic and South West Africa.

Clause 9

There is no legal authority for a Bantu Affairs Administration Board to operate a bank overdraft. This state of affairs entails that beards have to keep considerable amounts in current accounts in order to avoid operating a bank overdraft and in this way the boards lose interest could have earned on surplus money. Therefore, the amendment proposes the authorizing of bank overdraft facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Bill has now been fully elucidated and that it will receive the general support of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the way in which he has introduced this legislation this afternoon. I must thank him for the lengthy explanation he has given, particularly of clauses 1 and 7. But, Sir, I regret that I cannot thank him on behalf of this side of the House for any explanatory memorandum. We have had this fight in this House before, Sir. It is normal courtesy, when we have a General Law Amendment Bill such as this one, for the Government to let us have timeously, so that we will have an opportunity to study it, a White Paper setting out the provisions of the Bill and the reasons for the introduction of those provisions. This afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister started by referring to a White Paper which we on this side of the House—and this is the ground for my objection—found on our desks this afternoon for the first time.

Oh, for goodness’ sake!

Hon. members over there may say “oh, for goodness’ sake!”, but I challenge anybody on those benches, including hon. members of the Progressive Party, to tell us when they received their copy of this White Paper. I want to go further and say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side of the House were in communication with his department on Wednesday of last week, and at that stage no White Paper existed and we were advised that there was no intention of issuing such a White Paper. Sir, I begin with this protest.

I got mine last week.

The hon. the Minister is in a privileged position. If he got his last week, I want to know why we did not get ours at the same time. Are the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side in a privileged position?

Having got that off my chest, having registered my protest, let me now deal with the Bill and deal with it on its merits. This is an omnibus Bill which amends five Acts, the Transkei Constitution Act, the Bantu Labour Act, the Development of Self-government (Native Nations of South West Africa) Act, the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act and the Bantu Affairs Administration Act.

Sir, clauses 1 and 7 are the main clauses in the Bill and I intend dealing with them last. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are merely administrative. They arise from the Bantu Affairs Administration Act and make provision that certain moneys which are collected, fines which are paid and bail which is entreated, should now accrue to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and no longer to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Sir, although we opposed the establishment of these Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, this is a logical step in the light of legislation which is in existence and which I am not permitted to criticize this afternoon, but as this is a logical extension we will not oppose those clauses. Clause 4, incidentally, also provides that in future the Department of Posts and Telecommunications will have to pay levies and charges to these Bantu administration boards in respect of their African employees. I believe this is only fair and I am very glad to see this particular provision in the Bill.

Clause 5, which deals with the elections held in South West Africa by the native peoples of South West Africa, we welcome particularly because it now puts them in the same position as any voter within the Republic. It was an anomaly which existed then and I sincerely hope that this puts right any hardship which was done to any South West African citizens who were at a disadvantage because they happen to be working in the Republic and were deprived of their vote in the recent elections particularly.

Clauses 6 and 8 we also find unobjectionable. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that he had a dummy-run last year when he applied similar provisions to the High Court of the Transkei. He now intends, with these two clauses, to apply the same provisions to the high courts of the Bantu homelands in South West Africa and the other homelands in the Republic. But, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has left out something here. Last year when we debated the question of whether or not this provision should be applied to the High Court of the Transkei, we asked him then which Acts he intended to apply, which Acts he contemplated would be applied and why they would be applied. He told us then that the only one he foresaw at that stage was the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act. He mentioned this afternoon the question of the service of processes of the High Court of the Transkei in other areas of the Republic and also the service of processes of other high courts in all areas of the Republic. He also mentioned that they got rid of the “haakplekke” and were able to iron them all out. But I should like him to fell us which Acts have in fact been applied, which regulations have in fact been applied, to the High Court of the Transkei so that we can have a much more informed debate in the Committee Stage on this particular clause. I should like to know exactly what has been applied and why they were applied. I have a note here in regard the absence of a White Paper but I have already dealt with that particular point.

Clause 9 is also unexceptionable. It provides that the Bantu Affairs Administration Board, should be allowed to obtain money by way of bank overdrafts. I believe that this is merely to regularize the position as it is today. I believe that there has been a conflict of interpretation in regard to the term “any loans” and we are not going to object to this clause. I want to say that provided the hon. the Minister keeps a strict check on the situation and that a situation does not develop where a Bantu Administration Board will exist on a permanent overdraft. I do not see that we will have objections.

I come now to clauses 1 and 7, which are the real meat in this Bill. It makes provision regarding the financing of the various Black Governments within the Republic by the central Government. The hon. the Deputy Minister explained at length the present sources of finance of the various homelands—the Transkei and the other homelands within the Republic. The question does arise, however, why these provision are not made to apply now also to the homelands in South West Africa. I mention that in passing and I hope that we will get a reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister when he replies to this debate so that we can deal with the matter further in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Deputy Minister has set out at length the sources of income for the various homelands as they exist at the moment. Sir, of all those only one—I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them—has been changed, and that is what he has referred to as the statutory grant, i.e. a grant which is voted by this House and which is based on a formula laid down in the Acts at the moment. I say “Acts” because we are dealing here with two Acts, one being the Transkei Constitution Act and the other Bantu Homelands Constitution Act.

The amendments proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, which he has set out at length—and we have no argument with what he has said, no argument at all— deal with this formula. They give an impression of economic independence for these Bantu homelands. The hon. the Deputy Minister, if I recollect correctly, did in fact use that phrase and said that by these amendments, which he is introducing today, it is his intention to give economic independence to the homelands. I am afraid that I must disagree with him this afternoon. This cannot be construed as economic independence for the homelands.

The first question which arises, and to my mind the most important question, is why no provisions have been made in his amendments, which are now before this House, for consultation with the homeland Government concerned. Why is the Minister of Finance of the homeland Government concerned not recognized in this legislation at all? Sir, I must draw your attention to sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (v) of the new paragraph (c) of section 52(1) of the Transkei Constitution Act, which is substituted by clause 1. In subparagraph (iii), for instance, it is provided that the amount which is to be paid shall be “as determined by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in consultation with the Minister of Finance of the Republic”. In sub-paragraph (iv), again, we find those same words concerning the funds derived by such companies from industrial, commercial or other business undertakings carried on by them in the Transkei. The other homelands are referred to in clause 7. Again in sub-paragraph (v), we have a reference to “an amount determined from time to time by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in consultation with the Minister of Finance of the Republic” in determining the amount to be paid by way of customs, excise and sales duties derived in the Transkei. And again the same applies to the other homelands.

Why is no mention made of the Minister of Finance of the Transkei in this clause and of the other homelands in the other clause? You know, Sir, that there is a difference of opinion between this side of the House and the governing party regarding how we believe South Africa should be governed. We have advocated a federal system which we believe to be the only answer for the problems which beset us in this country. You will know that, in terms of our federal system, we believe that the Minister of Finance of each constituent unit must consult with and will be consulted by the federal Minister of Finance when it comes to the amounts which shall accrue to each of those constituent units. That explains my point of view, but we find that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration have been consulting with the leaders of these homelands. They had a big indaba here a couple of weeks ago. Statements were issued and the hon. the Prime Minister is on record as having said that he wishes to establish détente not only with outside countries, but within the Republic. How does this show the earnestness of the hon. the Prime Minister when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration comes with legislation like this which does not acknowledge the existence of the homeland at all?

This is entirely different.

No, this is not entirely different. The hon. the Deputy Minister made the interjection I expected him to make, namely that this is entirely different. Here was a golden opportunity for this Government to show its honesty and its integrity to the Black leaders, to establish its bona fides and to say to the Black homelands: “We recognize you. We will consult with you. We give you a place in our law whereby you can claim as a right that economic independence which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to.” I want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s words are only just words. In exactly the same way my leader, Sir De Villiers Graaff, said to the Prime Minister during the no-confidence debate: “Stop talking and let us do something.” That is why we had to vote against the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister; because it was only words. It was nothing but words, words, words. Let us see his actions, then we can talk about voting for his amendment. Here was a golden opportunity too for action; here was a golden opportunity to show us the earnestness, the bona fides, of the Government, a readiness to consult with these Governments on an equal basis. But no, they funked the issue. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister has an answer to this and that there is, perhaps, a reason why these homeland Governments should not be consulted in establishing these amounts. How can they be satisfied with an amount which is provided for them in terms of legislation if they play no role in establishing it? The hon. the Deputy Minister now says: “We give those Black Governments the right to this amount of money”, but he does not give them the opportunity of sitting in on the consultation which will decide what that amount shall be. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the question of escalating costs. The clause starts off by pegging the amount as at 31 March 1974. He then provides an escalation clause in the proviso to that paragraph which states that “any or all of the amounts referred to in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) may be adjusted from time to time to the extent determined by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in consultation with the Minister of Finance …”. This consultation does not take place with the Minister of Finance of the homeland concerned, but of the Republic. Again he fails to acknowledge the Bantu homeland Government concerned. I believe this is an oversight on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe they should be recognized and that it should be entrenched in the law that they should be consulted and that they should have the right to help determine these amounts. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will react and tell us why it has been left out, if there is a good and sufficient reason, so that we can discuss this matter further in the Committee Stage.

There is one other matter about which I was disappointed. If we look at the existing legislation, viz. the Transkei Constitution Act, we find in section 52(a)(ii) that included in the moneys which accrue to the Transkei and included in the statutory amount the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to, is the amount of any “tax on incomes, profits or gains” paid by “any citizen of the Transkei who is ordinarily resident in the Transkei or by any company which is recognized as a private company” and which trades and operates within the Transkei. So far so good. But when we look at the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act—I refer to section 6(2)(a)(ii)— we find that there is a difference. Whereas the Transkei can claim the income tax which is paid by its citizens—that is, the income tax which is paid to the Republican Government—who are resident in the Transkei, the other homeland Governments may not claim as a right the income tax which is paid to the Republican Government by their citizens who are resident in their areas. This paragraph provides that all moneys payable “in terms of any Act of Parliament or any Ordinance imposing any tax on incomes, profits or gains … by any company which is recognized as a private company” and is trading in the homelands, shall be paid into the Revenue Fund of an area. There is no mention of the citizens. In other words, as I read the position, the Transkei Government can claim as part of this statutory amount which must be voted by this House, the tax which is paid by Transkei citizens, viz. income tax paid to the Republican Government, but that no other homeland Government, like KwaZulu and Ga Rankuwa, can do the same, as no provision exists in this regard. I had hoped that in this legislation the hon. the Deputy Minister would have included a provision to amend the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act to bring it into line with the Transkei Constitution Act.

Sir, I have registered our protest at the late arrival of the White Paper and I have mentioned to the hon. the Deputy Minister the questions which arise in our minds. I want to tell him now that we will not oppose this legislation. Unfortunately the hon. member for Houghton is not in her seat at the moment. Last year when we dealt with the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, she read to us a homily on what to do with these omnibus Bills. She said we must oppose all of them every time, this being the attitude that she had adopted. We, however, are not opposing this this afternoon. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member for Houghton. We shall not oppose it, though I sincerely hope that we shall hear from them what their attitude is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South had to take over the role of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana today because I think there is a counting going on somewhere. The counting is being proceeded with in view of last week’s counting of heads which resulted in that hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South being really unable to devote time to this explanatory memorandum. The hon. member is terribly upset about this explanatory memorandum now, but this memorandum reached our benches here in the House last Thursday. If the hon. member had in any way wanted to take trouble and had been less involved with the in-fighting in his party, there would have been sufficient time for him properly to study this simple Bill before us. I should like to give the hon. member credit for being, in my opinion, far too intelligent to need a week to scrutinize this legislation. However, in the speech by the hon. member we really received the big difference and I am pleased that the hon. member pointed that out.

The hon. member attacked the hon. the Deputy Minister because, according to him, the Ministers of Finance of the various Bantu homeland governments are not consulted under this legislation when the statutory amount or the amount of the taxation levied indirectly or the supplementary amount is determined. The hon. member states that in terms of their federation idea those Ministers of the homeland governments would be able to consult together and decide jointly on the amount of money for the homelands. If that, then, is the case under their policy, the hon. member must now tell us whether he admits that the Bantu homelands can have a say in the finances in that way or does he mean, quite simply, that in terms of the federation which they now advocate, the Bantu will share in the budget for the whole South Africa? I think that these are two small differences in which the hon. member for Randburg himself would be interested. To us, however, it is important because we state very expressly in this legislation that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will decide on that statutory amount, as well as on the amount that will accrue by way of indirect taxation and the supplementary amount that may be necessary, quite simply because a Minister of a homeland government cannot have a say in the funds of a White government. After all, we cannot allow the Minister of Finance of the Transkei, or of any homeland whatsoever, to have any say in the finances of White South Africa, i.e. the budget which this Parliament compiles. After all, we are an autonomous government with an autonomous department which will decide on that. The hon. member does not understand how these matters work. The hon. the Minister explained to the hon. member that this legislation before the House today has the approval of the Bantu homelands. It is essential that we take cognizance of the fact that this is an amendment bill. The principle of the statutory amount has already been laid down in other legislation, and there it is provided that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will determine the amount. It has become clear over the years that in determining the figure for the statutory amount, it has not always been possible to budget so close to the correct figure as to allow it to be regarded as the total figure necessary for the administration of the Bantu homelands. The principle was then introduced that there could be a supplementary amount. This therefore, is by no means a new principle before the House today because the same appears in the old Act. Nor is it being amended now. All that is being done, is that the basis here is being changed to enable a similar basis here to be obtained for all the homeland governments. The only new concept we have in this legislation today in regard to taxation or the source of income of the Bantu homelands, concerns indirect taxation. In fact, with the acknowledgement of the fact that the homeland governments are entitled to certain taxes, we have reached an important milestone, something which may perhaps go by unnoticed today because the Opposition is not going to make an issue of it. This is an important milestone in that we are giving the homeland governments a direct interest in the indirect tax contributed by the Bantu by way of purchase tax, customs and excise duty, and so on. Seen from the National Party’s point of view, this is a very important matter, a step forward, a step in the direction of the entire pattern towards which we should like to see the homelands developing until, eventually, they are running their own economic structure and their own finances. The Government is also displaying definite realism in this regard. It said in the past that the Bantu contributed a certain amount indirectly by way of purchase tax and so on. When these formulae are set in operation, we shall have the opportunity to see what the real amounts are which are paid by the Bantu in respect of indirect taxation in the form of purchase tax, customs and excise duty, etc. As regards customs and excise tax and taxes of this kind, we are now coming into line with the treatment which the other Bantu areas in Southern Africa, namely Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, receive from us. A customs agreement similar to that which was concluded with those countries, will be concluded. Once again this is an acknowledgment of the progress made with regard to the autonomous handling of their own finances by the homeland governments. The hon. member said that only private companies were taxable as far as the other homelands were concerned, but perhaps he simply forgot how the taxes operate at this stage. The homeland governments receive their share of the ordinary poll tax, of the ordinary tax received. In the past it was provided that private companies also paid their share of income tax which they would have had to pay to the White government, to the homeland government itself. All that is happening now, is that the whole provision is being extended. Now it is not only the poll tax and the taxes paid by private companies that are going to the homeland governments. This now covers all companies and not only private companies. All companies, therefore, will now pay tax to the homeland government.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, the formula is something new. A certain year is taken as a basic year as regards the statutory amounts, but we shall have to understand that it will not be possible for the departments concerned—the Department of Finance, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development—to tell us immediately what the amount is that will be levied in this way by way of indirect taxation and the extension of taxation with regard to companies other than private companies. We shall, at least first have to see that a proper list is compiled of companies doing business in the Bantu homelands. We must know what the practical situation is in the homelands. Very often the controlling company is in South Africa while the subsidiary company does business in the Bantu homelands. In that case it is not simply a matter relating to the levying of taxes; it will also concern the basic relationships and statutory relationships between controlling companies and subsidiary companies. We shall have to attend to these aspects. A list will have to be compiled concerning those companies, how they pay their taxes, at what rate and what the amount will be. Only then will we be able to determine what the figure will be. We must expect it to take some time, at least, before this step is implemented in the Bantu homelands. However, that this is a step in the right direction, is very clear. It will provide us with an indication of how economically viable the Bantu homelands are, viz. on the basis of the profits made by companies in the Bantu homelands.

It is very clear that the Government’s idea in introducing this legislation is to establish a clear pattern of financing for the Bantu homelands. In many respects this can clarify certain matters for us. On the one hand, for example, it can give the Whites in South Africa an idea of what the Bantu homelands really contribute. I say this particularly in view of those who maintain that we are always giving money to the Bantu homelands without knowing what is done with that money. On the other hand the White person in South Africa can then be put in the picture in regard to the situation there. In the past we have been unable to determine which part of the statutory amount and of the supplementary amount were really paid by the Bantu in the form of tax. In the future we shall be able to determine what the pattern is and will at least be able to determine, percentage-wise, what proportion is contributed by the Bantu themselves in the form of taxation for the development within the homeland areas. I hope that the hon. member is now clear on the whole question of companies and tax.

Another very important aspect which we cannot overlook is the extension of the powers of the Bantu Administration Boards. As the hon. member said, the Opposition fought the establishment of these Bantu Administration Boards, I could almost say, tooth and nail in this House. This is no different to the way it has been with all other aspects of Bantu legislation as well. As soon as it is operating properly, the Opposition says: “Yes, we were against the Act, but since it is working well you may continue with it.” This is merely what we usually have from the Opposition. As far as the amendment of the legislation concerning the Bantu Administration Boards is concerned, there are two matters of importance. In the first place, progressively more provision is being made to make available their own funds for the Administration Boards. Fines are transferred to them, and the levy paid to the labour bureaux now also accrues to the Bantu Administration Boards. Even the fact that an Administration Board is now authorized to have a bank overdraft indicates to us that these Bantu Administration Boards are to acquire a far greater degree of autonomy in the execution of their duties. Under this legislation these Bantu Administration Boards will be allowed to increase certain fees. In this respect we also leave it to the administration boards to determine for themselves, within the framework of the legislation, how these fees are to be adjusted to allow the board to function as an economically self-supporting board. This is being done because they are experiencing certain practical problems in urban areas, problems which are not really of any importance to us at this stage. This concession in itself gives more authority to the Bantu Administration Boards, and I believe that it will bear the necessary fruit.

I just want to say, with regard to the references to the High Court, that I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister himself will indicate what legislation is involved there. In any event, I do not think it is of great importance at this stage which legislation is now involved. However, I think that it is essential for us to define the functions of the High Court at an early stage in such a way that when the High Court is really in full operation in various regions, they will be able to do their work without hindrance of any kind. The legislation concerned can then be submitted to the House by way of notice by the hon. the Deputy Minister or whoever it may be. The House could then be notified what kind of legislation was involved. The fact is that a principle is involved here; not the indication of which specific legislation is envisaged here.

In general we want to say that we on this side are grateful that the Opposition is not going to oppose this legislation. It is an essential piece of legislation which can mean a very great deal for the proper and expeditious flow of the administration of Bantu Affairs and particularly for the sources of finance for the homelands. However, we must draw attention to the fact that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is usually the first speaker on Bantu Affairs on the Opposition side, is not in the House. We do not want to say that we trust that the counting of votes is progressing well. In fact we are a little worried because it does not matter which of the two gentlemen in connection with which this counting of votes is now taking place, comes back. The United Party’s difficulty will always remain similar to that of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, viz. that in this session they will always be confused with regard to legislation because they will not know which side of the United Party’s case they will have to present here.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by telling the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on these benches have no objection to the provisions of clause 9. It is clearly a sensible decision on business grounds and should have been done some time ago. We do not have any fundamental objections either to clauses 6 and 8 whereby the State President is empowered by the principal Act to constitute a separate high court to exercise jurisdiction in any self-governing territory. The High Court of the Transkei is, of course, the first example. However, we do want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this idea of the proliferation of these high courts gives us cause for some alarm because presumably we will end up with ten if in fact the other homelands follow the example of the Transkei, although there may be some advantage in the fact that it will give Black South Africans a greater opportunity of participating directly in the administration of justice. However, in dealing with clauses 1 and 7, we come to realize that this is a Bill of great importance since it goes straight to the heart of the policy of the Government for the future of South Africa. As such it is of great concern to all of us who live in this land, Black, White and Brown.

As set out in clauses 1 and 7, this Bill deals with the revenue which will accrue to the Transkei under the policy of this Government in regard to that territory as it moves towards what is termed by the Government as independence. The Transkei may be the first and it may be the last or it may simply be the forerunner of other territories such as KwaZulu and Lebowa which will follow a similar road. This, of course, is the reason for clause 7. Whatever the case may be, however, it is of cardinal importance that all South Africans should take note of and weigh carefully the consequences of this course of action as it is going to affect the lives of everyone of us who lives in South Africa. They are already being affected and they will be increasingly affected sooner or later by the success or failure of this Government’s and this particular department’s policy of the development of self-governing territories. It is therefore imperative that we comprehend the intentions of this Government and of the hon. the Minister so that we may come to an objective conclusion as to whether the course of action as set out in this Bill and which is the essence of it, will be in the long term interests of the majority of all the peoples living in our country.

Only last week the Government itself clearly implied that this should be the only criterion when it said that it wanted to move away from discrimination based upon the colour of a person’s skin, because surely the hon. the Minister does not intend the policy of differentiation or the policy which is the essence of this legislation and the mechanism set up in clauses 1 and 7, as opposed to discrimination, if there is such a distinction, to result in a situation where everybody living in this country, whether in the Transkei, kwaZulu, Lebowa or so-called White South Africa, is going to be worse off than if clauses 1 and 7 did not come into force.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said the following on 8 February 1971 during his introduction of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Bill, which was a forerunner of the Bill which we are now discussing—

Please note those words, Mr. Speaker, “live and let live”, as I will come back to them in relation to clauses 1 and 7. Then, Sir, the former hon. the Minister of Finance said in his Budget speech on 14 August last year—

bringing the total figure—I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to the order of R465 million—

Note that word, too, Mr. Speaker—

It seems clear, therefore, that the underlying thrust beneath clauses 1 and 7 is presumably to cover the money to be put at the disposal of the homelands, and these two Ministers respectively have been given very wide powers of discretion. Presumably, too, it is done on the assumption that if the policy of separate development, which underlies this Bill, is not just a device by which the Government hopes to try to maintain the White monopoly of political power over the vast majority of our land, there is a constant theme that the homelands and the Transkei in particular must be developed to the point where they can stand on their own two feet as viable entities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. members will think carefully about the implications of this. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated that he will share neither the political power nor the assets of so-called White South Africa. It must be assumed, therefore, that the Government has been telling us that they intend to create nine separate viable economies within our country, of which the Transkei is to be the first. Mr. Speaker, it simply cannot be done. Even given the great wealth of this country and the potential for further enrichment open to it, the price is too high and could not be paid, nor indeed should it be paid, as it will result in a drastically lower standard of living than could otherwise be enjoyed by all South Africans, Black, Brown and White.

The hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members opposite will recall the figures given in the report of the Board for the Decentralization of Industry for the year ended December 1973. Over the whole period since 1960 it has provided some 115 000 employment opportunities, 11 000 of which were for Whites, at a cost, with or without the assistance of the board, of no less than R637 million. We also know, as the hon. the Deputy Minister will know, that the total male labour force is expected to increase until some 162 000 men per annum are going to come on to the labour market, and 82,5% of that annual increase will be citizens of the homelands. Sir, the figure of the order of R465 million, which this department voted for Bantu Administration and Development last year, does not really seem to stand comparison with what would be required on the basis of the figures I have just quoted, nor does it seem other than puny when you compare it to the R3 238 million to be spent by Iscor, or the R915 million to be spent by Escom, or the R1 100 million to be spent by the Railways or the R1 050 million by Sasol.

Indeed, on the basis of these figures, Sir, no reasonable person can do other than doubt whether the Government is serious and genuine, even if misguided, in its intention to create the Transkei or the other homelands as viable entities, because I should not think that the discretion given to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development are intended to cover figures of that order. As I have said before, the economic development of the Transkei, or its financial viability, which is the subject of this Bill, can only be seen as a consequence of but not as an alternative to the established growth complexes already present in our country.

That will occur in time, Sir, but until it does excessive expenditure—and no figures are mentioned in this Bill—within the Transkei will simply reduce the overall rate of growth for the citizens of the Transkei and for the citizens of the other nations and the other parts of South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know that even if it is done on a gigantic scale it is only likely to achieve circumstances where the majority of the people living in the Transkei can exist, not live, in the hon. the Minister’s term. They may exist now, as opposed to survive, but they will not live in the sense of what could be done by similar expenditure elsewhere in South Africa and on the basis that we have only one economy. Now this is not to say that the necessary educational facilities, together with such necessities as water, power and light, etc., should not be provided.

Sir, the policy of separate development and economic growth come to a head in this Bill. They stand in direct contrast, the one to the other. You can have the one or the other but you cannot have both, and sooner or later a decision will have to be reached as to which is the winner and which is the loser, and neither the hon. the Minister of Finance nor the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, even under the discretion given to them in this Bill, can change that one simple fact. Now, it is of great importance to the people who are going to live in the Transkei and who live there now to realize that. Indeed, it is important for all of us who live in our country, for it is they and we who are going to have to pay the price of a reduced standard of living and foot the bill if separate development should prove to take precedence over economic growth.

Sir, there are two other factors of the utmost significance in regard to the choice which is being presented to the people of the Transkei and which is encapsuled in this Bill. In addition to the choice between economic growth and separate development, they are going to have to regard the urban Blacks, the Black South Africans who live in our cities, in the context of the present stage of development of the South African economy as a whole and the implications thereof, since this runs counter in the most direct way possible to the general thrust of this Government’s argument. It also impinges on this and again it is a fulcrum in so far as the Transkei is concerned.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will be aware, you, Mr. Speaker, will be aware, and the hon. members will be aware that there have been some 10,5 million prosecutions during the tenure of this Government for offences against the pass laws or influx-control. Sir, that in itself seems to be conclusive evidence that life is preferable in the urban areas to that in the homelands. There is nothing very complicated about that either. It is not difficult to understand, as the hon. the Deputy Minister will know. It is simply that jobs and wages in the cities and in the established growth complexes such as the Witwatersrand, even though they may not be what they might be at this point in time, are a great deal better than the opportunities available elsewhere, for example in the Transkei, Lebowa or kwaZulu. That has been the case for a long time, as the Deputy Minister knows, and it is likely to continue, and increasingly so in the future. The other hon. Deputy Minister is to be commended because at least he has the courage to give public recognition to that fact. Indeed, how can it be otherwise, Sir? There is no way in which in excess of 80% of our people can be employed to the best of their ability on 13% of the land. To continue therefore to persist with the imposition of the policy of separate development as set out in this Bill for the Transkei or for the other homelands, upon the Black and Brown South Africans who are permanently settled in White South Africa, is both to ignore the realities as they now are and indeed to create new stresses and strains as between them and those who will comprise the Governments of the Transkei and the other homelands. But also, and perhaps even more important, it runs between the whole thrust of the policy of this Government, and what in practice happens in the market-place, where no such fine distinctions are known.

There is already irrefutable evidence of the shortage of skilled labour in our country, and the position is going to worsen and deteriorate as further growth occurs unless the artificial impediments—and what is visualized in this Bill is one of them— placed upon Black and Brown South Africans are removed. Even now. Mr. Speaker, if we have not actually arrived there, the point is fast being approached where there will be an absolute shortage of South African hands irrespective of colour, skilled or otherwise. In those circumstances, if we are going to enforce the measures incorporated in this Bill, we are going to ignore the opportunity of raising the standard of living of all South Africans. If we are going to take that opportunity, then all the barriers to productivity will have to come down.

Mr. Speaker, those who support the Government, those who sit on these benches, the people of the Transkei and of the other homelands can surely agree that the overriding prerequisite for growth and stability within our country is the provision of steadily and continuously rising standards of living for all of us to the greatest extent which the vast natural resources of this country, human and material, will allow. Surely no reasonable person can expect that the Black and Brown leaders willingly accept in a permanent way an agreement whereby they are given 13% of the land and a dismally inequitable share of the other material resources of this country. To be lasting, any contract has to be seen as equitable by both the parties concerned.

There is a saying about the Dutch which seems to me to be relevant to this Government and to this policy: “They concede too little and they ask too much.”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, rightly remarked that this legislation went directly to the heart of the Government’s policy of separate development, and that this legislation was proof that the policy of separate development was succeeding. The hon. member intimated something else as well, and that is that the Progressive Party is dead against independence for the Bantu homelands. This we know, but the hon. member went further and said that this legislation would not eliminate discrimination, which was the stated policy of the Government. I want to say to the hon. member and his party that the very field in which one is able to discriminate the most against another person and another people, is the field of the franchise. If the policy of the National Party succeeds and these peoples become independent, then discrimination in the field of politics, of the franchise and of political self-determination will be no more. As against this, and seen in the light of the fact that the Transkei has asked for independence, his party does not want to recognize that desire of a people to become independent. They say to these people: “You may not become independent. That is not implicit in our policy. Even if you want to become independent we shall not allow you to do so”. Sir, where is a more blatant example of discrimination to be found? And then, Sir, we know that the matter of the qualified franchise is implicit in their policy, in terms of which 83% of the people will be able to elect 10% of the seats in this House. Is that not discrimination? And then the hon. member says that this legislation is not going to eliminate discrimination.

The hon. member went further and said that as a result of this legislation the homelands would not be able, inter alia, to be economically self-sufficient. I want to put it to that hon. member that between 1970 and 1973 the gross national product of the homelands in South Africa grew more rapidly as a whole than the gross domestic product of the Republic of South Africa. In addition I want to point out that between 1960 and 1970 the population of the Bantu homelands in South Africa increased by an average of 6,8%. Mention any state in the world to me in which the population has shown such a growth rate. As against this the Bantu population in the White part of South Africa has increased by only 1,6% per year. Is this not proof that separate development is succeeding? I want to come to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North …

South.

I am sorry; I do not want to offend the hon. member. He may possibly be “out” if I say “north” instead of “south”. In view of the fact that the main speaker on the opposite side is still making sure whether he may remain here, I do not want to offend the hon. member. The hon. member said he supported this Bill, therefore clauses 1 and 7 as well. Then, however, he said he was opposed to sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) of the new section 52(l)(c) inserted by clause 1, in terms of which the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Finance will decide about certain amounts. The hon. member, however, was not listening very well when the hon. the Deputy Minister was delivering his Second Reading speech. There are two things which the hon. member must bear in mind in connection with this matter. The first is that a basis must be found for dividing these indirect taxes and companies tax and for determining what amount is to go to the homelands. Once this basis or formula has been found, a simple arithmetical calculation is all that is required for determining how much is to go to each homeland. The important thing is that the hon. the Deputy Minister told the hon. member that this basis of calculation had been put to the various homeland governments and had been accepted by all of them. In other words, agreement has been reached as regards a basis. Let me put it to the hon. member this way: Arrangements exist between the Republic of South Africa and the former Protectorates in respect of customs and excise. A certain portion of the money collected in such taxes are paid to them on the basis of an agreed formula. If the Minister were to decide to change the customs and excise duties, he would not approach all those Governments first for permission to increase them. He would increase them, and on the basis of that agreement the money would still go to those Governments. And so it will be in this instance as well. In the case of the independent states this was effected on the basis of a written agreement and in the case of these people it is being effected by means of an agreement. When they become independent, these measures which are now being taken may form the basis of a customs union. That is why I say that this Bill is proof of the policy of separate development succeeding. It is taking us in the direction where, and it is laying a foundation on the basis of which we shall subsequently be able to enter into agreements with independent states. That is why this measure is a triumph for the National Party. In fact every piece of Bantu legislation which is introduced here, provides proof of the National Party succeeding in its policy. Therefore the argument raised by the hon. member does not hold water. There are examples of similar arrangements with independent states and he should simply take a look at them.

The hon. member also said there was a difference between the position of the Transkeian Government and those of the other homelands, in the sense that the Transkeian Constitution laid down that taxes could be levied by the Transkeian Government whereas this was not laid down in the Constitutions of the other Bantu homelands.

You were not listening very well.

Surely the hon. member said there was a difference between the homelands in respect of the levying of taxes …

No, in respect of the taxes given to the Governments by the Republican Government.

For what reason?

In respect of income tax paid by their citizens.

In other words, in the Transkei other taxes than those paid in the other homelands may be paid?

No. The hon. member does not understand.

If I do not understand the hon. member correctly, it does not matter. Perhaps I have not understood him correctly. But he did say there was a difference between the Transkeian Government and its citizens and those of the other homelands because of the provisions of the various Constitutions. I want to tell the hon. member now that the Bantu Taxation Act of 1969, which is a later Act than the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963, placed that matter on the same basis. That Act provided for the abolition of income tax and for the payment by those people of Bantu tax only, which tax incorporates a component of income tax. This tax is the same for the Transkei and all the other homelands. If the hon. member will check the provisions of that Act, he will not have to wait for an answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister, but will be able to set his uneasy mind at rest immediately. I assume that in these circumstances he does not want additional factors which will make his mind even more uneasy.

Now, if we come back to this Bill, we find a number of reasons for the hon. the Deputy Minister’s deciding to come to Parliament with these amendments. I refer to clauses 1 and 7, in particular, the clauses to which hon. members of both parties on the opposite side object most. There are differences in respect of the various homelands, the revenue granted to them and the manner in which this is to be done. One cannot compare the different conditions, because, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, a basis was laid down several years ago for the homelands which obtained their legislative assemblies first and took over control of certain matters. At a later stage a basis was laid down for those homelands which took over those powers later, i.e. the previous year’s appropriation by this Parliament. This means that the statutory amount for some homelands is smaller, relatively speaking, than for those which took over responsibility later. Because there is no growth component built into the statutory amount, this legislation now puts that position to rights, in the first instance because the same year is chosen as a basis for everyone, viz. 1973-’74. In the future, however, further responsibilities in respect of certain matters are going to be transferred to homeland governments, and provision is made for that in the previous year’s appropriation by this Parliament will form the basis. Since a growth component is now being built into this statutory amount, the homelands will be placed on a more comparable basis.

The other very important advantage of these amendments is that the self-sufficiency of the homelands—if one wants to call it that—will come to the fore much more clearly than is the case at present. I want to mention an example. Proff. Städler and Van der Merwe of the University of Pretoria compiled a paper entitled (translation) The share of the Bantu in the revenue of authorities in the Republic. They determined what the Bantu’s contribution more or less was in the form of indirect taxation—customs and excises, companies tax, etc. If one uses this as a basis, one arrives at certain conclusions. If one takes the Transkei’s own revenue under the present Act and one expresses it as a percentage of its budget, its own revenue represents approximately 23% of its budget. In other words, on these grounds one could say that the Transkei was only 23% self-sufficient. If one takes the estimates of Proff. Städler and Van der Merwe as a basis, then estimates the Transkei’s own revenue and expresses it as a percentage of its budget, one finds that its own revenue represents 78% of its budget. Therefore a far more favourable picture will be created for the homelands by applying the formula contained in the Bill instead of the existing formulae for which the Act makes provision. It will have the advantage for them that it will create confidence in an investor who wants to invest there. It will encourage investors to invest in the homelands. A further advantage will be that, because the actual extent of the homelands’ resources will be shown, their credit standing will be improved. If a homeland government wants to negotiate a loan somewhere in the world, with a person controlling a large fund, its credit standing will be far higher than it is at the moment. This can redound to the advantage of the homeland governments and the development of the homelands only if the legislation is such as to enable them to make use of the advantages which are due to them.

I want to conclude by saying that the objections reaised by that hon. member are not real objections. They are old arguments we have been hearing for years in this Parliament. There are examples of similar arrangements having been made with independent States and of interstate negotiations on an equal basis. I cannot see what that hon. member’s objection is. I believe the only reason why that hon. member objects to this legislation, is that he does not want to admit that the National Party is achieving success and that the homeland governments are succeeding in their own right and are making progress and that development is taking place in the homelands. He does not want to admit that this legislation is a measure taken of necessity in order to give recognition to the growth and to the progress taking place in the homelands.

I want to conclude by saying to that hon. member and to hon. members of the Progressive Party that the homelands, as far as I am concerned, are no longer homelands, but already the fatherlands of the Bantu peoples. Since the homeland governments desire these measures, since they agree with them and since it is necessary that the fatherlands of those peoples be developed, I am of the opinion that the time is ripe in South Africa for the Opposition parties to stop trying to retard that development, but to acknowledge it and to participate wholeheartedly with us in assisting those peoples who are in South Africa to develop their fatherlands.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in the discussions to a limited extent and, in the first instance, I want to confirm what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, viz. that we have no objections to the principle of this Bill. Consequently we do not intend opposing any of the clauses of this Bill. I want to give my own support to the various clauses in this Bill as well. I want to confine myself strictly to certain clauses, in fact, to the two main points which have a bearing on clauses 1 and 7 as well as to clauses 2, 3 and 4. I am of the opinion that there is no special contribution which I can make in respect of the other points and which will in any way throw new light on the matter, over and above that which has already been mentioned by other hon. speakers.

As far as clauses 1 and 7 are concerned, I must say at once that I assumed that we would be restricted to the contents of the Bill and that it would not have been possible for us to cover a wider field, i.e. to deal with discrimination and so on. Consequently I want to confine myself to the Bill and not go into the other details of a wider nature, even though the temptation is great. I want to make it quite clear that this side of the House and I myself have stated very clearly that apart from any ideologic policy which has to be followed, we believe in the economic development of the homelands, because they are in fact underdeveloped parts of our country. For that reason a special responsibility and task rests on Parliament and this Government to do everything in their power to make contributions in those areas and to give them assistance. Seen from that point of view, I can confine myself only to what is provided for in the Bill, and that is to make additional sources of revenue available to the homeland governments. We welcome this. We are in favour of all possible attempts being made for the economic development of the homelands. I want to add that our objection in the past was that not nearly enough was being done in this connection. Whether the formulas embodied in this Bill do make adequate provision for the development of these areas—especially when their under-development is taken into account—is a question which we can debate later. When one considers what expectations were created by the Tomlinson Commission and when one considers the disappointment which followed because the financial expenditure on the development of the homelands was not what had been expected, hon. members will be able to understand that we certainly welcome special attention being given to the economic development of the homelands. Therefore I am in favour of the basic provisions of clauses 1 and 7. In particular I welcome the fact that the tax yield derived from companies tax as well as indirect taxation is to be made available to the homeland governments. For the information of the hon. member for Lichtenburg I want to say that I am aware of the fact that the homeland governments have often made representations in this regard. Therefore I am grateful that these representations are being complied with in this Bill. I also appreciate the fact, as is evident from the Bill, that the salaries and allowances paid to officials who are seconded to the homeland governments by the Government of South Africa, will not apply as a liability in respect of these grants to the homeland government. I feel that this is a special contribution which we as Whites and this Government can make in this way to assist the homelands with their development. I also appreciate the flexibility of the provisos to clauses 1 and 7, i.e., that, in spite of the determination on the basis of the grants, the Minister may increase the amount in consequence of economic and other circumstances. It is my honest conviction—and in this I should like to associate myself in broad outline with the hon. member for Johannesburg North— that not nearly enough is being done in respect of the economic development of the homelands. Therefore I believe that providing this flexibility, at least, is essential. It is possible that unforeseen circumstances of major unemployment may arise in the homelands. It may so happen that there may be a considerable increase in the population, which will simply mean that the amounts made available to the homelands in terms of the clause, will just not be sufficient for maintaining even present standards of living. Therefore I welcome the flexibility of the provisos embodied in these clauses.

This brings me back to the point which was mentioned here by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, and that is the question of consultation with the particular Ministers of Finance of the homeland governments. In this regard my problem is that we so often make principles of things which are not principles. I think the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke in point of fact made a principle of a matter which ought not to be a principle. Surely there can be no objection to proper consultation.

There has never been any objection to that.

Surely there can be no objection either to writing into the legislation that there will be consultation, because by doing so we are simply intimating that we wish to lay down in the legislation that we attack prime importance to consultation with these people. It does not bind the Government or Parliament. The final decision will be taken by this Parliament on the basis of Cabinet resolutions submitted to this Parliament. It seems to me there can truly be no objection to embodying in the Bill channels for consultation with the particular Ministers of the homelands. We can lose nothing by that, and I want to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this both for the sake of its practical and its symbolic value. The hon. member for Schweizer Reneke motivated his statement by saying that this Parliament was the sovereign legislative Parliament of the Whites —it was something more or less in this veid—and that other people could not be given a joint say here. I think, in all humility, that that point is not relevant. A joint say in this Parliament is not what is being asked for. Proper consultation with the Ministers of the Bantu homelands is all that is being asked for. I do want to remind the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke that we learnt here from the Prime Minister himself last week that this was the very procedure that he was going to follow with representatives of the Coloured Persons Representative Council—in other words, that he was going to make provision by means of a joint Cabinet Committee for consultation with representatives of the Executive Committee of the CRC concerning the amounts which would be made available to the Coloured Persons Representative Council for covering its expenditures. On the basis of that model, which has already been created—the principle has already been conceded—I just want to say that I can see no fundamental objection to our doing the same thing as far as the Bantu homelands are concerned. Therefore I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with the idea expressed here by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. So much for clauses 1 and 7.

As far as clauses 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, I just want to say that I also welcome this new arrangement, this development, very warmly. I am sure I need not convince the hon. the Deputy Minister of the fact that our present labour bureau system has a multiplicity of shortcomings which hampers the proper channeling of labour, really endangers the proper utilization of labour, and imposes administrative duties and responsibilities on the employer as well as the Bantu employee which can readily be eliminated.

In this connection it is stated very clearly that the principle of these Bantu Affairs Administration Boards taking over the functions of the district labour bureaux, has already, so it seems to me, been accepted as administrative policy. I can but appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to have this process expedited to the largest possible extent. I want to recommend this to the hon. the Deputy Minister and ask him whether he does not think the time has arrived for us to do away with the labour bureaux. It merely complicates matters and I can see no reason why we cannot have a labour bureau system, as far as the so-called White area is concerned, consisting of the central labour bureau or a regional labour bureau, as may be required, and in addition only district labour bureaux instead of the local labour bureaux. The hard facts are, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, that in addition to the central labour bureau in Pretoria, there is one regional labour bureau, 18 district labour bureaux and 37 local labour bureaux on the Witwatersrand at the moment. This is an unnecessary proliferation and in all honesty I canot see the necessity, in whatever way these labour bureaux might fit into a pattern, for continuing a system which has proved that it does not operate effectively in practice, that it is in fact unnecessary and that it causes a great deal of trouble for both the employer and the Bantu employee. I hope that this will also be the forerunner of the transformation of the labour bureau system in the Bantu homelands. I should like to mention a few cases in this connection because it links up with this.

As hon. members know, in the homeland of Bophuthatswana, there are, in addition to the labour bureau for the area, 12 district labour bureaux and 63 tribal labour bureaux. This is according to my information. In Lebowa there are, in addition to the labour bureau for the area 12 district labour bureaux and 120 tribal labour bureaux. I feel that serious consideration should be given to doing away with the tribal labour bureaux and that we should rather thing in other terms in this regard. I am putting this forward as the development actually envisaged in this measure, i.e. the abolition, the possible abolition, of local labour bureaux, which already exist in the legislation, and the transfer of their functions to district labour bureaux and now for the transfer of the functions of district labour bureaux to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards with a transfer of funds when a Bantu Affairs Administration Board administers such a district bureau, is something which I regard as being an extremely healthy development. I only hope we shall be able to continue with this process so that, by so doing, all unnecessary bother in connection with the recruitment and employment of Bantu labour may be eliminated further.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this one refrain from hon. members opposite: “We have no objection to this Bill.” The hon. member for Edenvale who has just resumed his seat was so enthusiastic that he even stated the matter in positive terms and said: “I welcome this Bill.” When he felt that he had not put it strongly enough, he said: “I welcome this Bill very heartily.”

Say thank you.

Yes, I do say thank you. It is a welcome development, and therefore I am not going to reproach the Opposition by saying that there was a time when they opposed the original measure which was submitted here in 1971 so strongly that they proposed that the measure be read that day six months.

Sir, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said a short time ago: “We now want to see deeds and not just words.” I have often wondered how much further we would have been with the development of the homelands and how much more viable they would have been today, if that attitude had been displayed by the Opposition then; if they had, from the outset, made their contribution as well—if they, too, had performed the resounding deed— towards making the homelands viable. Mr. Speaker, in the context of this Bill this is important, because the more progress there is in the homelands, the more sources there are generating tax, and therefore I am not going to reproach the Opposition this afternoon, either, for the fact that last year, when the Zebediela legislation was before the House, the hon. members who have just resumed their seats—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Edenvale—were not in favour of it and were conspicuous by their absence when they had an opportunity to perform a resounding deed, a deed which would resound like thunder in the interests of the homelands.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Sir, the hon. member for Johannesburg North said a short time ago, “This is a Bill of great importance”, and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said that we have herewith passed a new milestone. This is in fact so. This Bill is a further step in the volutionary process of the development of the Bantu peoples to full self-government and eventual independence. Let me tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in passing that I, too, listened very carefully to the hon. the Deputy Minister who submitted this Bill, and nowhere did I hear him say that this Bill offers the Bantu homelands economic independence. All these years we have been stating that it is our policy that we shall give them political independence, but that there will always be inter-dependence in the economic sphere. Full self-government means that one generates one’s own income as far as possible, and the hon. the Deputy Minister furnished us with a long table of various sources of income there would be for the Bantu nations in terms of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits of this measure are obvious. From the point of view of the Bantu peoples, these people now know where they stand and they can carry on their affairs in a planned fashion and not merely in an arbitrary fashion. In addition, this Bill now settles the argument that has been carried on for a very long time, as well as answering the reproach often levelled by the Bantu, that they contribute more to the Treasury than they receive in return. This Bill will now allow them to know where the money comes from and how much they can expect, and will enable them to work according to a plan. It will also bring about greater responsibility in the expenditure of the income, not that I thereby want to suggest in any way that things had been done in an irresponsible fashion in the past, but it is true that when I was still receiving money from my father, I spent it far less judiciously than when I earned it myself.

My father often reproached me for not knowing where the money came from, and as soon as I discovered where money comes from, there was far more responsibility as far as its expenditure was concerned. Separate development, Mr. Speaker, is self-development. The hon. member for Lichtenburg spoke about the self-sufficiency of the Bantu peoples which this Bill will bring about. We are teaching the people to develop their own sources of revenue. Initially this Government, the Treasury, will still impose the taxes, but it is possible to foresee that eventually they themselves will carry that responsibility, and there is probably no greater contribution that one could make to developing peoples. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, goes the Chinese proverb, but teach him to fish and he eats every day. Then, too, the opportunity is now being created for the Bantu peoples to develop their own sources of revenue.

To mention but one, company taxation now accrues to them for the first time. When the Bantu discover that they can have more than 40% of the profits of companies for their own treasury, one can foresee that they will make a bigger contribution in order to attract more industries to their homelands and that these people will get their priorities right, namely to establish an infrastructure in those homelands in order that there may be greater prosperity. Sir, if this Bill serves only this single purpose, then we have made an enormous contribution towards a safer and a more stable future for us all.

In the past few years a cry has been raised here, a cry which has developed greater momentum over the years. It will yet become the cry of the seventies and the eighties: Decentralization. Now, we believe that our policy will only succeed if the homelands become viable, if smoke issues from their factory chimneys, if there are industries and companies signifying new sources of revenue as well as provision of employment and prosperity. The Opposition talks about the sharing of power. That is the cry they have raised in recent years. Sir, you will not allow me to talk about the merits of the cry of sharing of power. They have often been debated in this House before.

I believe that they are able to serve the interests of South Africa better and that they will in fact serve the interests of the Bantu peoples better when they want to raise this other cry, namely sharing of prosperity; if they continually come and plead in this House that we are a rich country in which all the peoples of this country share in the greater prosperity that exists; when they want to allow the Bantu share in this greater prosperity in an orderly way; when they even want to reproach this Government for not doing enough for the development of the homelands; and that we are not doing enough to develop the human potential of the Bantu to share in that greater prosperity. Sir, what this Bill tells us, is that we in this country have established, developed and refined a fiscal policy over generations and are now offering the Bantu peoples the benefits of this knowledge which we have developed over generations. A people can do no better by another people than by allowing it to enjoy the fruits of those things we have achieved for ourselves over generations. That is why we welcome this Bill and are grateful for this milestone in our history, why the Opposition also welcomes this Bill and is also, in the words of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, going to perform a deed to make those homelands viable. If we do not succeed in that, virtually insoluble social and political problems will develop for subsequent generations.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments on both sides with great attention and I want to extend my very sincere thanks to the hon. members on my side who participated for their support. It gives me great pleasure to be able to mention that this is the first time since I have dealt with legislation in this House that I am enjoying the support of the official Opposition. I do not know whether it is the shadow of détente which has filtered through to them. Judging by their numbers here this word is not applicable to them, but to their attitude towards us. I want to thank them very much indeed for being positively attuned to this legislation, for supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not quite sure what the intention of the hon. member for Johannesburg North was. He did not say whether or not he supports the legislation. He did, to a certain extent, indicate that they had no objection to the legislation, but then gave us to understand that we are, in certain respects, busy wasting our time. Nevertheless, I take it that the Progressive Party will not vote against the legislation.

I want to refer briefly to the various problems raised by hon. members.

†In the first instance the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South complained very enthusiastically that they received the explanatory memorandum on their desks only today. I was surprised to hear that. I checked with the staff and they told me that this memorandum was on the desks of hon. members since Tuesday last week.

That is quite right.

I am being supported by the hon. member for Houghton. She must have seen it last week.

Perhaps I received preferential treatment. [Interjections.]

The only reason why the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South did not see it earlier, could be that he was too busy with the internal struggle within his own party.

*I regret that it happened, because, what I take exception to, is that an hon. member has cast a reflection on the staff of this House. It is, indeed, the case that this memorandum has been on hon. members desks since last Thursday. I want to advise the hon. member to be very careful with his remarks, because he did not cast a reflection on me or on my department, but on the staff of this House. Since it is now clear that he did not look at what was placed on his desk—he was busy with other matters —I want to advise him to apologize to the staff of the House. [Interjections.] The hon. member is indicating that he will do so and I thank him for it. I think in his own interest, it is necessary for him to do so in order to display a spirit of goodwill, not only across the floor, but also to the people who have to work hard.

The hon. member is having problems with clause 1 to 7 because they are not being made applicable to the Constitution Act for the Native Nations in South West Africa. I want to tell him immediately that South West Africa has a completely different dispensation. There are special laws in connection with financial arrangements as far as South West is concerned and, therefore, we cannot treat it in the same way as the constitution acts relating to the Bantu peoples in the Republic. I do not want to elaborate on that now, because the financial arrangements which apply are of a complex nature.

The hon. member also referred to the difference between the Constitution Act of the Transkei and that of the other Bantu homelands as far as Bantu taxes are concerned. Actually, that is not relevant here. However, the hon. member for Lichtenburg has already replied to the hon. member’s argument and I am, therefore, not going into it any further.

Then there is the question of consultation. In clause 1 there are several references to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development acting “in consultation with” the Minister of Finance. Now the argument is that we should also involve the Ministers of Finance of the various homelands in this. The hon. member for Edenvale even went so far as to indicate that it would be a very positive step, particularly in view of what the hon. the Prime Minister said here last week, namely that we should involve these people in the discussion of matters affecting them to an ever-increasing extent. I want to point out to hon. members that this question of consultation between the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Finance is really concerned with the question of the finances of the Republic of South Africa, specifically the question of whether amounts are available or not. Therefore, it is an exclusively domestic matter which affects only the Republic’s finances as such. The drawing up of a homeland’s budget is, of course, done by the relevant government itself. Then, when it comes to the attention of this Minister, he has to make arrangements, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, for making that money available. Therefore, it is very clear that to bring a Minister or Councillor of a homeland into a discussion where you are talking about the finances of the Republic, is not entirely relevant. If one were, for example, to incorporate something like this in legislation, it might be a good display for we would then be able to say that we are not only consulting, but also laying it down by way of legislation. However, I can give hon. members the assurance that apart from the talks in which the hon. the Prime Minister is involved at the highest level, talks take place almost continuously between officials, Deputy Ministers, the Minister and these people. Should one want to bring in such an internal financial arrangement of the Government of the Republic here, which does not really concern homeland governments, I do not think it could serve any purpose. One could perhaps accept the principle that we should lay it down somewhere in an Act. However, that is how I understood the hon. member for Edenvale’s argument, and I do not think it would have any value. Nor do I think it could serve any purpose to write it into this Bill. The question of consultation is sometimes wristed from its context and I think it has happened again this afternoon. Consultation is being brought into matters where it really does not apply. I do not think we should go so far in our enthusiasm to consult as to lose perspective as far as this matter is concerned.

There is the other aspect which was raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, namely the question of laws which will be applicable to the High Court, in the Transkei as well as in the other homelands. Last year we mentioned one to him—I think it was the Act in respect of attorneys. I just want to tell the hon. member that no laws of this nature have as yet been made applicable. As this happens, he will simply have to talk to the department and the legal people. I have not acquainted myself with the laws which will be made applicable. I want to leave the matter at that.

I have now disposed of the points raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I should now like to deal briefly with the personal arguments of other members.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North came with a general argument which does not really apply directly. He put it in this way that we are dealing here with the financial arrangements of the homelands and wanted to bring to our attention that the whole set-up in South Africa, according to this point of view and the policy of his party, is that 150 000 labourers are entering the labour market annually, 80% of them from the homelands, and that most of them will work in the White areas in the Republic and that he does not, in this respect, see a future for our policy. That was the argument of that member. He said: “You can have economic development or separate development.” He is saying it is a choice between the two. With all due respect I want to say that we in the National Party still believe in miracles because we are realistic. We are going to do both. They are people with a limited vision, with a limited premise as far as these matters are concerned, but I can give him the assurance that the sooner we have multinational development, the sooner we shall have economic development in these homelands. We are in fact proving this. We are increasing the pace. I do not think it is relevant to this legislation to go into details on all the steps that have been taken by this Government. Nor is it necessary to go into the question of real development in the homelands in detail. The hon. member for Lichtenburg mentioned that there has in fact been a vast improvement as far as the economic activities in the homelands are concerned. The hon. member for Johannesburg North also referred to the 13% land. He stated repeatedly that if we give only 13% of the land to these people, in spite of legislation such as this where we indicate what the contribution of the homelands themselves is, and what comes from the Revenue Fund of the Republic as such, we will not be able to make any progress. I think it is a great pity that this sort of argument is being dragged in here. It gives a completely erroneous and distorted picture, and has nothing to do with the potential of the particular area. This has nothing to do with reality as such. When we talk about percentages of land, we have to institute a very thorough investigation into, firstly, the agricultural potential, and, secondly, the potential for mineral development, and we have to relate it to what we in the Republic have a shortage of, namely water. We should also investigate the homelands’ water potential and what follows from this. I must say it is a pity that the hon. member brought up the question of land here, and in that way wanted to suggest that these homelands do not have development potential. I want to tell him that in kwaZulu there is an additional development potential of more than 50 000 ha in the sugar industry alone. This justifies approximately three sugar mills. We are engaged in investigations, and I hope we shall, with the aid of the sugar industry, be able to give tremendous stimulus to economic development in that aspect alone, and—since reference is made in this legislation to own sources of income—that we shall be able to make tremendous progress. The question of the Transkei was mentioned here as an example. We are engaged in agricultural development there. Because the Transkei is, in the first place, an agricultural country, I hope agricultural development is going to constitute tremendous advantages in the years that lie ahead. I do not want to elaborate on this, but I do just want to tell the hon. member that the Xhosa Development Corporation has been involved in this. We visited those areas with members opposite, and I think they will agree that great progress has been made and that the exceptional agricultural potential of a country such as the Transkei could and is going to make a great contribution in future. This is all I want to say about this matter. I do not think this is the occasion to go into that aspect in detail. The hon. member for Edenvale said that in principle he had no objection to this measure. He said that he believed in the economic development of the homelands and his objection was simply that he did not think that enough was being done. He also welcomed the greater flexibility as far as this matter is concerned.

In conclusion I want to thank hon. members for their contributions, which were definitely positive. Should there be any particular problems in respect of the various clauses, we could perhaps spend some time on them during the Committee Stage. However, I just want to warn hon. members that the opportunity will not present itself again to drag also the general development of the homelands into the discussion of this measure. To drag in a general discussion of the homelands during the discussion of such a measure, is perhaps not altogether correct, but on the other hand it gives hon. members the opportunity to unburden themselves of matters they wanted to discuss last week and to bring them up here. I think I have replied fully to the misgivings of hon. members and that in my reply I have not omitted anything which was seriously intended.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, this matter has already been discussed in broad outline on the occasion of a private motion in this House. In accordance with the proposal made by my predecessor at the time, the Government was already investigating the whole question; in fact, mention was made of recommendations concerning this Bill— a consequence of the Van Wyk Report on the Mental Disorders Act—as well as of the Government’s standpoints in regard to abortion and sterilization.

As an aid to memory I want to restate briefly the said standpoints:

1. (a) That ample opportunity be given for representations and discussion before placing legislation on the Statute Book;
2. (b) Secondly, that the present ambiguous position in this regard be rectified by means of legislation, in order—
   1. (i) to protect the medical practitioner who is forced to do this; and
   2. (ii) to ensure that the possibilities and procedures are clearly defined.
3. (c) The third standpoint was that the responsibility for the drafting and administration of the proposed legislation should be entrusted to the Department of Health.
4. (d) The fourth standpoint was that legislation in regard to sterilization should be incorporated with this.
5. (e) In addition, it was made quite clear that the Government was completely opposed to general abortion, or “abortion on demand”, as it is sometimes known.
6. (f) The Government also made known that it was sympathetically disposed towards the small number of cases where therapeutical abortion might be necessary, and a few examples were mentioned, such as:
   1. (i) in the first place, where a choice has to be made between the life of the mother and that of the unborn child;
   2. (ii) secondly, where continued pregnancy would constitute a serious threat to the mother’s physical and/or mental health;
   3. (iii) thirdly, in cases of rape; and
   4. (iv) fourthly, in cases where serious abnormalities or handicaps may result, and also in regard to pregnancy in the case of imbeciles, and so forth.
7. (g) The Government’s seventh standpoint was in regard to the procedure to be followed in cases where abortion proves to be necessary: Who is to be consulted and who is to grant consent, the procedure that is to be followed, the persons who may be empowered to authorize abortion, and, finally, where such operation may take place.
8. (h) The Government’s final standpoint was that the following aspects, inter alia, should be clearly reflected in the legislation—
   1. (i) respect for the unborn child (the foetus);
   2. (ii) recognition of the Christian views and moral norms which characterize our country;
   3. (iii) the fact that this does not imply condonation of illegitimate births; and, finally,
   4. (iv) the fact that drastic action will be taken against abortions performed outside the legal provisions.

Consequent upon the decisions taken by the Government at the time, a Bill was drafted and introduced. The Bill [A.B. 15— ’73] was referred to a Select Committee which was to examine the measure and to report on it. Since the Select Committee was unable to conclude its activities in time, the Select Committee was converted into a Commission of Inquiry, whose report has already deen tabled.

†The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to provide legally for such contingencies as may lead to or arise from pregnancies, the continuation and/or result of which could be gravely deleterious to the health of the mother, and for such instances in which it can be determined on medical grounds that the result of such pregnancy would be an irreparably seriously handicapped child. Circumscriptive legislation will also contribute favourably in alleviating the medical practitioner’s hitherto undeniably onerous responsibility and decision in this regard, whilst endeavouring also to provide satisfactory safeguards against possible abuses.

Subsection (2)(a) of clause 3 prohibits the physician who issues a certificate from participating in the relevant abortion. Similarly, physicians employed by or attached to the same partnership or employer as the certifying physician are also prohibited from participating in the abortion for which a certificate has been issued.

I wish, however, to emphasize that this proviso will not be applicable to physicians employed by the State (as provided in subsection (2)(b)), thus ensuring that the costs involved in providing often necessary medical services for the needy do not become exorbitantly high. Should the proviso to subsection (2)(a) be applicable, the State would be forced to refer such patients to private physicians, thereby affecting the cost structure and thereby also having to experience difficulties in sparsely populated rural areas as regards the availability of physicians, since such persons often enjoy appointments in the local hospital and are thus precluded from possible operation-participation.

Clause 3 of the Bill provides that only a medical practitioner may procure an abortion, and then only on the grounds that the mother’s life or physical or mental health may be seriously endangered should the pregnancy continue, or that the child to be born will be irreparably seriously handicapped, or finally that conception was the consequence of unlawful carnal intercourse, involving rape or incest or intercourse with an idiot or mentally deficient person in contravention of the immorality Act of 1957.

Such abortion may only be procured upon support of written certificates obtained from two other medical practitioners of separate practices, concurring with any one of the views expressed above. The medical practitioners certifying as above may not in any way participate in or assist with the ensuing operation. It is required that at least one of the two above mentioned medical practitioners be in practice for at least four years subsequent to his registration in terms of the Medical Act, and that if the mental health of the mother is considered as the reason for the abortion, the other must be a State psychiatrist. In cases of rape or incest, it is also required that the district surgeon concerned be one of the two certifying medical practitioners.

It is, therefore, quite apparent that the decision as to whether an abortion need be procured shall be based on medical grounds and that the control over abortions as such will rest solely with the medical profession.

*The provisions of clause 4 deal with the circumstances under which a sterilization may be performed on a person who is incapable of consenting or incompetent to consent to an operation on himself. The following requirements are set:

1. (a) that two medical practitioners must certify that such sterilization is necessary;
2. (b) that the person who may in law consent to an operation on such a person does in fact consent to it; and
3. (c) that the Minister, too, grants written authority.

In addition, it is made clear that these provisions are not applicable a contrario to any person competent to consent to an operation on himself. Those legal aspects are not applicable here.

In terms of clause 5, such abortion may be procured and such sterilization may be performed only at a state-controlled institution. In addition to this, the Minister may designate another institution for such operation and may set such conditions and requirements as he may consider necessary or expedient, and he may also withdraw any such designation at any time.

The provisions of clause 6 deal with the authorization required before an operation may be performed in order to procure an abortion or to perform a sterilization. Briefly, the requirements are: That authorization be granted, in the case of a state-controlled institution, by the medical practitioner in charge or by a medical practitioner designated by him, and, in the case of a designated institution, by a medical practitioner designated for the purpose by the person managing such institution. The application for authorization of abortion in cases of purely medical reasons must be accompanied by a certificate issued by two medical practitioners as mentioned in clause 3, and in cases where unlawful carnal intercourse is involved, the abovementioned certificate must be accompanied by an additional certificate issued by a magistrate to the effect that, on a balance of probability, the pregnancy is in fact the result of rape or incest.

In the case of rape or incest, one of the two medical practitioners by whom the certificate is issued must be the district surgeon.

The form is also prescribed in which application is to be made in regard to cases of sterilization in respect of which the abovementioned provisions of clause 4 must necessarily be applied.

The medical practitioner who certifies in terms of the provisions of clause 3 that an abortion has to be procured or a sterilization has to be performed, is not precluded from granting the required authorization for the operation in the institution concerned, since he is merely fulfilling an administrative process in order to ensure that the legal requirements have been complied with.

Clause 7 of the Bill deals with the reporting to the Secretary for Health, by the medical practitioner who grants authority in terms of clause 6(1), of full particulars in regard to the patient concerned, the place and date of operation and, in the case of an abortion, the reason therefore, as well as full particulars in regard to the certifying medical practitioner concerned and, if applicable, of the magistrate concerned, as well as the name of the medical practitioner who has procured the abortion or performed the sterilization. If the consent of any person other than the patient was required for performing the operation, the name of such person and the capacity in which he granted his consent are also required.

The Secretary for Health is authorised by this clause to call upon the medical practitioner required to make the report or the medical practitioner who is to perform the operation to furnish such additional information as he may require.

The person in charge of an institution where an abortion is procured or the residue of a pregnancy is removed, must keep a record of the particulars prescribed by regulation in respect of any such operation, and must, when called upon to do so, make such record available to the Secretary for Health or to a person authorized thereto by him in writing, and must transmit to the Secretary at a time prescribed the information prescribed by regulation.

Clause 8 authorizes the Minister to make regulations concerning the form of the above mentioned application or authority, the custody and disposal of the required certificates, the particulars of the record to be kept, and generally as to any matter in respect of which he deems it necessary or expedient to make regulations in connection with the Act.

Clause 9 makes provision for persons registered as medical practitioners and as nurses who may have conscientious objections to participating in such operations to withdraw from such operations, and clause 10 deals with the penalties which may be imposed if the requirements as set out above are not complied with.

Mr. Speaker, the only substantial difference between this Bill and the one which was originally introduced is that the provision in regard to so-called emergencies has now been omitted. Great trouble was taken to determine whether circumstances may in fact arise under which emergency action would be justified, but according to medical evidence such conditions are completely unknown to medical science.

Another aspect which has been changed is the provision for abortion on the grounds of mental health conditions. In the first place, the aspect of mental health has been separated from that of physical health, and in the second place the commission has made it clear in this Bill that the danger to mental health must be one of permanent damage and that if a woman were to become mentally ill under such circumstances, such illness would be permanent. This definition ensures that not more than two mental health conditions will be regarded as grounds for abortion. In this regard I may mention schizophrenia and endogenous depression. What is more, since it is provided that a certificate on mental health conditions may only be issued by a State psychiatrist, the department will be able to ensure administratively that mental health is not abused as a reason for abortion.

Since I take it that hon. members already agree that for obvious religious, ethical and moral reasons abortion on demand must not be allowed, and that provision for abortion must only be made in highly exceptional circumstances, I would like to dwell on the measures which will ensure this. In respect of mental health conditions it may be mentioned that the requirement that in such cases a state psychiatrist must be one of the certifying medical practitioners means that any possible abuse in this regard will be kept in check. By the way, hon. members may find it interesting to know that the only evidence heard in favour of “abortion on demand” was given by an organization which, as far as can be ascertained, consists of 15 persons. According to themselves they enjoy the support of several thousand men! All other evidence condemned “abortion on demand” out of hand. Furthermore, the comprehensive overhead control which the Secretary for Health will be able to exercise in regard to, inter alia, persons who certify and who perform operations, the number of operations performed and the reasons given for the operations, will mean that it will be possible to keep the broad spectrum of abortion under strict surveillance.

Where indirect methods of this kind are to be used, it is my considered opinion that the measures of control in respect of these operations are adequate. If circumstances were to indicate that the proposed measures of control are not adequate, the Government would not hesitate to take steps to impose more efficient control.

The coming into operation of this Act will mean that uniformity has now been achieved in respect of the application of common law in regard to abortions. Quite a number of anomalies used to exist in this regard in the various provinces in the Republic, and these will be removed in consequence of this measure.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere thanks to the members of the commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. C. V. van der Merwe, the hon. member for Fauresmith, for their unselfish service and for their dedication to their task. Their handling of this very delicate matter has been praiseworthy.

Mr. Speaker, about three years ago I had the privilege of introducing a private member’s motion into this House asking for a Select Committee to be appointed to investigate the position of abortion in South Africa. The then Minister of Health, Dr. Carel de Wet, agreed that a Select Committee be appointed, and soon after that he appointed such a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. C. V. van der Merwe, the hon. member for Fauresmith. I want to join with the hon. the Minister in congratulating the chairman of this Select Committee, Dr. Van der Merwe, on the exceptional manner in which he conducted the workings of this Select Committee. It was a most delicate subject that we were dealing with. We had to interview very many people indeed, from all ranks of our population, and I must say that the patience and the courtesy that Dr. Van der Merwe extended to these people, and the guidance and the diligence that he displayed towards his members were outstanding. For me it was a great privilege to have served on this committee.

Now, what did we do? We produced, after hearing evidence, a Bill which is in front of us today. Every member of the Commission agreed that under the circumstances this was a first-rate Bill and that it was worthy of coming before Parliament to be discussed. We were unanimous in regard to the findings written into the Bill, and we hoped that the members of this House will vote in favour of the Bill. But it is a matter which is very delicate and we have to expect that various opinions will be expressed, not only by the members of the House, but also from people outside, after they had seen the Bill. Very many organizations came forward and gave evidence before we produced the Bill. These were most helpful indeed, but we also got a lot of criticism from people after the Bill was published. This is also very understandable. But on the whole we found that except for a very small group of persons, nobody wanted abortion on demand. Those who did want abortion on demand I think were the most vociferous, and their efforts must have taken many days, weeks or months of hard work. But to me the reasons for abortion on demand that these people gave were groundless. I could not find anything in their claims that could justifiably be introduced into the Republic. But I will come to that in a moment.

I want to say that I personally am going to vote for the Bill—naturally, because I was a signatory to it. But I have said that because of the nature of the Bill, people who have varying views on this type of legislation should be allowed to express those views, whether they are on the Government benches or on this side of the House. We on this side of the House have decided to allow our members, at least those representing my party a free vote.

Let us have a look at the Bill to see what it sets out to do and try to determine how necessary it is to have this sort of legislation and how fair it is. Anybody voting against the Bill will be voting for the status quo, and the status quo is quite definite. In South Africa abortions are not allowed. That is the end of it. People who say that in the past they had legal abortions are not aware of what the law is because there is no such thing as a legal abortion in South Africa. What has been happening is that doctors have taken it upon themselves to do abortions when they felt it was necessary at the same time hoping that the law would be on their side. Then there are doctors and laymen who have done abortions for no other reason than to make money. If these people are punished, they must take the rap; I have no sympathy with them.

However, I do not want to divert; I want to come back to the Bill. Let us look at some of its provisions to establish how near these clauses, when they come into operation, will be to the present situation where certain types of abortion are performed on Medical Grounds. I have in mind the type of abortion which people say is legal. In the first instance I want to deal with the case of a woman where continued pregnancy will endanger her physical health. At the moment this is one of the things that happens. In practice what happens? Let us assume that the pregnant woman is very ill. She sends for her house doctor, who examines her. He gives as his opinion that in view of her condition she should have an abortion. Normally that doctor asks for a second opinion, the opinion of a medical specialist. The specialist gives his opinion. Although a specialist in medicine has recommended that she should have an abortion, the general practitioner would not under normal circumstances undertake to do that abortion because of her severe illness. What does he do? He gets the opinion of a third person, a gynaecologist, and asks him to perform the abortion. That is what normally happens. How does this differ from the term of the Bill? I have heard people say that it may break up the family tie between the physician and the patient. Why? If the woman insisted that her family doctor should do the operation, there is nothing to prevent him doing it. All that he will say is: “Mrs. Smith, get the opinion of a physician, get the opinion of a gynaecologist as you would normally, come back to me with the two certificates and I shall put you into a nursing home which is designated by the Minister as being a State institution and I shall do the operation there.” People do not like the term “State institution”; they ask why it should be done in a State institution. Let me settle that. The best hospitals in the country are those run by the provincial administrations and the central Government. If I had to have anything done, I would prefer going to a provincial hospital than to a private nursing home. However, there is another matter to which we shut our eyes. In the State institution there is no chance of a money-making racket coming into being. We will not have clinics for abortions only. These clinics will not be able to charge the earth for the use of a theatre or a bed. They will be designated State institutions which will have to charge the fee as determined by the State which is far, far lower than the lowest of any private institution. Why should I not support that? Of course I do.

Let us proceed to the next question. Perhaps it is the physical or the mental health of the mother that necessitates the abortion. I, for one, am not altogether satisfied with the wording of the clause dealing with this. But for a start I say that it is necessary that permanent mental illness shall be a cause. I am inclined to think, that perhaps there may be some serious mental conditions that would call for it. Permanent means for ever and ever, but what of those that are permanent today and appear to be permanent today but because of investigation and research may not be permanent tomorrow? For those cases that may occur in the future we may have to look at this clause again and see whether or not it is worthwhile amending it. Let us look at the next reason for an abortion as laid out in this Bill, i.e. a possible danger of the child being born in such a way that it will not be able to live an ordinary normal life, not even as a handicapped. We are speaking about badly deformed children, a deformity as a result of infection by some virus during the first three months of pregnancy, a virus such as German measles. If a woman came to me and said: “Doctor, look, I had German measles last month and I am pregnant; will you please do an abortion?”, am I not expected to do an investigation to determine whether or not she had German measles? I would do it normally. All that is necessary to establish whether or not she had German measles is to have her blood taken and examined by a pathologist. The pathologist may even come to her house to do it for her. By the examination of the blood one can tell whether or not this was the case.

What is the procedure then? The pathologist, who is a medical practitioner issues a certificate. I issue a certificate and she goes to a specialist to have the operation. All this talk about women having to go from one place to another and having to appear before panels of doctors before it is done, is a lot of nonsense.

Then we come to the position of a woman who has unfortunately been raped or who falls pregnant through incest. How many times does it happen in our lives as practitioners, that a woman will come and say: “I am in terrible trouble; I was raped last week and I think that I may be pregnant. Will you not do something for me, please?” There are a lot of cases like that. Some of them were raped very easily, very easily indeed [Interjections.] It is not a laughing matter. What happens to the young girl who goes out on a Saturday afternoon and by the evening thinks she is pregnant. She has to make an excuse to her parents. It is a terrible thing and I am really very sorry for these people. But what do you do? Normally the child or the adult would have to be taken to the district surgeon for an examination. It is done every day. And that is the correct thing to do. If it is a case of rape that person has to be examined by the district surgeon. He will issue a certificate, the general practitioner will issue the certificate and the specialist will do the job. This business of having to take the child in front of the magistrate or in front of this one and in front of that one and the embarrassment that it causes do not exist. In practice, is it worse than a girl going from one doctor to another to find out which one will do the abortion? Is it worse than that? No embarrassment for these people, but when it is done legally, it suddenly becomes an embarrassment. No, I think this sort of protection is necessary. We have also had the story of the ultra-liberalists who want abortion on demand because the woman is the mistress of her soul and her body. That is the opinion of a very small group in our country, I am happy to say. The majority of people are responsible, i.e. the leaders of the Churches, the leaders of the main organizations in the country, whether they be male or female. They all want care for the person who is pregnant but they are dead against this ultra-liberalization. In some quarters today it is the fashion to be ultra-liberal. It is very fashionable indeed. I have also heard it said in South Africa that preventing abortion is discrimination because the rich can go to England to have abortions carried out, while the poor have to remain here and carry the baby. The rich people have always been able to do what the poor people cannot. I do not see any outcry forthcoming because the rich travel in the Blue Train while poor people have to travel second class with six people in a compartment. Nobody feels sorry for them. All of a sudden, however, when it comes to abortions there is talk of discrimination. The rich can go to London but the poor cannot. Let me point out that the people in London are getting fed-up with their visitors. The nurses in the London clinics are also getting fed-up with doing abortions day after day, and so are the doctors.

Let us see what some people have objected to. Firstly let me mention that socioeconomic reasons are advanced as a reason for doing abortions on demand. I would like one of the persons advocating socio-economic reasons to tell me where one draws the line. Where does the means test come in? Does the woman who has three Rolls Royces find it easier or more difficult to have a baby than the woman who has to do charring? It is a funny thing that the woman who has to do charring has the baby and still manages to bring it up. There is also all this rubbish I hear about unwanted babies. Who are they unwanted by? Some of the irresponsible parents? Thank God there is a list, longer than my arm, in our country of persons waiting to adopt children. They would be only too pleased to take them. If there were such a vast number of unwanted children in our country as the result of broken marriages and all that sort of thing, why have I not heard from any orphanage or Children’s home to say that their gates have to be closed, that they cannot take any more in? I have not heard of any homes which are refusing children, yet I have heard many people coming to me asking whether I could help them to have an adoption arranged. That is what is happening. People who want abortion on demand for convenience will find all kinds of excuses in support of why it should be done, and they are jolly good at doing that.

I have heard, too, about the population explosion. Any person who does an abortion with the excuse that it will help to curtail the population explosion, is either ignorant or a liar because it does not do that and I would not like that method to be used in order to curtail the population in this country. If we want to see that the population here is kept at a responsible level we will have to spend more money on education and we will have to have better outlets for family planning. This is just starting here and the hon. the Minister has at least started to get the ball rolling. I hope that this scheme which is being introduced in South Africa will grow very rapidly throughout the country. Let us teach the people how not to have babies. The people who think that by taking lives you are going to stop the population explosion are absolutely wrong; they are wrong in their thoughts and wrong in their moral outlook to life.

In this Bill we have a conscience clause and I am very pleased that it has been taken up in this Bill. It has been put into this Bill for specific reasons. Nobody can be forced to have an abortion even if the woman’s life is seriously in danger. Nobody can force a woman to have an abortion even if the baby’s life is in serious danger. By this conscience clause nobody can force a doctor or a nurse to do an abortion or to take part in an abortion operation. Whether it is for reasons of conscience or for religious reasons a person can be absolved from that responsibility. There are many people working in hospitals who are of religious beliefs which are against procuring abortions. We feel that nobody who is working in a hospital—particularly in provincial hospitals—should be forced to do an abortion. Such a person should always have the option of getting somebody else to do it. There is no hurry at any time—we have gone into this matter very carefully—of having to do an abortion in an emergency. You can wait two or three days or a week and the abortion can still be done. Once bleeding takes place and a person is taken into a hospital because of severe bleeding, it is no longer a crime to evacuate the uterus. Those are the emergencies, but it is not necessary to cover those operations in this Bill because the bleeding has started and the chances of the foetus surviving are almost negligible. Today gynaecologists spent weeks and sometimes months in order to try to save a child and to keep it from aborting, but here we get people who want abortion on demand and who say that if a woman wants to get rid of a baby she should have the right to have it taken away if she so desires. Thirty or forty abortions per day in a nursing home mean nothing to these people. There was talk about the expense that will be incurred by the present Bill. Are any abortions done free today? None of them. The charges and fees that are levied on patients today are far heavier than will be the case when this Bill is brought into effect.

Reference was made to the discrimination against the Black person and the Black back-street abortionists. I can tell hon. members that abortion on demand has not done away with back-street abortionists. Nobody in England today does an abortion free of charge; the fees are going up and up. The people in the middle and lower income groups cannot afford the high fees; they are still going to the back-street abortionists because these people cannot afford the legitimate doctors or the nursing homes. They have an abortion brought on and they end up in a free bed in a nursing home or in a hospital. That is what is happening today. Things will not change here. Do the people who talk about abortion on demand imagine that any doctor in our country is going to be so sympathetic towards a Black person as to say to her: “My dear, I am terribly sorry, but you are pregnant; I am going to get you a bed tomorrow morning at Baragwanath hospital where I am going to do your operation free of charge, because I do not want you to go to a back-street abortionist”. Is that going to happen? It is ridiculous! However, this Bill does allow the woman, who today is doing a septic abortion on herself, the privilege of going to a hospital and having the casualty officer refer her to a specialist so that if it is a legitimate abortion which is necessary, she can have it done in the hospital under the best possible conditions. For anybody to tell me that back-street abortionists will be done away with, is absolutely ridiculous. I should like to know where these people get their figures from. I have a document in front of me which says that approximately 200 000 illegal abortions are being done in South Africa every year. I do not know where they get these figures from or where we get the beds from to put these patients in. I just cannot understand how they get these figures. I was told the other day that only one in five or ten women report rapes. Where do they get these figures from? If a woman does not report it, how do they know that she was raped? I do not know how they work it out. I do not know what brilliant statisticians we have in this country who, without evidence, can conjure up figures from the sky. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I want to tell the House that I for one support the Bill, and I hope that every right-thinking person in this House today will back the hon. the Minister and all of us who are going to speak in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to extend my hearty congratulations from my side, too, to all the members of the Committee who worked with us on this Bill before the House for their hearty co-operation. I am grateful that we were able to bring out a unanimous report. In this regard I also want to express my cordial thanks to the Opposition.

The hon. member for Rosettenville says that he does not know where they get those statistics according to which there are 200 000 cases of abortion every year. Perhaps, Dr. Fisher, it was also a prejudiced Pegasus investigation.

When one is engaged in an investigation concerning a Bill of this kind, there are two groups of persons who are intensely and intimately affected. The first comprises the women who may require abortion, and the second comprises the doctors entrusted with the care of these people—in other words, the doctors whose duty it would be to carry out these operations if they were to be carried out.

I think it is necessary for us to tell this House—as has already been indicated in a report before the House—that we received 60 memoranda, apart from the large number of people who came before us in person to give evidence. Of these 60 memoranda, in addition to the many people who came and gave evidence before us, there was only one person who gave evidence and submitted a memorandum who wanted abortion on demand. She also submitted a petition signed by people who wanted the same. As against that there were 59 memoranda plus the evidence of innumerable people in which grave objections against it were expressed. In addition, other petitions were submitted to us with far more names on them than on the petition submitted by the woman and which also noted grave objections to this. The preponderance of evidence, therefore, left this commission no option but to decide that the people of this country do not want abortion on demand. Faithful to the principles of my party in this democratic land of ours, I have no choice but to do what the voters of this country expect me to do. We therefore had no option but to decide that the total preponderance of evidence and of opinion in this country was wholly opposed to abortion on demand.

I now come to the second group of people intimately concerned with this matter. I refer here to the medical practitioners. Of the medical practitioners who gave evidence before us—some of them spoke on behalf of the Gynaecological Association and others on behalf of the Medical Association of South Africa; in other words, they were supposed to be speaking on behalf of their colleagues—one could not find a single one who was prepared to perform an abortion. This is a matter that is very easily lost sight of, viz. that whereas it is said that it is the individual right of a woman to decide about her own body, it is also the right of every doctor to decide what he wants or does not want to do.

A great deal of fuss was made on all sides about the fact that only men were appointed to this Commission of Inquiry. Originally this commission was a Select Committee of this Parliament and the only woman who could possibly have been appointed to it was at that stage a member on the other side of the House who was no longer in the House. The United Party did not exercise that right and at that stage the Progressive Party was not yet entitled to an appointment to that Select Committee. It was, therefore, impossible …

That is nonsense.

You said you did not want to serve on it.

Nobody asked me.

You did say so. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, while those two hon. members settle that point, I want to say that I want to be honest. We on this side of the House did not ask the hon. member for Houghton. We did not need her. Those were the circumstances and that was the evidence submitted to us. The Commission went out of its way to gather evidence from as wide a spectrum as possible, but we experienced the same thing in connection with the submission of evidence among all races—a general opposition to abortion on demand. An open invitation was addressed to people to come and give evidence. The Commission went out of its way to invite Coloured medical practitioners to come and give evidence and some of them did so. The Commission also invited Indian medical practitioners, but they did not come; they intimated that they were satisfied with the proposed legislation as printed. In addition, Bantu medical practitioners were contacted, as well as, through Bantu Administration, the homeland leaders, and all of them without exception intimated that they were entirely satisfied with the moral code as well as with the Bill as printed. That still did not satisfy us, and because we received no assistance from that side, we issued a special invitation to the medical director of the Kalafong hospital, as well as the professor at the head of the gynaecological department at Baragwanath. We received no evidence from those people either which compelled us to change our opinion in any way. Sir, we went out of our way to obtain evidence from women. Most of them subsequently thought fit, possibly because of the publicity, rather to go to the newspapers and raise their objections there. Only representatives of the Nursing Association and the Nursing Council appeared before the Commission, and those women provided us with the clearest evidence possible that they were unequivocally opposed to abortion on demand. That, then, Sir, was the situation which this committee came to face, and the committee therefore had no alternative, not that it did not seek alternatives. I think the committee was grateful to be able to come to the conclusion it did unanimously.

Sir, a few interesting things have come to my notice since then. Besides this evidence we gathered and which was received chiefly from the Nursing Association, an extract from a report of the Academy of Legal Medicine recently came to my notice. During a meeting of the International Academy of Legal Medicine and Social Medicine, held on 28 September 1973, the following was once again confirmed, and I find this significant, coming as it does from this eminent international body—

Sir, I think this pronouncement by the Academy of Legal Medicine is an exceptional pronouncement.

I have here in my hand a letter I received from the chairman of the Gynaecological Association. He has a few objections to the proposed Act He would have preferred separate Acts for sterilization and for abortion. Some members of the commission felt the same, but the legal draftsmen and the legal advisers we had, did not deem this necessary. The chairman of the Gynaecological Association had a few objections to the short title of the Bill. He considered that the short title of the Bill should read “Bill on Abortion and Sterilization of Persons Unable to Consent”, but this could not be fitted in either, because in the Act there was also another pronouncement concerning sterilization which would not have fitted in with such a title, and therefore it was decided that the short title would remain unchanged. But apart from those minor matters, the chairman of the Gynaecological Association wrote to me as follows (translation)—

That comes from the chairman of the Gynaecological Association. Sir, it is perhaps necessary to refer to some other points. For example, certain objections were raised in certain quarters concerning all the records which doctors would now be obliged to keep. I think that this is a matter that is being wrested entirely out of context. In any respectable institution where illnesses are treated or operations performed, at least at every provincial hospital, records of every operation, however small, performed in those theatres have, in any event, been kept all these years. All that this legislation now states is that the Secretary for Health will be entitled to prescribe how these reports must be kept, in other words, precisely the same as has been done all these years will now still be done in a proper, orderly manner.

There is another minor point to which reference must be made. There are many other members who will also refer to this. This is that the psychiatrist required to certify that women suffering from a mental disability which may be permanently aggravated as a result of the pregnancy, must be a state psychiatrist. The objection is that there are too few state psychiatrists, but the latest arrangements by the Department of Health, provincial administrations and universities alleviate the position considerably in that every psychiatric lecturer on the staff of a university is automatically appointed to the province as well as to the Department of Health and actually appears on the payroll of the Department of Health. The position in that regard, therefore, has been completely alleviated. Then there are people who have in mind conditions of emergency when so may doctors are required. The hon. member for Rosettenville discussed that matter in detail. According to the evidence, as the hon. the Minister has already indicated to you, it was possible to obtain repeated confirmation from the Gynaecological Association that not one of them knew of any emergency condition that could arise under this legislation. An incomplete miscarriage or an incomplete abortion in no way falls under this legislation. Such people are dealt with in the ordinary manner. Sir, it is impossible to play policeman, but, since it is possible for these records to be kept throughout the country, the records can be sent to the Department of Health. The Department of Health then programmes all these records on a computer and this computer will indicate very quickly and clearly when too many of these operations or abortions are being performed in some areas, or it will indicate that in some towns there are certain persons who are continually engaged in these things. In this way a close watch can be kept on these people by means of these records and we believe that in this way we shall be able to cause this legislation to operate properly. The legislation also satisfies the Psychiatric Association, according to a letter that they addressed to us. As far as I know, it also satisfies all other well-disposed persons and it is therefore my privilege to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I must say at once that the course of action to adopt at the Second Reading of this Bill is no simple matter, particularly on procedural grounds. It is the first statutory measure to legalize abortion in any form in South Africa although under common law it has generally been accepted, according to legal experts, that an abortion in order to save the mother’s life is permissible. It would appear at first sight therefore that a Bill like this ought to rate the support of those members who are not in principle—that is, for instance on religious grounds— against abortion. However, a closer examination of the Bill reveals it to be so circumscribed as to defeat any purpose it may have had as an enabling measure. I must say that after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Rosettenville, I have no doubt whatever as to the course of action which I certainly am going to follow in this House. This is a retrogressive Bill compared to the Bill of 1973, which was referred to a Select Committee which later became a commission, and I want to say at once that I believe that in practice it may very well prove to be self-defeating. I therefore move as an amendment—

I want to point out that, in fact, I was the first member to raise the whole question of the need for abortion reform in this House. I did so by way of questions I put in 1968 and 1969. I also raised it under the Justice Vote in 1971. In 1972 the hon. member for Rosettenville introduced a private member’s motion asking for a parliamentary Select Committee. At that stage I said that I wanted an independent commission of inquiry headed by a judge; I did not want politicians—men or women —on that particular commission to handle the inquiry. I wanted a cross-section of experts, men and women, to do this: gynaecologists and obstetricians, ordinary doctors, psychiatrists, sociologists, lawyers and, of course, representatives of women’s organizations, but whether the members of the commission representing experts, people like the doctors, psychiatrists, gynaecologists and obstetricians, were men or women was a matter of indifference to me. Instead of that we got a parliamentary Select Committee composed of ten members of Parliament, ten politicians, and every one of them a man!

Why did you not serve on it?

Because I was not asked to serve on it and I was not the only woman member of Parliament in this House at the time either. The then member for Wynberg, Mrs. Catherine Taylor, was also in the House and she too, as far as I know, was not asked to serve on that Select Committee. There were also women Senators. I take the strongest exception to the fact that the Select Committee of this House did not include a single woman member of Parliament. When the Select Committee became a commission, the field was even wider. There were any number of expert women available to serve on the commission because then membership of the commission was not limited to members of this House. The State President could have appointed any woman to serve on that commission and I have no doubt that he would have done so had he been asked to do so by the major parties concerned in the appointment of the Select Committee. I want to say quite unequivocally that I think the omission of women members from this commission was a calculated insult to women perpetrated by a lot of male chauvinist people. Here was a matter about which women are most intimately concerned and it should not have been a matter of party politics. I am very glad indeed that the official Opposition has decided to have a free vote on this Bill and I sincerely hope that a number of them will vote for my amendment. I might say, on behalf of my own party, that we decided long ago that there should be a free vote as far as this measure is concerned. I do not think that the hon. the Minister or the hon. member who has just sat down, who was the chairman of the Select Committee and the commission told us whether or not the National Party was prepared to allow a free vote on a subject like abortion.

It is a Government measure.

It is a Government measure, but so was the Liquor Amendment Bill, and that was allowed as a free vote. I put it to this House that if ever there was a measure on which a free vote should have been allowed it is a measure such as this which concerns private, religious and moral convictions. It should not have been left to party politicians to lay down the law. It should have been left to the individual conscience of members to decide what they were going to do.

I want to contrast the attitude of this House to the attitude in Britain when the Government appointed a committee to review the operation of the Abortion Act of 1967. That committee was set up in 1971 to recommend changes in law, should they be necessary, and to suggest changes in regulations should they be necessary. I want to point out the difference as far as the composition of the committee is concerned. It was composed of 16 highly qualified people. The chairman was a woman, Mrs. Justice Lane, and no less than nine other members of the committee were also women. Ten out of the 16 members of the Lane Committee were therefore women as compared to this House where no women members were appointed on the Select Committee. If they did not fancy the two women members who were here at the time, they could have appointed any number of highly qualified women from outside this House to serve on that Commission. In paragraph 9 of its report the Commission states that with due regard to the evidence obtained, all bar one who gave evidence or submitted memorandum made representation for abortion to be allowed “in exceptional cases only”. Both the hon. member for Rosettenville and hon. members on that side who have spoken went further than this. They stated that only one organization had given evidence in favour of abortion on demand. The commission, however, states that only one organization gave evidence asking for abortion to be allowed in anything other than exceptional cases. I want to say to this House at once that that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, because I know of four organizations and one individual, a professor of the University of Natal, who submitted memoranda asking for abortion to be permitted under much more liberal circumstances than those allowed for in this Bill. The second misrepresentation which I believe this House has had presented to it is the fact that the commission states in paragraph 11 that it based its recommendations on principles as laid down in the Bill which it was examining—that is the Bill of 1973—and that, they said, made provision for abortion “in highly exceptional cases only”. This is completely incorrect. Indeed, if the original Bill had been before this House today, I would have had no difficulty in supporting it. It certainly did not accept the principle that abortion should only be allowed in highly exceptional circumstances. If that had been so, I wonder if members would inform me why it was found necessary for the commission to introduce a new Bill which radically altered the first Bill, if the first Bill itself had laid down the principle that abortion should only be allowed in highly exceptional circumstances. The truth is that the first Bill was much more liberal; it did not embody the principle that abortion should only be allowed in highly exceptional circumstances. It is the Bill we are considering today that embodies those principles. I regret to say that the commission has been so vigilant in trying to prevent possible abuses, that the new Bill may very well have the effect of increasing and not of decreasing the number of back-street abortions. I want to quote Judge Hiemstra in this regard. Giving judgment in the case The State v. King he said:

I put it to this House that the limited way in which abortions may be procured, under this Bill we are considering today, may very well have the effect which Judge Hiemstra has warned us about. I appreciate that a situation of no-legalized abortion was the situation in South Africa, except that the common law allowed abortion in order to save the life of the mother. Whatever the hon. member for Rosettenville says, the legal expert, Prof. Strauss of Pretoria University or of Unisa, disagrees with him.

Unisa.

Yes, Unisa. He says that abortions were allowed under the common law in order to save the mother’s life. I know it is difficult to go from a situation of no abortion whatsoever, with no statutory provisions except for those allowed in the common law which I have mentioned, to any form of abortion on demand or request in one fell swoop, even if one were in favour of it. It is impracticable at the present stage in South Africa to go from one extreme situation to another extreme situation, although I want to say at once that there is no doubt that there is a tendency in the modern world to move in this direction. The United States has certainly moved very far in this direction, and although the Lane Commission does not yet recommend this in England, that is the tendency in the modern world. Sooner or later—it is always later—South Africa will fall into line with modern international practices.

Where do you stand?

In proposing the first statutory recognition of legalized abortion in South Africa, I say that the commission has bent over backwards to satisfy a narrow-minded and highly conservative point of view as exemplified by the hon. member for Rosettenville. That is the point of view which the commission has attempted to satisfy. In so doing, it has demonstrated very little faith in the integrity of the medical profession. We have only had three medical men who have spoken on this Bill, all of them supporting it, all of them not realizing, apparently, that they have demonstrated very little confidence in the integrity of the medical profession, in contrast with the Lane Commission which said that they considered that it should properly be for the medical profession to set and enforce its own standards. I want to say that the Medical Council has set and enforced its own standards, and I wonder if the hon. Minister, the hon. member for Rosettenville and the chairman of the commission are aware that in March 1972 the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, anything but a permissive body, decided that abortion was ethically justified if it was performed for the following considerations:

1. (a) to protect the life and health of the pregnant patient; (There is nothing about “permanent serious damage” or any of the stuff that has been included in this Bill.)
2. (b) where there was a real danger that an abnormal child would be born and
3. (c) in cases of rape, incest, or where the woman or child was unable to understand the result of coitus.

I must say that those are ethical considerations and not legal considerations, but those are nevertheless the guidelines which the medical profession lays down for its own members. I maintain that this commission has sternly—naturally, consisting of men, why should it care—ignored the dreadful trauma of the unmarried pregnant woman more particularly of the girl under the age of 16. This is an omission from this Bill, as opposed to the previous Bill, the 1973 Bill, that I cannot understand for one moment.

Yes, there are many things you are not able to understand.

We find the trauma of the ignorant and foolish girl under the age of 16 who has become pregnant; the commission has totally ignored the woman’s desire for some privacy in her predicament. She does not want to go calling in all these second, third and fourth opinions in order to gain some relief from her predicament. It is not only her own doctor who is involved. There are two other doctors involved plus the hospital superintendent, and, of course, in the case of any mental condition there has to be a State psychiatrist. The Commission has completely ignored the human drama of the unwanted child. Whatever the hon. member for Rosettenville says, there are unwanted children produced by mothers who do not want to have them, women who have had six, seven or eight children and do not want any more. The psychological consequences to that child and the physical evidence of the neglected child and the battered baby are apparent, or have hon. members never heard of battered babies? What about the dreadful death rate of Black infants from mirasmus? Have they heard about that? Do hon. members know that about 50% of infant deaths in the Ciskei are the result of this particular disease?

Do you want to kill them by abortion?

Yes, I want to kill them. That is really brilliant! What a stupid … [Interjections.]

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

No, you cannot; sit down. I am very ill-disposed towards men at this moment and I want to advise hon. members of this House—except those in my own party—that I feel equally cross about those who are going to support me and those who are not. As far as I am concerned, I do not want anything to do with the men in this House. I do not think the Commission gave sufficient consideration to the conditions existing among Coloured and African populations before it reached its conclusions and drew up this amended Bill.

The far-reaching sociological changes associated with urbanization received absolutely no attention from this Commission, believe it or not. The facts, such as the appalling high rate of illegitimacy, in the homelands, in the urban African townships and in the urban Coloured population, were simply ignored. This high illegitimacy rate is largely, though not entirely, the result of the migrant labour system. This has …

That is a lot of nonsense.

To just say “nonsense” is not an answer to the argument I am advancing. I would like a few rational arguments advanced against the fact of abortion.

You will get them.

Will somebody tell me whether there is any significance in the fact that something like 25% of all the bed space in gynaecological wards throughout the country, is filled with seriously ill women being treated for the effects of self-induced or back-street abortions?

I do not know how many illegal abortions take place. Professor Strauss says that 100 000 illegal abortions per annum is probably an under-estimate, but no doubt the brilliant member for Rosettenville can produce figures to counter that. What, if anything, did the Commission adduce from the fact that the septic abortion unit created at the Groote Schuur Hospital has the highest bed occupancy in the hospital and the greatest patient turnover of all the wards in that hospital?

Who is going to pay for that?

That is exactly the cry I heard from that hon. member three or four years ago when I introduced a private member’s motion asking for free and compulsory education for children of all ages. “Who is going to pay for it?” he said, and now it has become United Party policy. I can only hope that if this is the pattern of development—slow though it be —of the United Party, that in three or four years’ time they will be coming to this House asking for amendments to the abortion legislation or maybe even backing the amendments which I am going to move in the Committee Stage. I wonder if they attach any importance to the fact that Baragwanath Hospital sets up two special wards every weekend to handle incomplete abortion patients. The hon. member for Rosettenville, however, says that there are no unwanted children. Does he really think that these women maul themselves because they want their babies?

You are talking nonsense.

He says that I am talking nonsense, but I am telling the hon. member for Rosettenville that two special wards are set up at Baragwanath Hospital every weekend to handle the results of self-induced abortions by African women who do not want these pregnancies.

That is a factor to be reckoned with. One cannot ignore these facts. It is a fact that the King Edward VIII Hospital treats 2 000 septic abortion cases each year and, equally, that Baragwanath Hospital treats 7 000 septic abortion cases annually. Did these facts weigh or did they not weigh at all with the Commission that sat on this very important issue, or were they more motivated by the opinion advanced by one of the people who gave evidence to the Select Committee, viz. Rev. Gericke, who said that “it is taboo among Bantu and Coloureds to talk about abortion”, and that “for them it is not yet a practical matter”. “Dit is nog nie ’n aktuele saak nie,” he said. This is just not true. The fact of the matter is that it is very much a practical issue for African and Coloured women, as any doctor treating the gynaecological and obstetrical cases in the general hospitals will tell hon. members in this House. If a committee were to sit in three or four years’ time to examine the workings of the S.A. Abortion and Sterilization Act of 1975 —if the Bill goes through as it is presently constituted—I doubt whether it would be able to say what the Lane Committee was able to report on the British Act, viz. that “it has made a real contribution to the reduction of illegal abortion”. It is much I more likely that the number of back-street abortions will increase unless certain amendments are adopted in the Committee Stage.

I am often told bitterly by Nationalists that it is very easy for rich people to buy their apartheid. Equally, in spite of what the hon. member for Rosettenville says, it is easy for rich women to buy their abortions. Whether or not England is sick and tired of visitors flying in to have abortions, the fact is that visitors do just that. Among the people who fly in are South African women who can afford to do this in order to have their abortions because they cannot procure them here. This measure is not going to ease that situation. On the contrary, poor women are going to find it even more difficult than they did before to procure abortions because the penalties laid down in this Bill are horrific should a doctor take any sort of pity on a woman in her predicament and assist her to get rid of an unwanted child. Not only must he show that serious physical damage is otherwise likely to affect the mother, but he must show that serious permanent damage can result if a mental case is involved. I am informed by psychiatrists that it is absolutely impossible to predict serious permanent mental damage in such cases.

What are the main changes I object to in this Bill, as opposed to the Bill of 1973, which I say I would have supported as a transitional measure in South Africa, to get away from the situation where there is no legal, statutory provision for abortion other than the common law provision which is generally accepted, viz. abortion in order to save a mother’s life? I would have accepted that Bill as a sensible stage in our evolution. However, now there are the new provisions I have mentioned regarding mental health grounds for abortion. It is true that abortion solely on psychiatric grounds can lead to abuse, but the clause that requires certification by two doctors that “the continued pregnancy creates the danger of permanent damage to the woman’s mental health” is, as I have said, absurd. What is more, one of the doctors issuing such a certificate has to be a State psychiatrist. First of all I want to know why the distinction was drawn between physical health and mental health. The original Bill put physical and mental health together and, indeed, they ought to be so classified. Secondly, to require a State psychiatrist to be one of the doctors is, as I have said, utterly impractical. I asked a question of the hon. the Minister when this first Bill was being sent to a Select Committee, and I was told that all in all there are 150 registered psychiatrists in the whole of South Africa. There are 28 full-time and 26 part-time psychiatrists in State employment throughout South Africa. I am referring now to the State hospitals of course. I am not now including the provincial hospitals which I understand employ about 20 full-time psychiatrists. Those that are employed, however, are mainly in the large metropolitan areas.

They are few and far between everywhere else in the country. I am told that there is only one single psychiatrist in the homelands or, rather, near the homelands; he is in Mafeking and not even in a homeland. There is hardly a single psychiatrist between Pretoria and the Limpopo. How is anybody needing to get an abortion on the grounds of mental health, ever to get to a psychiatrist under conditions like that, and more particularly in the case of Black people? The situation is absolutely absurd and hopelessly impractical We are told, as I say, that approximately 100 000 illegal abortions are performed in South Africa every year. That is an estimate, I would agree, but it is an estimate that Professor Strauss thinks might well be an understatement. What do people think is going to happen under these circumstances when it has been made so impossible for women to get legal assistance in their predicament? The only beneficiaries will obviously be the back-street abortionists.

I appreciate the Committee’s anxiety to avoid any abuses, but the law, as it stands, is going to be self-defeating. I am not at all sure if in some ways the common law situation would not be better. Certainly, the 1973 Bill would have been much better and the Society of Psychiatrists gave that Bill their backing as, indeed, the Family Planning Association, which is one of the organizations that objected to the restrictions introduced by this Bill, did. There is the, to me, absolutely incomprehensible decision of the Committee to omit the age factor. What on earth made them do that? How many fathers sitting in this House would countenance a 14-year-old daughter of theirs who happens—and there but by the grace of God goes anybody’s daughter in this House—to fall pregnant … [Interjections.]? It could happen. Would they countenance such a child having to go through this complicated procedure before she can get any help and then it has to be, do not forget, on the grounds of serious physical damage to the child’s or would-be mother’s health or serious permanent damage if it is on mental grounds? Can you imagine this? What cruelty, what lack of humanity to do this! The first Bill allowed a child under 16 to be treated, if pregnant, on the same basis applicable in cases of rape and incest. I maintain that that is correct; that is exactly what should have been done and I am going to move an amendment at the Committee Stage putting the position right back to what it was in the 1973 Bill. I would like to see how many fathers of daughters in this House are going to have the gall to vote against an amendment like that. I think that it is an absolutely appalling provision. And then, while I am on the subject, I wonder if the House is aware of the fact that something like 20% of the case abortions treated at Groote Schuur Hospital concern girls 16 years of age and under. It is not only the occasional case. At Groote Schuur cases of incomplete abortion are brought in and the doctors complete the abortion or ordinary abortions are performed. Why is the hon. member, who is a doctor, looking so mystified? Has he not heard of this situation?

I think your terms are a bit mixed up. The one who wrote your notes for you, did not explain them to you.

Nobody wrote it for me. In fact, I wrote it myself but I consulted a number of intelligent members of the hon. member’s profession. On the basis of that I compiled my speech.

I would like to come to another inexplicable omission which the hon. member tried—I am afraid, without success—to explain to me, namely the omission of the emergency clause. He tried to explain that under certain circumstances where a woman was already haemorrhaging and brought into a hospital, she could in any case have the abortion without difficulty. In other words, she did not have to go through all this complicated procedure. That is presumably when the common law situation, to save a woman’s life, applies. Is that correct? That is correct. What about other cases? What about cases of renal failure and heart attacks?

That is provided for in the Bill.

Where? It is not so.

In cases of serious physical damage.

I’ll come back to that in the Committee Stage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, a strange thing happened here this afternoon, for according to the Order Paper the hon. member who has just resumed her seat will move on Friday, 28 February, that this House calls upon the Government to take immediate steps to remove the remaining legal disabilities of South African women. I just want to remind the hon. member for Houghton that it is the tenth of February today and not yet the 28th. I want to recall to the hon. member’s attention a debate in this House in February 1972, when she replied to a motion by the hon. member for Rosettenville, and I want to ask the hon. member if there is anything in this Bill for which she did not specifically ask. I am going to quote from the hon. member’s speech here on 18 February 1972. After the whole matter had been discussed, it was her turn to speak and she said—

Sir, that is precisely what is stated in the Bill. The hon. member also said that the Bill, as first published …

It had nothing about “permanent” in it; that is the important word.

Good. We can argue about the word “permanent”. If I make the statement, as a medical practitioner, that the hon. member has suffered permanent damage …

I think that is the case.

… and another medical practitioner finds after a month that it is no longer permanent, what happens then? What is “permanent”? If the hon. member can tell me what she means by “permanent”, then we can take the matter further. We know that all of us will die, but what does she mean by “permanent”?

Why put it in if it is not important?

The hon. member is someone who has had contact with the medical profession and she knows that no medical practitioner can say whether one will die tomorrow. No medical practitioner can say that any condition will be permanent; what will happen to a patient in future is unpredictable. In medicine two times two is not always four; I can testify to that myself. Many of my colleagues said that I would die as a result of injuries sustained in an accident and I did not die. Sir, as far as this Bill is concerned there are a few basic things which we must take into account. The first is that this Bill was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Health, not by a cultural organization, not by a norms organization and not by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions; it was introduced by the Minister of Health; that is the basis on which we must begin. We are dealing with a health aspect here, and when we speak of health then we speak in terms of people and what is best for them as far as their health is concerned, and this Bill is adapted to this. In the second place, the actions which are laid down in this Bill, are carried out by the medical profession. The medical profession is involved in the matter from beginning to end, and therefore the procedures which the medical profession have to adopt in the case of a therapeutical termination of pregnancy or of abortion to complete the action, are being laid down in this Bill.

In the third place, the legislation has to take the religious and moral norms of the people into consideration. I want to place on record here that apart from the fact that this is this Government’s legislation, it was not even necessary for the National Party caucus to argue about this matter. It was not necessary to allow our members a free vote, because every Nationalist here adheres to the Christian principle that one must respect life. That is our basic tenet: You must have respect for an unborn life as well as for the life of another.

In the fourth place, the legislation must take into account the ethical norms which medical scientists impose on themselves, something of which we have always been proud and always will be proud, because the medical profession is the key, around which all these actions revolve. The legislation must also take into consideration that medical science is constantly developing through research and study and that we must also make provision for this for although two times two is four today it is possible that as a result of research in future years it will no longer be the case. Conditions of which we have no knowledge could subsequently develop later, and conditions which we have not yet diagnosed or defined could possibly be defined later. It is precisely for this reason that a broad spectrum is being left open by stating it only as “serious risk”. “Serious risk” is a mode of expression in connection with the life or the health of a person, because it is possible that what is today a serious risk will, in a year or two, as a result of medical developments, no longer be a serious risk. Then there is, in turn, something else which is a serious risk.

The legislation must, moreover, take into consideration the variety of services available. The hon. member complained violently about how, in Mafeking and the entire Bophuthatswana area, there is only one psychiatrist, but if you read the legislation carefully and are acquainted with the Mental Health Act which we have introduced, you will see that provision is now made for this. When the province and the State co-operate, you will find that there is a far wider spectrum of psychiatric services. I want to state clearly that we received no evidence of a psychiatric emergency which has to be treated immediately. All the psychiatrists testified one after the other that they cannot express an opinion before they have had a patient under continuous observation. It is not a case of extra blood which is necessary before an operation is possible. A psychiatric case is clearly defined. You can only determine whether a person is a psychiatric case by observation and by examining the case history, and in this way such a person can be prevented from telling suicide stories. Therefore provision is also made for their admission to such an institution for observation. And there is no emergency which necessitates not having to wait for those findings. In a week or 14 days the psychiatrist is able to say that he is convinced that it is one of those specific cases where pregnancy should be terminated. I really cannot see in what way this can cause any difficulty.

This legislation recognizes the unborn foetus, the person in embryo, but it also recognizes that it does not have the same right as a living person. Sir, as far as I know there are no theologians who are going to participate in the debate, but I can tell you that we read the following in Exodus 21, verses 22 to 25. That is the only place where I could find a reference to the foetus. It reads—

According to our theologians we recognize that God has given us life through his grace and that He alone can say when that life should end. Very strong evidence has been given in favour of this, but I only want to quote one piece of evidence. It comes from a group of young schoolchildren from a certain school and they give the following evidence—

It is such things which touch us. [Interjections.] We have read the legislation and we know what is provided in it. The hon. member has made out no case for any alternative; all that she has said, is: Here I come with Women’s Lib, and off we go. That is all the hon. member said in the whole half an hour. She said that we must drop everything. It is important to say what the legislation does not entail, so that the hon. member and other people can understand it clearly. The most important object of the legislation is not to remedy social decadence and evils of the community. This legislation is not of a special nature. It is not justified to level the charge at the medical scientists that the provisions of the legislation are in conflict with he medical ethical code. I should like to read a few quotations from Dr. Roux’s opinions on medical ethics. He wrote a whole series of articles in the Medical Journal, and on 27 May 1972 something appeared which in my opinion is very important, and in many respects it is also in complete agreement with the rest of the Hippocratic oath. This is where the ethics of a medical practitioner are of importance (translation)—

That is a radical statement of medical ethics. The same doctor continues his discourse on ethics and says the following—

Here it is pointed out that not one of us has the right, neither the State nor the community, to make the doctor the executioner of his problems. It is not right towards him and nor is it right towards the person, because he must carry out the action and the decision.

There is another aspect which I should also like to deal with before I come to the legislation, viz. the question of the psychological deviations which we find—the hon. member for Houghton also referred to this—when people, because they are pregnant, are driven so far emotionally that they threaten to commit suicide, to use drugs, etc. However, I want to ask the hon. member whether she has made any survey —we speak of a Pegasus survey but she presented us with the results of another survey—of the psychological deviations, emotional conditions, etc., which can be caused by an abortion. I want to refer to a report of a Swedish gynaecologist which was published in 1955 in a Swedish newspaper and in which he alleges that in 25% of the cases of abortus provocatus which had been followed up the women reproached themselves about those events. Here is an indication, even if it is only a small one, to the members of my profession. Hon. members must excuse me if I recount a personal experience now. About 10 years ago I had a woman who was over 60 years of age as a patient of mine. She was constantly ill and I could not bring about any progress with my treatment. She suffered from a neurosis; the one moment she was tense, the next moment depressed, and so it went on. Later this patient developed a fatal pathological condition. She was admitted to hospital and lay there for weeks. No medical treatment had any effect on her. One day the ward sister said to me: “Doctor, this patient cannot die. One can see there is a struggle, a remorse in her.” The following morning I spoke to her and she told me in a whisper: “Doctor, I am now 60 years old; I would like to die, but 30 years ago I had my baby removed.” That is all she said. She indicated that she had wanted to tell me this. I talked to her and called her minister. The following morning the sister told me that she had passed away quite peacefully. How much thought do we give to those people who have experienced miscarriages? Often they suffer from frustration. It was an instruction from the Dutch Reformed Church to their witnesses who appeared before the commission to communicate the following to us (translation)—

That is really true. I can mention more than one such case. There is one other thing which the legislation does not do. It is not the aim of this legislation to act as a basis for sensationalism. I do not want to impose silence upon anybody, for example the Press. Here we are discussing women and men because it is the year of the woman, but I have never heard or read a sensational story about a man who had his prostate gland removed. I can say quite openly that he was sterilized as well. What is the reason for these sensational reports? Is it a feeling of guilt or something of that nature? What do they achieve?

In addition the legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with the population increase. The hon. member for Rosettenville emphasized the point again and again, and I am grateful to him for doing so. Although we must take cognizance of the existing norms in other countries, for example America and England, it is by no means the intention of this legislation that we should be followers or mimics of any other country, in which there is moral decay. It is not necessary for South Africa to be “with it” because abortions are being performed on a large scale in other countries. In respect of America and England we find that 750 000 and 150 000 abortions are carried out there, respectively. Japan and the communist States do not recognize life before birth. They recognize life only after birth. The same applies to the Buddhists.

To return to the legislation I should like to deal briefly with a few aspects. The point which I want to mention is the question of rape. It has been stated clearly that there is a definite procedure which has to be followed. If I may, I should just like to tell a little anecdote to add a light touch to my words. A young girl arrives at a hospital and asks for help. She says to the matron: “Oh mother, oh mother, I have been raped. Matron, please help me.” The matron then says: “Yes, come in my child. Walk this way. Go straight through to the kitchen. On the shelf you will find a lemon. Squeeze out the juice and drink it.” The girl then says: “Oh matron, will it really help me?” And the matron says: “Yes, it will help to remove that smile from your face.” The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to the fact that we must not think that every rape case is a genuine case of rape. Therefore it has been stated clearly in terms of the Act that there must be a complainant and that the case must be certified by a magistrate.

Finally I want to express my feelings about the penal provision. I agree entirely that the penalties should be as heavy as possible. I am referring now to clause 10 (l)(a) where reference is made to any person “who is not a medical practitioner and procures an abortion”, and (b) “any person who is a medical practitioner and procures an abortion”. The penalties are the same in both cases. However, I feel that here we must emphasize that although the court should use its discretion, according to the case, it is the cases of abortion procured by people who are not medical practitioners which are the chief cause of the high death rate as a result of miscarriages. Those cases are also the cause of the high bed occupation figure in our hospitals. The court must take all of this into account when sentence is passed. We can speak at length about many aspects of this subject.

As far as the procedure is concerned, we are grateful that a circumspect way of controlling abortion has been provided. However, there is one thing this Bill does not say and that is that the Department of Health has to act as policeman or that the Department of Health has to do the work of the Medical Council. The Secretary for Health can only, where more miscarriages are reported at a certain place than at others, obtain further information; or where there are cases which are carried out according to the provisions of this legislation and in respect of which there is some uncertainty, he can obtain more information. According to the nature of the information the Secretary can convey it to the Medical Council or whoever it may concern.

I ask hon. members not to get carried away by the question of abortion on demand because we cannot afford that to happen here. My principle and strongest argument is that we cannot call in the medical profession as an executioner to judge and to carry out an action which is not in the interests of health.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Brentwood because as a commissioner and as a medical man he had a contribution to make in both directions.

I want to come back to certain criticisms that have been levelled at the Bill and also at the commission and the Select Committee. Remarks have been made today concerning the absence of women from the Select Committee and from the commission. Let me agree at once with the hon. member for Fauresmith that there were only two women who would have been eligible for the Select Committee. In the first place there was the ex-member for Wynberg, Mrs. Taylor. In order to put the matter into perspective, I may say that Mrs. Taylor was never a regular member of the United Party parliamentary health group as such. When the personnel for the Select Committee was considered, consideration was taken of the fact that the weight of the evidence would no doubt involve the Select Committee being changed to a commission during the recess. Under those considerations it became apparent that Mrs. Taylor would be overseas as she had arranged a lecture tour in the United States. I believe that it is in the interest of continuity that if a person is appointed to a Select Committee he should under normal circumstances continue to serve on the commission. The other person was the hon. member for Houghton. Let us get this matter clear as well. In 1962 the hon. member for Houghton announced with what I can call her customary flamboyancy that she would not be available to serve on Select Committees. She has maintained that self-imposed vow more assiduously than any novice in a seminary right up to this present year. Therefore I do not think the hon. member for Houghton can complain that she was never asked.

I was never asked.

She indicated in 1962 that she did not want to serve on Select Committees.

[Inaudible.]

I now want to come to the change she referred to between the Bill of 1973 and the Bill now before the House.

[Inaudible.]

If she would just let me make my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful. I let her make hers without interrupting here. I would like to suggest to her that many of the changes were brought about after due and careful consideration of the evidence which the Select Committee and the commission received. Some of these aspects I hope to be able to enlarge upon in the time at my disposal.

I want to deal also with another criticism which was directed at this legislation. There were certain bodies that felt that insufficient time had been available for the public as a whole to consider such a vitally important matter. Let us just look at the position. The hon. member for Rosettenville introduced his private member’s motion in February 1972. By 8 February 1973, to be precise, the Bill had been Tabled. A Select Committee was appointed on 13 February 1973 and the report of that Select Committee became available on 12 September of the same year. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee was converted into a commission which was appointed on 6 July 1973 as per the Gazette. The report on the work of the commission was released on 12 August 1974. The Bill now before the House was in all material respects Tabled during the last session of Parliament on 8 August, and it is only being proceeded with during this session of Parliament. Therefore I maintain that ample opportunity has been given to interested parties to consider this Bill and to report either to the Select Committee or the commission or, if necessary, to Parliament or its members.

I want to deal with the question of consultation. The hon. member for Faure-smith referred to the fact that there were 60 memoranda received. From my own research I find that there were 27 witnesses, delegates or bodies who gave oral evidence. That makes a total of 87 who either appeared before the commission or submitted memoranda. A break-down in terms of my research shows that the medical section was made up of approximately 25 representations, and in the medical section I include both nursing organizations. I do not include these under the women’s organizations. I regard them as medical for the purposes of my survey. Under religious bodies and individuals there were 26. The number of women either represented by organizations or as individuals amounted to 14 excluding the nursing profession. Government departments and the provinces were represented in nine cases. The legal aspect was put forward by four different witnesses, social work was dealt with by six witnesses, economic aspects by one witness, the South African Indian Council submitted a memorandum and, finally, there was a memorandum prepared and submitted by Prof. Cope who is in charge of the Department of Bantu Languages at the University of Natal. In the memorandum he stated that he submitted it in his personal capacity. Further, I would draw attention to paragraph five of the report of the commission which says, “Your commission also submitted the Bill to the Governments of the Bantu homelands in order to obtain their views on it”. I believe that a very large majority supported the original Bill of 1973, although some with reservations, some with suggestions and some with proposed amendments. The main amendments I encountered dealt with the conscience clause which did not appear in the original Bill before the Select Committee but did appear in the final Bill submitted to this House.

Dealing with the question of consultation with other races, we see that the Coloureds were represented by a medical practitioner who indicated in his evidence that he favoured therapeutic abortion but was against abortion on demand. The South African Indian Council, to which I have referred, indicated in its memorandum that it did not object to therapeutic abortions but that it viewed “the liberalization of abortion” with trepidation.

I come now to the question of the Bantu. As appears in the report, the Bill was submitted for comment to all the homeland Governments and, as far as I know, none advocated abortion on demand. There is also another aspect in this regard to which I should like to refer, viz. the question of Bantu women. This is a matter which is dealt with in some detail in the memorandum of Prof. A. T. Cope of the University of Natal. He indicated that he was not a medical man. Firstly he claimed that the legislation had been drafted with only White women in mind. Secondly, he claimed that the African woman suffers acute mental anxiety on account of unwanted pregnancy and thirdly, in relation to the question of mental health, he stated that there were no psychiatrists in the rural areas. I believe that this is a very valid point. He also said that the lack of fluency in Bantu languages would also present difficulty in relation to obtaining the opinion of a psychiatrist. He also emphasized the fact, which is perfectly true, that there are no Bantu psychiatrists. Prof. Cope concluded by stating that he favoured controlled termination of pregnancy. This, as I understand it, is abortion on request.

I come now to the Abortion Reform Action Group in Durban. As far as I am aware, this group is headed by Mrs. June Cope. In the first instance I wish to refer to an informal meeting I had with one of the representatives of this organization and two African women. One of these African women was a nursing sister and the other was a family planning counsellor. From them I gathered that the relaxation of abortion procedures could be along the lines of abortion on request up to three months because they regarded this as being ancilliary to family planning. There were two factors which emerged from my discussions with these individuals. One was that abortion is not a Zulu tradition and the other was that the Zulu religion did not specifically object to abortion.

In order to be perfectly fair, I feel that I must also put the case of the Abortion Law Reform League. My colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville, interrogated the representative of this organization who appeared before the Select Committee. This evidence is recorded in the report of the Select Committee, as follows—

This was the representative of the Abortion Law Reform League.

I want to return now to the alternative suggested by other people who gave evidence in so far as the Bantu themselves are concerned. In this regard I want to refer to the evidence of Dr. G. H. Roux, the Medical Superintendent of Saulspoort Hospital, a hospital with 450 beds catering, as I understand it, for 250 000 Tswanas. He said—

If I may, I also want to refer, in regard to this same question of the Bantu, to the evidence given by Prof. Lavery of the Baragwanath Hospital. I am sure that nobody will deny that this man speaks with authority. His evidence forms part of the evidence recorded by the Commission. Prof Lavery said—

He indicated that the average number of this type of case was 14 per day. He went on to say—

He added that in the latest year for which he had statistics, 1972, 26 of these women died in hospital. This is how Professor Lavery continues: “In all the years that I have been at Baragwanath hospital we have never, to the best of my knowledge, had a request for a termination of pregnancy.” Professor Lavery went on in his evidence to indicate that there were over 1½ million souls in Soweto. He indicated that he was totally against abortion on demand. He said that there were many reasons and he quoted what he regarded as the most potent. He said: “We would be running an abortion mill at Baragwanath at the cost of patients who are ill.” This is something which we cannot disregard. He went on to say that he did not know the answer. I quote again: “But I want you to know that, as far as the Bantu is concerned, this would be an absolutely fatal move on the part of the Government to authorize for the non-White abortion on demand.” Professor Lavery was also of the opinion that liberalized abortion laws would not prevent back-street abortions. He said this: “Unless you advocate abortion on demand. …”. He continued by indicating that, as far as that was concerned, “… it would be a disaster in his hospital”.

Now, Sir, I want to deal with the evidence of the women’s organizations, because this has been a matter of a fair amount of publicity. I have referred to the fact that the Abortion Reform Action Group gave evidence and I have tried to put their membership and activities into perspective. But amongst the other women or women’s groups which gave evidence —and as far as I can see there were 13— were such bodies as the National Council of the Catholic Women’s League, the National Council of Women of South Africa, the Oranje-vrouevereniging, the South African Abortion Law Reform League, which is affiliated or acts jointly with the Action group, the South African Federation of Business and Professional Women, the Suid-Afrikaanse Vrouefederasie, a private individual, the Family Planning Association—the Southern Transvaal branch whose evidence was based on personal observation by one of the staff, I believe, or one of the advisers—the Natalse Christelike Vrouevereniging and the Catholic Women’s League. According to my examination of the evidence, I find that eight of these bodies or individuals support the Bill. Three of them support abortion on demand. Those supporting abortion on demand were the Abortion Law Reform League, the Abortion Reform Action Group, one individual woman and the representative of the Family Planning Association of the Transvaal, who offered a personal opinion.

Let us examine the position or the situation in so far as those women who appear to me to have supported the Bill are concerned. I firstly mention the South African National Council of Women. I would regard that body as being representative, to a large extent, of the opinion of the women of South Africa. It is a body, I am told, with over 1 500 members with 30 odd branches distributed throughout the towns and drops of South Africa. They have, in addition, 560 affiliated societies. I am not suggesting for one moment that these affiliated societies would all subscribe to the strong memorandum of the National Council. As I understand the position, they were completely opposed to abortion on demand, and I gather that they favour the provisions of this Bill. Sir, the next one is the South African Federation of Business and Professional Women, an organization which I believe is held in high esteem. Then we have the Suid-Afrikaanse Vrouefederasie, and I would say this is a very powerful and influential body with many members. There is also the NCVV in Natal, the Oranje-vrouevereniging and the National Council of the Catholic Women’s League. So I feel that taking into consideration the weight of the evidence, as the commission did, we were right in forming the conclusion which we did.

Then I would like to deal with the religious aspect. Here again my research showed and I mentioned that there was a number of churches involved. As far as oral evidence is concerned, the Dutch Reformed Church appeared before the commission, but there were 26 other bodies, or individuals representing churches or religious bodies, which submitted memoranda. Among these were the Greek Orthodox Church, the Apostolic Church, the Baptist Union, the Roman Catholics, the Church of England in South Africa, the Lutheran Church, the Full Gospel Church, the NGK and the NHK and then, in the form of a joint memorandum, the Church of the Province known as the Anglican Church, of which I am a member, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church and the United Congregational Churches, which submitted their opinions. Their opinion was received in a joint memorandum by the commissioners on 7 April 1973. Now, at this moment of time I believe that the Church of the Province has not finalized its attitude to this particular Bill. There is a further commission sitting and the results are not known. But I, as a member of that church, believe that the terms of the Bill would not be unrepresentative of the opinion of the Church of the Province. I want to refer, however, to their brief two-page memorandum which they submitted to the Select Committee. Paragraph 1 on page 2 states—

It refers to the “inadequate period of time”. I believe that it is a matter for regret that with virtually three years, of publicity and with full information available, the four churches involved could not submit their considered opinion in greater detail before this Bill was debated in Parliament. I say this because I believe that those four denominations represent a very large number of adherents in South Africa.

Then I want to come to the question of the public reaction. The Abortion Law Reform League claims, as I understand it, that there is extensive support for abortion on demand, but what is the other side of this picture? There are many well-intentioned people who have been giving parliamentarians a very busy time and who have been causing them anxiety because they are appealing to members of Parliament to “strongly oppose this Bill”. The reason given by these people—and I have one of their petitions in front of me—is that they are opposed to legal abortion in South Africa and “are horrified that the South African Government can join the trend in Europe and America in allowing the wholesale murder of innocent babies who have not even had the chance of survival”. I suggest that the phrasing of that particular paragraph which appears in the petition is unfortunate and extravagant. I suggest that many of the signatories to this document—and possibly they did it in good faith—have not read the Bill itself, nor have they read the report of the commission. I want to place my attitude on record because I was asked by these bodies to vote against this Bill. I am in favour of this Bill. I support the Bill for five reasons. Firstly because, in my opinion, it will eliminate the unsatisfactory situation existing at present, the contradictory legal position; it will provide the medical profession with strictly limited control and discretionary powers; it will not permit abortion on demand, and it will provide the Department of Health with the means to observe any activities directed at evasion of the terms and conditions laid down; and, lastly, it will provide severe sentences for anyone convicted of performing illegal abortions. Those are my reasons and—I state them for record purposes.

A lot has been mentioned on the question of statistics and that they could in many cases be of very doubtful significance because it is so difficult to gather complete statistics on a delicate matter of this nature. However, according to official statistics which were issued by the Department of Statistics in reply to my question it would appear that during the ten years 1962 to 1972 there were in all 792 prosecutions on account of illegal abortions. Of those 792 prosecutions 325 convictions were effected. Actually, I think they represent a fairly accurate proportion of the population groups in South Africa: Whites 50, Coloureds 36, Asiatics 13 and Bantu 226.

There is another aspect which I wish to bring before the House briefly, namely the social welfare agencies’ views on abortion. I should like to quote briefly from C. B. J. Callaghan who in 1970 wrote Abortion-.

Law, Choice and Morality in which he said inter alia—

If one takes that particular opinion into consideration, I believe we have to come to the logical conclusion that South Africa could not claim that the medical services could cope with abortion on demand as is suggested by some people. Neither could we afford to divert medical attention from the health needs of the population as they exist in South Africa at this moment in time.

There are other considerations. Although my time has nearly expired, I should like to refer briefly to authentic comment and evidence on the effect after an abortion on further pregnancy. A woman who has had an abortion is regarded in many instances as a high-risk patient when she falls pregnant again. The opinion is clear that induced abortion plays an important role in the development of a subsequent child and figures show that abortion leads to an increase in the number of premature births.

There is another aspect which I believe we have to take into consideration, namely what is called “the effect of abortion on subsequent marriage” and I quote—

I believe that these are factors which we who were members of the Select Committee and subsequently members of the commission, had to take into consideration. I believe that any of the tightening which took place in various provisions of the Bill of 1973 vis-à-vis the Bill of 1974 and this particular Bill was brought about in the main by the consideration of the evidence given by responsible medical opinion, and here I refer to the psychiatrists, the gynaecologists, the Medical Council, the Medical Association, the Nursing Council, the Nursing Association and many religious bodies as well.

It is for that reason that I, as a member of the commission, am fully in favour of the provisions of this Bill. I believe that if there have to be amendments as the situation evolves, they must come with time. But at this moment in time the vast majority of South Africans who gave evidence see this Bill as the most logical starting point.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals mainly with two matters, namely abortion and sterilization. The hon. member for Berea devoted most of his time to the commission. I did not serve on the commission, but I enjoyed his speech. I think that it was a good speech. His speech convinced me that I am right in adopting the same attitude to this Bill as he did. I have two things in common with the hon. member for Houghton. The one is that I did not serve on the commission and the other is that we both like and love women. It is for this reason that I would rather not follow the hon. member for Berea, but would like to refer to a few things the hon. member for Houghton said.

This subject of abortion is pregnant with problems, with pitfalls and with extreme differences of opinion. I think the local Press substantiated this by their reactions to the provisions of this Bill, especially by their reactions to an article in the Press by a former Cabinet Minister’s wife. I do not want to go into this question of the Press article any further, Mr. Speaker, but I think that at this time of the evening you will allow me to read one comment which appeared as a result of this article.

*This newspaper tried to find out from male and female friends and relations what they thought of the article written by this lady. One of the daughters said: “My mother has no female friends, only relations.” She is a Van der Merwe. The article concluded as follows (translation)—

I think these remarks perhaps give one a better insight why this article drew so much attention.

†Being a medical practitioner and a specimen of the male sex, I cannot share, or should I rather say I cannot enjoy Joyce’s joys by telling or rather selling you the stories about my personal experiences with abortion.

*Therefore I leave that matter there. I may perhaps just add that although the women are taking us rather severely to task because no women served on this commission, they should in this Women’s Year, perhaps not be too severe on us men. With permission, I am quite convinced that if women alone were responsible for pregnancies, we would certainly have had much more of a debacle than we have now. Therefore they could also show us a little gratitude. That is, if you understand what I mean.

I said that this question of abortion is pregnant with problems, and is characterized by extreme standpoints. These extreme standpoints are, on the one hand, the standpoint of abortion on demand, which is an extreme standpoint, while one has, on the other hand, the standpoint of people who want to allow no abortions whatsoever, which is the other extreme. In world literature and in the great dialogue about abortion taking place in the world today, one finds reasonably strong support for both these extreme standpoints. This is a balanced Bill which does not satisfy any of these extreme standpoints. Consequently one will find a large percentage of people in the world, perhaps not such a large percentage in South Africa, who will not agree with this Bill. It does not satisfy the extremists and therefore one will perhaps find a large percentage not supporting it.

The question of abortion has many facets. It has medical aspects, moral aspects, religious aspects, scientific aspects, and so on. In my speech I should like to refer to some of these aspects. I have already said that I support the Bill, and this is not because I belong to the National Party caucus; I believe that this is the right Bill.

Certain arguments are being advanced in favour of unrestricted or liberal legislation, the so-called unrestricted abortions. Arguments are being advanced in the world in favour of the other extreme, as I have mentioned. What arguments are being advanced in favour of this abortion on demand? There is the population explosion which certain speakers referred to, the food shortage and the harmful effects of illegal abortions. The death rate as a result of illegal abortions is approximately 100 or more per 100 000, while in the case of legal abortions it is approximately two in 100 000. The death rate in respect of legal abortions is also much lower than in the case of normal births.

†Another argument used is that the individual should have the right to decide for himself. The American Supreme Court declared on 22 January 1973 that a mother should have the absolute and deciding right to determine whether she wants to carry and deliver a baby.

*Up to that stage only four states in America allowed abortion reasonably freely and liberally. Since that stage when this decision was taken by the Supreme Court, it is now being allowed throughout America

†Another argument used is to limit the number of unwanted children. The hon. member for Rosettenville dealt with this by more or less saying “You make them and I will take them”. I think that deals with the argument of limiting the number of unwanted children.

*Today there is a general liberalization in many parts of the world. The hon. Leader of the Opposition told me that when he came to this House for the first time wearing a light suit without a waistcoat, he was called in and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Geduld who is wearing a white double-breasted suit, is today regarded as being very well-dressed. Therefore there is a general liberalization in the world and this also has an effect on world legislation.

The bond between State and Church is no longer as strong as it used to be in earlier years. France has had legislation since 1920 in which it is laid down that abortion may only be permitted in cases of incest and rape. Towards the end of last year France, which is to a large extent a Catholic country, liberalized the Act, for the very reason that no such strong ties exist between the State and the Church any more.

As a result of all these factors and others, we have a certain position prevailing in the world today as far as abortions are concerned. According to a survey conducted by a group of learned people, all the particulars of which I have here—however, time does not allow me to supply all the references—55 million abortions took place in the world in 1971; this number includes legal and illegal abortions. This must be an important matter if 55 million women in the world were involved in it during one year.