Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it comes as a bit of a surprise to the hon. the Minister to find me talking to him this afternoon about butter and margarine! [Interjections.] We have come now to the last stage of this Bill, a Bill which provides for the removal of control by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture over the amount of margarine which will be manufactured in this country in the future. That is what is provided for; there will no longer be control over the amount of margarine produced unless the Minister, through the State President, in his wisdom at some time in the future decides that it may be necessary once again to introduce such control. What is the effect of this Bill going to be? I believe that the effect is going to be further to depress the dairy industry, unless that hon. Minister and his department realize that there are certain obligations which attach to the passing of this Bill. I believe that the hon. the Minister is going to have to handle very carefully the situation in the future, as a result of this measure. The effect of this Bill could be to stimulate the manufacture of margarine. If we look at the reply that the Minister gave me, on 30 January, to a question which I had asked in respect of the allocation of quotas for the manufacture of margarine, we find that in the year 1973-’74 the hon. the Minister granted quotas for the production of 62 500 tons of yellow margarine. Those were the quotas which he issued. But, Sir, we find that only 40 607 tons of yellow margarine were in fact manufactured. Then we find that in the year 1974-’75 the Minister granted quotas for 79 000 tons of yellow margarine to be manufactured, while only 59 548 tons were manufactured, which is in the region of only 70% of the quota allocated.

During the Second Reading the hon. the Minister told us that he would be perpetually plagued by applications for increases in quotas. That is apparent too when we see that the quotas allocated have increased from 19 900 tons in 1971-’72 to 79 000 tons in 1974-’75. But, Sir, I believe it was not necessary to grant all the quotas which had been applied for, in the light of the actual manufacture, or, in other words, the actual consumption of yellow margarine. What has the effect of this policy been on the dairy industry? We find that the consumption of butter in 1968-’69 was 52 000 tons. It increased to a peak in 1969-’70 of 54 000 tons of butter, and dropped to 53 000 tons before the advent of yellow margarine. Since then it has dropped to a consumption of only 21 800 tons of butter for 1974-’75. This is why I say to the hon. the Minister that he now has a duty to look to the dairy industry in the future, because up to now they have been afforded protection. Up to 1970, when yellow margarine was allowed to be produced, the dairy industry had total protection from this hon. Minister and his department. Since then they have had partial protection, which has been gradually withdrawn, until today we find that the paternal hand of the Minister of Agriculture is being removed entirely from that sector of the dairy industry which produces butter.

Entirely? There is still a subsidy of R8 million.

The subsidy is something entirely different. I am talking about protection now. As I was saying, the protection of this paternal hand has now been removed. What is the effect of this going to be? I believe that unless the hon. the Minister takes two drastic steps, we are going to have the situation where the butter farmer, the cream producer, is virtually going to disappear in this country. Unless he does that, we are going to have the situation where our production of butter could be nil, because it will not be worth the while of the dairy farmer to produce it and it will not be worth the while of the housewife to buy it.

I believe that the hon. the Minister, from the point of view of the producer, has to see to it that he can channel that product, namely the milk of the producer who today is selling cream, into the manufacture of some other commodity. That is the first thing the hon. the Minister has to do. He must see to it that it is possible for those producers to do just that. Otherwise, Sir, he must assist them to compete against the competing product, which is particularly yellow margarine. The damage which is being done to the dairy industry, and more specifically to the butter industry, can only be justified by making available to the people of South Africa a cheap breadspread. This should be made available particularly to the lower income group in South Africa. This is where I believe that the hon. the Minister and his Government have failed. I believe they have failed the dairy industry because they are now taking away the protection which they have given to butter, and they have failed the public of South Africa because they have failed to provide a cheap breadspread, which was the reason given by the ex-Minister of Health when he announced the introduction of yellow margarine. He said at that time that the sole reason why the Government had agreed to this, was in order to provide this cheap yellow breadspread to the population.

Let us analyse the position as it is today. The price of butter is controlled by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the price of margarine by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. If there is to be justification for the damage which has been done to the dairy industry, as shown in the drop in the consumption figure of over 50%, it will have to be in the form of a cheap yellow breadspread being made available to the people. However, what is the position today? The price of choice butter is controlled at R 1,40 a kilo, the price of table butter at R1,34 a kilo and the price of household butter at R1,28 a kilo. The price of yellow margarine in packs is controlled at R1,16 a kilo, giving a differential of only 18 cents a kilo, 9 cents on 500 g and only 4½ cents on 250 g, this being the size in which margarine is generally purchased, as compared with table butter. Yellow margarine in tubs is controlled at a maximum of R 1,20 a kilo or 30 cents for 250 g, as compared with 35 cents for 250 g of butter. I submit that the differential of only 5 cents on what everybody still knows as half a pound of butter, or half a pound of margarine, is not big enough. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should use his influence with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—and I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is here today—to see that the gap is widened. The difference between the price of butter on the one hand and margarine on the other hand should be greater. I do not believe that it should be made greater by increasing the price of butter, but by reducing the price of margarine. I want to make a case this afternoon to show that the price of margarine can be reduced, and I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to talk to his colleague and see to it that an inquiry is conducted into the profits being made by margarine manufacturers at present. I am not able to show it this afternoon, but I have reason to believe that they are making exorbitant profits out of the manufacture of margarine. That only deals with part of the question. Let us have a look at what happens to the margarine after it leaves the manufacturer. Everybody knows that I am in the retail business. When I buy butter at a price controlled by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, I pay R 1,334 per kilo. I am controlled to sell choice butter at R1,40 per kilo, which allows me a gross profit margin of 6,6 cents per kilo.

What is the percentage?

The percentage does not matter at this stage. I am permitted a gross profit margin of 6,6 cents on the sale of 1 kilo of butter. I accept it; butter is a product which is used to draw people into the supermarket.

What is the position with margarine? I can get margarine for 92 cents per kilo if I buy one case; if I buy more I pay less. There is a differential price depending on the quantity purchased. I can buy yellow margarine in tubs for 92 cents a kilo, and the maximum controlled price I can get for it, as allowed by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, is R1,20 per kilo; in other words, I am showing a profit of 28 cents on a kilo of yellow margarine. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is against price control, because he knows that when one has price control, the controlled price becomes the minimum price. It is never fixed as a maximum price. Everybody charges the controlled price where a price is fixed.

I believe that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, in allowing this situation to continue today, are not doing their duty towards the housewives of South Africa. I do not believe that any retailer needs a profit of 24 cents a kilo on his margarine. I believe the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should use his influence with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, to see that it is reduced, especially when we look at the commodity that yellow margarine is competing with, namely butter, of which the mark-up margin is only 6,6 cents a kilo as compared with 28 cents a kilo for margarine. This is why I say that the Government has failed both the dairy producer, butter producer, and the housewife. In these two commodities, which compete against each other, they have not maintained some balance. In conclusion …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if he suggests that the R8 million subsidy on butter should be increased? Because that is the only way to help the butter farmer and to bring the price down.

With respect, the hon. the Minister must not try to be clever and play politics. I am not playing politics. I am being deadly serious about something which I believe he and I, in our hearts, see eye to eye on. I made it quite clear I am not pleading for an increase in the price of butter. I do not believe it needs to be increased. I do not believe that the price of cream to the producer should be increased today. The dairy farmer is getting a reasonable return on his cream today, but he has no market. What is the position when I say that he has got no market? In December of 1974, which is only 15 months ago, we had no surplus butter in this country. But in December of 1975, which was two months ago, there was a surplus of 693 tons. Now, 2 February, two months after that, the surplus of butter is 2 217 tons, and the hon. Minister anticipates to have a surplus of butter of 3 100 tons at 30 June of this year, a surplus of 4 900 tons at the end of the year, and he asks questions like that! He knows there is a surplus of butter and consequently no need to encourage further production of butter. What he has to encourage, is the consumption of butter. Butter is going to become a snob product and I believe it will be a snob product. As a snob product it will sell, but I believe that this Government has a duty to the housewife to see that she is not fleeced by (a) the margarine manufacturers and (b) the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who allows me to make too much profit on the sale of margarine.

Must the price of margarine come down?

Yes, the price of margarine must come down. I am glad I have got through to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. I am pleading for the price of margarine to come down. At the same time, I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that he must encourage the cream producer to channel his milk into some other market or into some other product where it can be sold. I do not know why the hon. the Minister is being obtuse. In all seriousness, I believe that this will be the effect of this Bill, and the hon. the Minister has a duty to the dairy farmer, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Government as a whole have a duty to the housewives of South Africa. If they will do their duty, grasp the nettle and do what they should be doing, then this Bill can only result in good for the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South remarked to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that he was probably surprised that he, i.e. the hon. member, was going to discuss this legislation. I must agree, because I, too, am really amazed, since after what he said here, it is very clear that the interests of the industry, of the farmer or the interests of the consumer were entirely beside the point. The hon. member contradicted himself too much for that. If, then, it is not a question of a little political capital which the United Party can make out of this, then all it is, is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South once again discussing this matter ad nauseam as he usually does, even though he says things which make no sense.

The hon. member feels that this legislation will have a depressive effect on the dairy industry. I put it very clearly in my Second Reading speech that when a matter such as this at issue, the Dairy Board has given it very thorough consideration, and every time an application for a larger quota by the margarine producers has been granted, it has been done with their co-operation. There is no doubt about that. I cannot understand how it is that the body which represents the fanners should agree with this Bill whereas the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South makes a fuss about it.

He sucked on the wrong teat.

The hon. member charges the hon. the Minister with having withdrawn his fatherly hand from the industry by way of this legislation. I cannot understand his interpreting this legislation in this way. Surely it is very clearly stipulated that we are still retaining the powers and that the State President is empowered to reintroduce a quota by means of a regulation promulgated in the Government Gazette. This protection is very clearly stated in the legislation. The hon. member’s argument that butter is too expensive can only be valid if a bigger subsidy is introduced. There is no doubt about that. It is not only here in South Africa that this is the case, because it is a world-wide trend that butter has become less popular than the vegetable spreads like margarine. This just happens to be so. Why should it be different in South Africa to other countries? I believe that the argument that the issue here is one of health, does not hold water because I do not for one moment believe that butter can really kill people.

I simply cannot believe this. Let us be quite clear on this score: You are making things difficult for the people of whom he was such a champion in the past and still is today, in a half-hearted way. Because there was a quota system, the margarine manufacturers were given the opportunity to announce a shortage from time to time, even though it was only a supposed shortage, and thereby to promote sales of margarine. Surely he is aware of this, because he is a shopkeeper himself. Surely he knows exactly what happens there. While I am dealing with him, I want to tell him that he is quite willing to take 28 cents. Why does he take 28 cents? After all, he can take a little less. He takes 28 cents of the profit he is allowed, and what does he, as a shopkeeper, do with that kilogram of margarine? After all, it is a product with a fairly rapid turnover. The minor expense he has to incur in storing and handling it must be set against the energy and capital which the farmer expends on its production. Nevertheless, he is prepared to take such a large sum of money for the small service he performs. [Interjections.] I mention this in reply to your own argument. Whether it is justified is something else entirely. I cannot understand how a man who is deeply involved in the industry should now attack his own industry. Surely he could have been generous and have passed on that little bit of profit to the housewife.

Does the hon. the Minister believe that it is justified that I as a supermarket owner should be allowed to make 28 cents profit on margarine and only 6,6c on butter? I want to know whether he believes that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs must allow me to make 28c whereas the hon. the Minister of Agriculture only allows me to take 6,6 cents on butter.

It is quite clear that the profit he makes is about 14%. Why does he not make less profit? After all, it is up to him. In his speech he stated that he took it because he was allowed to. Why did he not say on his own accord, when he had the opportunity to do so, that he was not willing to do so? Nevertheless he himself admitted here that he took the full profit. It is very clear that he only dragged in the matter in order to involve it in politics.

Then he uses the till incorrectly, too!

I am convinced that the hon. member is falling between two stools: He complains that butter is too expensive and in the same breath he complains that margarine is too expensive as well. Let us take it that it should be cheaper, since he is now the champion of the butter people. Let us take it that we reduce the price of margarine, as the hon. member proposed. What becomes of the butter then? Surely there would then be an even smaller market for butter. No, as sure as I am standing here I cannot understand what his whole argument is about.

As sure as butter. [Interjections.]

It is simply impossible to accommodate the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in a debate of this nature. He simply agrees with everything. As far as he is concerned it does not matter whether arguments are diametrically opposed or not. I am convinced that this legislation incorporates much that is sound, that it will mean a great deal to the industry as a whole.

I just want to quote to you from the Second reading speech of the then Deputy Minister of Agriculture—now the hon. the Minister—when an amendment of the Dairy Industry Act was before this House in 1971. At the time the Act was amended in order to provide for the manufacture of yellow margarine. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 34, col. 9362)—

When he puts forward his arguments here, the hon. member must please think a little further than Pietermaritzburg South—

Just imagine the enormous benefit this would entail for the agricultural industry. I can only say that the hon. the Minister was quite right at the time. Since September 1971 there has been a substantial increase in the consumption of yellow margarine. The figures quoted here are quite correct. During the first 12 months of production, 23 000 tons were sold and during the subsequent 12 months, the figure was 61 000 tons. It is estimated that 46 000 tons of locally produced vegetable oils—chiefly groundnut and sunflower oil—have been used for the manufacture of the 61 000 tons of yellow margarine.

The figures I have just quoted clearly show, without need of further proof, that when one takes a balanced view of this whole matter, one realizes that when at the time it was decided, in co-operation with the Dairy Board, gradually to increase the quotas of yellow margarine, this was undoubtedly a worthwhile move. Eventually, when a quota was no longer necessary, because the market had stabilized itself, it was the normal thing to come to this House with the request that this measure be changed.

The total consumption of groundnut and sunflower oils rose from 68 000 tons in 1970-’71 to 146 000 tons in 1974-’75. Consequently the manufacture of yellow margarine contributed substantially to this increase.

In conclusion I want to say—and the hon. member must please listen now—that trade manipulation as regards margarine will be restricted in future, and perhaps eliminated entirely. It was a phenomenon which resulted from the quota system. In my opinion, the elimination of trade manipulation with regard to yellow margarine is the most substantial benefit of the legislation at present before the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 37, after “person” to insert “or class of person”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 35, after “person” to insert “or class of person”.

Both these amendments are self-explanatory and are designed simply to obviate any difficulties in regard to the definition of “persons”. I ask that the hon. the Minister accept these two amendments.

I do not think a long discussion on this is necessary. I have looked at the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Rosettenville and because I think there is merit in them, I am prepared to accept them.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches supported the Second Reading of the Bill and we are glad that we go into the Third Reading of the Bill without any delay. I am quite sure that one of the reasons why the stages of this Bill can be taken consecutively is the excellent lunch provided by the Department of Health today. I am not sure whether that was in the nature of a bribe, but I want to say that it was a very convivial occasion. Sir, I want to say, firstly, that I am grateful for the reassurance the hon. the Minister gave to us in his reply to the Second Reading debate of the Bill, particularly regarding the regulations applying to patients who may be admitted into private hospitals. I asked a specific question about that and the hon. the Minister replied to it. I want to make just one point in this the Third Reading, without repeating anything I tried to say in the Second Reading. That is that it is quite clear that the Bill flows from the inquiry to which we have referred on many occasions. The control and co-ordination which come about as the result of this Bill are welcome; the control of registration is equally welcome, and the fact that there is going to be far greater control over minimum standards to be set down by the Department of Health is also to be welcomed. There is only one thing I wish to underline. Reference was made to this in the Second Reading as well! I do not think we should allow this opportunity to pass without emphasizing again the serious nature of some of the findings of the commission. There are 13 findings relating to fees in private hospitals. I will not deal with all of them. I just want to isolate a couple of them, because I hope that in future even greater attention will be given to the control of fees in private hospitals. This is something that has caused a great deal of concern, and still causes concern, to people all over South Africa. The commission of inquiry into private hospitals found (para. 3.8.1)—

When I mention some of these findings, I shall be quoting directly from the report of the commission. I find it regrettable, however, that those private hospitals and pharmacies which are simply doing a job and earning a reasonable profit, are often tarnished by a report of this land, even though one accepts the fact that there are these exceptions. By and large, however, this was the finding of the commission. Secondly, the commission found—

Thirdly the commission found that—

A further finding indicates—

Further down the list of its findings the commission states—

The commission also claims that—

The last finding I wish to refer to is the following—

As a result of these findings the commission made certain recommendations. I think that hon. members on both sides of this House would agree that when people seek to exploit the sick, action should be taken. I am hoping very much that the hon. the Minister of Health will keep his eye very firmly fixed on this problem and introduce the necessary regulations and legislation to ensure that when people are sick and have to use private homes and hospitals, they will be protected.

I wish to conclude these few remarks by stating that we support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to what the hon. member for Pinelands said and I can assure him that he has raised some problems that have very clearly come to the fore as a result of the commission’s report. Although we are not embarking on a witch-hunt, one of our main objects is to control fees as such and to see that patients are not abused. Even where there is the merest suggestion of abuse, we shall investigate the matter. Let us, however, give this new legislation a chance, adding to or subtracting from it from time to time, as needs dictate. I thank both the Opposition parties for supporting this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday when we discussed the Second Reading of this Bill, I brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister that I was not altogether satisfied with the definition of “intern-psychologist”. I was not quite clear as to whether the hon. the Minister, after his explanation, meant to enlarge on this definition in the Other Place or whether he is going to leave it like this. I say this because there are many psychologists today who do not know what “intern-psychologist” means. In the Bill the definition simply states—

Whether this matter is clarified in the regulations or not, I do not know, but I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider this definition and amend it in such a way that there is a clear understanding among all psychology students of the stage they have to reach in their level of education before they can be termed “intern-psychologists”.

As soon as a person who has a Baccalaureus degree in psychology passes his examinations for his Honours degree, he becomes a student psychologist and is then designated by that name. After he has attained his Master’s degree, he is an intern-psychologist, just as one gets intern medical men. After that he must work under the supervision of the Medical Council for one year before he can practise as a psychologist. He is an intern-psychologist for the year in which he is doing his internship, but he cannot do his internship before he gets his Master’s degree.

Mr. Chairman, I quite understand that, and I am sure all of us in the House understand it. The hon. the Minister has made the position quite clear, but it is not clear in the Bill. That is my problem. I should like the hon. the Minister to amend this Bill in the Other Place to make it quite clear what is meant by an “intern-psychologist”. I am not asking that he should only make it clear to us here. We know what an intern-psychologist is. The hon. the Minister has explained it to us. I want it to be clear to those people who are taking psychology when they can be registered as intern-psychologists.

Mr. Chairman, this will be prescribed in the regulations just as I have explained it to the hon. member.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon. the Minister said in regard to clause 1 affects this clause as well. The fact is that I still have something of a problem in respect of a group of people known as educational psychologists or school psychologists. The hon. member for Brentwood created the impression in his Second Reading speech that this legislation actually gave the school psychologists the green light to have themselves registered. I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister said in connection with intern-psychologists. According to the hon. the Minister, a person only becomes a psychology student after he has obtained his B.A. degree and an intern-psychologist after he has obtained his M.A. degree. I think that there must be many people who fall in this group, people who have an honours degree in psychology and have been appointed in schools in the various provinces. The hon. member for Brentwood said quite rightly that the number of persons affected by it is quite small at the moment, but in differentiated education one will have an increasing number of those specific people and there is definitely a desire on their part to be registered. The way I interpret it, a person will be considered for registration when he registers as a student for his B.A. Honours. When he has obtained his honours degree, he is a professional qualified teacher with an honours degree in psychology. He is then highly qualified for the kind of work he will do in a school, but if he joins a school, there is no provision for him to remain on the register, since he will no longer be a student and will not yet have his Master’s degree. I have a problem here. Could the hon. the Minister give a further explanation in respect of educational psychologists? The way I see the matter, the professional qualified teacher who has a Master’s degree will remain on the register, while the school psychologist who has only an honours degree will not remain on it. I want this matter to be clarified.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, teachers and the work they perform as psychologists are really excluded from the Act. They are not practising as professional psychologists. The hon. member will see in the Act that teachers are specifically excluded because provision is made for them in the education legislation concerned. A teacher can have a B.A. degree in psychology and he can obtain his M.A. degree or his doctorate as well, but he must specifically practise the profession. After he has obtained an honours degree in psychology, he has to register as a student at an institution which is associated with the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. Only then can he become a professional psychologist. That is where the difference comes in. The teacher can eventually become a professional psychologist, but he can do so in a different way. He may spend many years in the teaching profession, but there will nevertheless be certain requirements he will have to comply with in respect of the intern-psychologist aspects, which include certain kinds of intern work which is never done by a teacher, before being included as an intern-psychologist or eventually even as a professional psychologist under the Medical Council with its ethical code.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, during my Second Reading speech I told the hon. the Minister what I thought about the exclusion of the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, a right professional people formerly had if their registrations were accepted. I also told him what I felt about the position of those people who have had their registration refused. As the Act stands at the moment, it leaves an aggrieved person with the right to go to the Supreme Court. The hon. the Minister explained that he did not think it was necessary for this right to be given to them. I disagree with him entirely. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this deals entirely with the registration of people who hold degrees. A man who has a degree, who has been accepted by the council and had his degree registered, may find, after practising for a time, that he has been struck off the register, because the council at a later stage felt that his degree was not sufficient. The hon. the Minister must explain this to me. I can understand that a particular degree may be deemed insufficient, but I cannot understand how a degree can be accepted and then, at a later stage, refused. What aggravates the position even more is the fact that the person concerned has no right to go to a court of law to plead his case. The decision of the council is final. I plead with the hon. the Minister to think this matter over. I can understand his feelings on the matter of ethics, but this measure deals entirely with the acceptance of degrees and their registration. If the Medical Council should make a mistake in accepting a degree, the onus is surely on them to prove why the person concerned should subsequently be struck off the register. The man concerned should then be able to go to a court of law to contest the reason given by the Medical Council for his deprivation. This is not a simple matter which we can just discard. The person concerned may come from another country and bring his family with him. He may settle here and work in a mission hospital. He may then come to work in a town and establish a practice there. Yet, at any time, he may find that the Medical Council has suddenly decided to take away his livelihood by striking him off the register and he will not have the right of appeal. That will be the position in the future if this clause remains in the Bill before us.

They can at any time take the right of registration away. It does not say one month, two months, six months or ten years. He may practise as a medical practitioner or as a dentist and some time later may suddenly find that the Medical Council, after looking through its records, has come to the conclusion that it has made a mistake and deprives him of his registration. There is nothing at all to cover such a situation. The practitioner cannot go to court. I ask the hon. the Minister once again to reconsider this position and to allow an aggrieved person access to the court so that he can fight his case there.

Mr. Chairman, the reasoning of the hon. member for Rosettenville seems strange to me. He referred to an immigrant doctor who might begin a practice here and find out years later that he is not allowed to practise here. But in practice things do not work out this way. An immigrant doctor who comes here with his family without having ascertained beforehand what the position in respect of his registration in South Africa is would have to be bereft of his senses. One does not pull up one’s roots at the place where one is settled and leave for a new country without knowing what the circumstances there are and what requirements have to be met in order to be allowed to practise. The normal custom is for such a doctor to contact the South African Medical Council in advance to ascertain what the requirements are and whether he will be able to practise in our country. If there is no mutual understanding between our country and his country as far as qualifications are concerned, the Medical Council will tell him that he cannot practise here. These things do not happen willy-nilly, after all. No one can start a practice in this country—he cannot even put up that bronze plate on his door—before he has been registered by the Medical Council. The Medical Council will not register him if he does not have the required qualifications. Such a person has no access to the court, nor can he claim access to the court, because this kind of case is arranged by way of mutual agreement between the authorities concerned in his country and in ours. The position is that such a doctor will inquire from the registrar of the Medical Council whether he will be able to practise in our country with the qualifications he has obtained in his country.

The registrar may then tell him “Yes”.

When the registrar tells him “Yes”, the Medical Council will already have decided that his qualifications are sufficient to allow him to be registered in our country.

But the Medical Council can subsequently withdraw it.

It is completely unthinkable that a responsible body such as the Medical Council would turn around after a year or two and say that it has made a mistake and that the immigrant doctor cannot practise here after all.

Then he still has access to the courts in any case.

Yes, then he has access to the courts in any case. Then a revision can take place. Consequently there is in fact access to the courts, even if to a limited extent. This objection of the Opposition is founded on a hypothetical basis and certainly not on practice.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will not be surprised that the Opposition parties are rejecting this clause. We voiced our opposition to the clause also during the Second Reading. It will be recalled that we moved an amendment to that effect. We must not allow anything to confuse or to blur the issue. The issue is very simple, i.e. that at this moment a doctor is allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court. If this legislation is passed, an appeal will no longer be available to him. Whilst we listened to the hon. the Minister and heard his explanation that this was something which was overlooked and was now being put right, I want to suggest that the whole question of an appeal to courts of law is a very sensitive one in South Africa.

Why?

The hon. member knows very well why. An appeal to courts of law is very often denied to people in other areas of life. I hope that this profession will not be penalized in this way. I asked the hon. the Minister two questions during the Second Reading debate and should like to put those questions again. He mentioned that he had discussed this matter fully with the law advisers, who advised him that there was no real reason to retain the provision with which we are dealing and that it could be quite easily deleted, because the doctor would still have a right of review. However, this is something entirely different. The two questions I put were as follows: Did the hon. the Minister consult the law societies and did he discuss this with the Medical Council? It is very important, because both these bodies are vitally affected. If my information is correct, at least some members of both bodies are strongly opposed to this clause. I should like some reply from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, obviously my friend the hon. member for Cradock has not read the section which is affected, viz. section 20. If he looks at section 20(1)(b), the subsection to which we are referring particularly, he will notice that it provides quite plainly that “any person aggrieved by the council’s decision to remove from the register his name or any qualification … ” I want the hon. member to realize that it is the removal of the name that concerns me particularly. The name has already been entered into the register. That means that he can start practising and continue to practise until his name is removed. Why should a man who has started a practice be deprived of that right? His name has been entered into the register, but after he has started to practise and after he has established himself, he suddenly finds that the council has removed his name. That is the point that I am concerned about. I say that the council should give reasons why his name is removed.

Of course.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “Of course”. He agrees with me. It stands to reason that the aggrieved person should then have the right to go to the Supreme Court. The right is given in the principal Act, but now the hon. the Minister is taking away that right. I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister has interjected, because he sides with me in that he agrees that that person should have that right.

No!

However, I do not want to make politics out of this and I am not looking for allies in this way. On the merits of the case I want the hon. the Minister to have another look at the clause and I want him to say to me that he now understands the position that may arise, that he will look at this matter again and amend this clause of the Bill. Otherwise he is going to cause a lot of trouble and hardship. The principal Act could have been wrong from the start, but he has not admitted that.

Mr. Chairman, I think that both the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Pinelands have given their reasons for opposing the clause. They say that people are particularly sensitive in South Africa when the right of appeal to the courts is removed. The hon. member for Rosettenville said: “I do not want to play politics.” However, he was playing politics.

How?

I shall say why. He knows and I know that we have a Medical Council—to use its short title—of which all of us, and all doctors as well, are proud. In fact, the hon. member asked the hon. the Minister in the House yesterday why he wanted to consult the administrators in connection with hospitals and not the Medical Council. This testified to the prestige enjoyed by the Medical Council. These are people who are appointed—some of them are elected by us, by me and by the hon. member, since we are members of the medical profession—to guard over the ethical code and the registration in order to maintain the status of the profession. That is what the Medical Council is there for; it is there specifically to deal with these matters. With reference to what the hon. member said, a doctor may pretend that he has certain qualifications, while it may later be found that he does not have such qualifications. Surely the Medical Council must have the right in such a case to remove the person from the register—to take the extreme step. However, if the Medical Council has not acted correctly and mala fides can therefore be proved, the doctor still has the right under common law to go to court. This legislation cannot prohibit him from doing so. However, as far as ethical codes are concerned, I say with the greatest respect—the courts themselves have ruled to this effect—that the Medical Council is the best authority on ethical codes. This is the crux of the Bill. This is all, and there is nothing more to the Bill. For that reason I support it.

Mr. Chairman, the defence, especially of the hon. member who just spoke, is that doctors still have recourse to the court, if they can prove there was mala fides. I am not worried about that. I am worried about when the Medical Council makes a bona fide mistake. The hon. member, in presenting his case, said that when a person entered South Africa, the council could have made a mistake and entered his name and realized afterwards that it was wrong. In his argument the hon. member therefore admits that the people of the Medical Council can make mistakes. Our whole argument is that they can also, as the hon. member said, get information to prove that they have registered him wrongly. The point is: What if they had made a bona fide mistake with the information they gained years afterwards? This information could also be wrong although it is this information that can deprive the person of his livelihood. Because the relevant section is going to be removed, that person will then be removed from the register. When a case like this occurs, the least that should happen is that he should have recourse to appeal, that he should have open to him judicial avenues. This is all we are asking. We are dealing with a council which, no matter how much respect we have for it, consists of human beings, and all human beings can make mistakes. It is not merely a case of mala fide mistakes but also of bona fide mistakes. This is why we are opposing this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that the Medical Council is not like the United Party. If the Medical Council were to register a person and to find out later that it made a mistake, I believe that because of its composition and because of the important part it plays, it would concede the mistake and apologize to the person for having made a mistake. It is not necessary for anyone to go to the Supreme Court with such a case. The Medical Council will rectify the mistake anyway if a mistake is made. It is almost unthinkable that such a thing could happen when a person enters the country—this seems to be the point at issue—or applies for admission to the country in order to practise here as a doctor. The Medical Council has to give its attention to the matter. If the person’s qualifications comply with the requirements, the council will register him. If the person falsely or mistakenly alleges that he has certain qualifications which in actual fact he does not have, and this fact comes to the attention of the Medical Council at a later stage, then surely he deserves to be removed from the register. After all, the Medical Council is a responsible body. The judiciary is not the only body that can rectify mistakes. The people of the Medical Council also have an integrity to uphold. I can see no grounds at all for the objections of the Opposition. I repeat that the Medical Council is not like the United Party. If the Medical Council has made a mistake, it will admit this. The United Party, on the other hand, has been making mistakes for 25 years, but they simply refuse to admit it.

Mr. Chairman, I have one difficulty with the hon. member for Cradock. [Interjections.] On this particular occasion I do have a difficulty with the hon. member. He says that if the Medical Council makes a mistake, it will be prepared to rectify it. However, who is the judge? The Medical Council itself, not so? I do not think this is good for the cause of justice. I believe that under these circumstances somebody else should judge whether the Medical Council has made a mistake or not. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the impression is being created quite mistakenly that the members of the Opposition who have spoken are questioning the status, prestige or expertise of the Medical Council. This is not so. The status of the Medical Council is universally acknowledged. No misgivings are therefore experienced about the Council as a medical and technical council.

Here we are concerned, however, with a case where persons used to have the fundamental right, in terms of the provisions of the existing Act, to appeal to the Supreme Court of South Africa. The effect of the present Bill is to remove this right, to deprive people of this right in the future. It is a generally accepted principle in all countries which uphold the rule of law that when an individual’s rights are prejudiced, such a person must have the right to have the whole matter investigated in an independent court by a person who is completely objective and impartial. In all such cases, the person also has the right to legal representation and the right to obtain a completely independent, impartial and objective ruling on the problems experienced by him. This is what the argument is concerned with. The argument between the members of the Opposition and the members of the Government is not concerned with the status or prestige or the skill of the Medical Council. It is concerned with a fundamental principle, the right of an aggrieved person to appeal to the Supreme Court and to state his case there. This is what it is concerned with. The appeal which is being made to the hon. the Minister is to confirm this principle and not to be drawn into an argument about the Medical Council or about the status of the Medical Council.

Mr. Chairman, I would, in the first place, like to reply to the issues raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. He asked me two questions on the matter of review, and said I did not answer them specifically. However, I did answer them in the course of my speech. The hon. member asked whether the law societies were consulted. They do not have anything to do with it. I consulted my legal advisers in Parliament and I have the fullest confidence in them. They have to draw up Bills, and I have full confidence in them. They specifically assured me that the right of review is an inherent right of the Supreme Court as such, and I accepted it. The hon. member also asked whether the Medical Council was consulted, because—as he put it—he knows of some members of the council who have serious misgivings about this.

That is absolutely true.

I want to tell the hon. member that the Medical Council is a statutory board and acts as a single person. As I see it, the hon. member is casting an aspersion on the council as such because he suggests that certain members have told him that they have serious misgivings about it. As far as I am concerned, the council asked for this unanimously. Only then was it decided to amend the Act in this way.

*Why must we try to solve a matter such as this by means of hypothetical cases? Surely this is not necessary. Can hon. members tell me when the Medical Council has legally conferred a degree on someone and has subsequently withdrawn it, except when the person committed some offence or did not obey the rules of the council, for example, by spending 20 years abroad? When has the council done this? It is a very responsible council, and any matter in which the council gives a ruling goes first to committees, then to the whole council, and eventually it comes to me. These are knowledgeable people, people who have been trained to determine—and that is all they have to determine—whether the qualifications of a person after a curriculum—laid down by themselves—entitle him to be registered. It is their right as experts to say “Yes” or “No”. When the person has completed his training and complied with the procedure and there are no mala fides, they are obliged to confer a degree upon him, or he can apply for revision. The inherent right of revision is always there. I read it out here yesterday and I shall read it again if it has not made a deep enough impression—

After approximately five to six such cases have come to the attention of the Medical Council in recent years, we come to the conclusion—

Do hon. members not realize that they guard it jealously?—

The hon. member for Durban Central said that the council could make a mistake in the action it takes with regard to a student or a practitioner. But it is precisely in such a case that he can ask for revision in order to determine whether the council acted wrongly in coming to that conclusion. It is very important to realize that it is precisely in this kind of case that he can easily obtain the benefits which he lays claim to. I think that in actual fact we are unnecessarily chasing up hares here. Tremendous costs have been incurred already on the grounds of hypothetical rights which people are supposed to have by way of appeal. Two years ago, the department did not know that the courts had not been accepting appeals for many years, that they no longer wanted to exercise this function at all. They undertake only revision.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member must not base his remarks on the marginal notes; they are out of date. They date from 1928, and have no meaning any more. Since the court has emphasized its right of revision as its only real right over a period of many years, why are we to write an appeal into this so that people can incur costs amounting to thousands of rand which could cause the council to face brankruptcy? The whole objection to the restitution of the status quo, the right of revision as it was, is actually the right position for the medical profession, and I agree with the Medical Council that by removing this, a great deal of the confusion which exists will be removed. The people get back their basic right under common law, and when a person feels aggrieved, he can apply to the court so that the court can determine whether he has received the correct treatment at the hands of that expert body, which operates on a basis of written principles, in other words, whether, instead of following a procedure which should have led to a certain conclusion, they followed other procedures. If this is so, his case can be thrown out and he will get his degree back or the disciplinary measures which have been taken against him will be withdrawn. I am very sorry that I cannot accept this amendment.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to Standing Order No. 63. It provides that the principles of a Bill cannot be discussed in Committee, but only its details. We had a very exhaustive discussion on this particular aspect of the Bill during the Second Reading stage, and I have allowed members on both sides of the House briefly to comment on their opposition to or approval of the provision. However, I cannot allow a repetition of the Second Reading debate at this stage, and consequently I appeal to members not to continue in this vein. I shall apply the rule very strictly.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first occasion on which I shall put my oar into a debate on this particular subject. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he is guilty and suffering under a bona fide mistake in so far as his interpretation of what this particular clause is providing is concerned. He is under a bona fide misapprehension. It is quite true, as the hon. the Minister has said, that to include this clause if one merely wants to give the right of review, would be tautology. That is quite correct, if one only wants to give a right of review to deal with something which is mala fides or is irregular in terms of procedure. If there is something of merit to be considered—and there might have been a bona fide mistake on the part of the council in coming to its decision—even if that were to be discovered during the course of review procedures, the court could not put it right.

The court would not have the right to correct a bona fide error in the course of review proceedings, because it can only take action if there is an irregularity or mala fides. Now, that is the whole basis. The Minister said these things could be corrected on review, but they cannot be corrected, and the most basic injustice can result if this section is removed from the Act. I do hope the hon. the Minister will realize that this is not a concession which is being asked for. It is basic in our law in this country. It is a basic right. After all, the hon. the Minister has correctly stated that the court itself can act without any statutory provision if there is an irregularity or mala fides, but the court cannot act even if a bona fide mistake has been made by the council unless there is a statutory provision. The Minister has said that he is not going to accept this amendment, but I do hope that he will, even at this late hour, think about it again because I believe it might cause injustices to follow to members of the very profession that he is wanting to protect.

Mr. Chairman, I will obviously try to observe your earlier warning, but I do want to try also to reply to the hon. the Minister in two respects, and then to make one last point. The only reason why I asked whether there had been any consultation with the law society is that this is a very good institution, well known and well recognized as watchdogs in our society. There is nothing wrong or inherently bad about seeking advice beyond our immediate legal advisers. The hon. the Minister himself has told us that his own advisers made a mistake in 1974. They have acknowledged this. They may be making another mistake and I submit that they are. I think they did the right thing in 1974 and now I think that they may well be making a very serious mistake in deleting this particular section.

In regard to the Medical Council, I am sorry if the Minister feels that I am casting aspersions on that council, because that is the last thing I want to do, but if people make a direct approach to one and express their dismay at this action, one would have imagined that the hon. the Minister would at least have appealed to or asked the opinion of the Medical Council as to how they felt about the matter.

The last thing I want to say has been put extremely well by the hon. member for Green Point, namely that there is a significant difference between the right of appeal and the right of review. At this moment in time doctors have the right of review and the right of appeal, but if this clause goes through they will lose that right of appeal, although they will still have the right of review. We have never argued about that. Therefore I hope very much indeed that the hon. the Minister will think again.

Mr. Chairman, I can only say to my learned friend of Green Point that when a bona fide mistake is made, there is nothing to prevent the person at the receiving end of such a mistake from starting that case all over again. As far as the hon. member for Pinelands is concerned, I just want to say that as far as the Act is concerned, appeal and review are two different concepts. I should very much like just to show him what it would mean if we were to reintroduce appeal here. Fortunately we have not had something of this nature up to now, except for a passing remark in a case, but that is not the point; it would only land us in greater difficulties. Appeal actually means that the court has the power to investigate any matter from scratch. Over all the years the court has been saying that these are the experts. We must remember that the composition of the court keeps changing.

As far as recognition of qualifications is concerned, it means that the court would be charged with investigating the nature and content of a qualification and would have to decide whether such a qualification is equal to other qualifications, recognised qualifications. In other words, with respect to my lawyer friends, it would be a body of laymen that would have to judge on a matter which falls purely within a professional sphere, a sphere occupied by people who have completed a minimum of twelve years’ study and who take decisions affecting their own people in regard to high standards, etc. The purpose of the Medical Council as a professional body is precisely to perform such functions. This has been acknowledged by the court throughout the years and this is why the court took no notice of that useless little word “appeal” which was contained in the old Act. The court has taken no note of it for 40 years, but now hon. members want to tell it to take notice of it after 40 years. In other words, complete laymen are now to go into the smallest details and to examine every person. If they have to do this, they might as well become professors at a university or at a faculty of medicine. By way of providing further information it must be pointed out that the council visits overseas countries to investigate the nature and duration and the quality of training. There is continuous research and there is contact with other countries. Then the qualifications are considered in comparison with the standards which obtain in South Africa. Is the court now expected to perform these functions? I ask you. It is precisely for this very acceptable reason that the courts have decided over the years that their function is only the function of ascertaining whether the correct procedure was followed in handling the matter, whether all the facts were collected, whether the conclusion was in accordance with the facts and whether there was mala fides, etc.; and because the court has been doing this through all the years, the insertion of this right of appeal in the 1974 Act was a mistake, and that mistake we are now going to rectify. I stand by my decision, Sir, and I cannot accept this amendment.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—106: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C.C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

There is a variation between the clause we are now going to deal with and the clause which we have dealt with. In the case of the previous clause we dealt with registrations and under this clause, which deletes subsection (6) of section 42 of the Act, we are going to deal with persons who are aggrieved by the finding of or a penalty imposed by the council in terms of that section, which deals with the breaking of ethical rules or the misbehaviour of doctors. This is on a different plane altogether, and relates to a much more serious position in which a doctor may find himself. Yesterday I explained what may happen. The Medical Council receives a charge against a doctor for one reason or another. They hear the charge and the doctor is able to give his evidence at the hearing. If he is found guilty the Medical Council then imposes a penalty on him. In the case of some charges the Medical Council can remove his name from the register. Some of these charges are equivalent to criminal charges. If his name has been removed from the register he immediately loses the right to practise as a doctor or a dentist or even to perform one of the supplementary services. He loses that right as it may be a serious charge.

But he not only loses that right; he is then charged by the Attorney-General and he has to come to court. Not only can he then lose his right to practise and to earn a living, but he can be sent to prison as well. He has a double charge against him, which is somewhat different from any other profession. If a man in another profession is found guilty of a crime, for instance if he commits fraud, and he is sentenced to prison, there is nothing to prevent him, on coming out, from carrying on with his work again. This double penalty, however, means that he not only has to go to prison or face a very stiff fine, but he may not be able to practise in future again. If he was not a doctor he would have had the right to appeal, but because he is a doctor this right is taken away from him. I ask that the doctor be looked at on the same level as any other person who has access to the courts. Why should a doctor be deprived of access to the courts? Is there any reason for this or is there any logic in it? He is facing a double charge. If the courts find that he is guilty of the crime then he takes his punishment. Before he goes to court, however, to be charged with a crime, I want him to have the right to appeal to the courts to see whether the council was right in their findings in the first instance. That is my case. Having enshrined this provision in the Act it is wrong for the Minister now to take it out. If the courts find that there is no reason for an appeal, they will discharge it, but the man should have the right to go to court and plead his case before the judge.

Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I once again want to refer to Standing Order No. 63. This is not the Second Reading, in which hon. members are allowed to discuss the principle of the Bill. Only the details of the clause are relevant. I shall allow hon. members on Opposition side to motivate their opposition briefly. However, I cannot allow a general discussion of the principle again.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to waste the time of the Committee. You have heard the arguments on clause 4, and while the arguments on clause 8 are slightly different, they are only compounded in the error of the change that is contemplated in this amending Bill. If there should be only one case where an error of judgment is made and the particular doctor does not have the right of appeal—even if it happens only once in the whole history of the Medical Council’s findings—he is being deprived of his lawful right. I believe it is the right of a doctor to be able to appeal, and therefore we object to this provision in the very strongest of terms.

Mr. Chairman, the cases which have been referred to here are, after all, identical. For that reason I do not have too much to say about them. However, I want to point out, Sir, that the Council does not take steps against a person unless he has been found guilty on ethical grounds or on grounds falling within the cadre of the functions of the Council. A medical practitioner first has to be found guilty by the court on a criminal offence before he appears before the Council. However, there is nothing to prevent him from lodging an appeal against his conviction. He will appear before the Council only after his appeal has been dealt with. As far as I am concerned, the objectors to this clause have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I am unable to accept it.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—107: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnich, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; VanZyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—45: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lormimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. Van van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I know that the hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, clarified the purpose of and the need for the amendment contained in this clause of the Bill, i.e. the deletion of—

and the substitution for it of the words “particular persons”. Then he went on to explain that there were other needs for the provision of scheduled drugs—for instance “waar daar nie professionele persone beskikbaar is nie.” It is under these circumstances that I believe it is necessary to have in the Act the words “particular persons”, but I also believe the Act will be improved if we add the words “or classes of person”. I believe this makes the matter more specific. The pharmaceutical profession is proud and jealous of its professional responsibilities, but I also believe that it is sufficiently pragmatic to recognize the needs that may exist under certain special circumstances. I trust that the Minister will therefore make sure that there are adequate safeguards and precautions so that while the amendment, which he has in mind, is carried out in spirit, there will be no abuses in terms of the amendment this Committee is asked to approve.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is sufficient merit in the hon. member’s proposal and I therefore accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, last night I think I said enough to the House about the irresponsible statements being made at present by some sections of the Press and, in particular, by some of the pamphlets being distributed.

However, I think I should now say a word or two about the good work that is being done in some of our mental hospitals. I refer particularly to those mental hospitals I have had an opportunity of seeing of late. I mentioned these hospitals last night in my speech.

I want the House to know how much good work is being done, particularly by the nurses and other staff of some of these hospitals. I, for instance, saw how many children, particularly little children, all of whom were seriously mentally disturbed, were admitted to one such hospital. Some of them were mentally deficient. They were unable to read, to write or to recognize one letter from another, one figure from another. I saw how many of them were being taught the meaning of letters and the value of numbers. I saw how they were being taught to count, to multiply, to put letters together and even to read. This quite wonderful work is being done by a group of dedicated people for the benefit of a large number of children. I take my hat off to the nurses who are doing this wonderful work.

I understand that the hon. the Minister has also seen these hospitals and the work being done there. I am sure he was gratified to know that the care of these people is in very good hands indeed. I also saw how nurses spent hours and hours during the day teaching adults how to wash themselves and keep themselves clean. That was something to see! Some of these people had never known what it was to use soap. They never knew how to use hot water for washing. They have now been taught this. They wash properly and prepare themselves properly every morning. They have learnt how to eat with utensils. All this is terribly important when one is dealing with such large numbers of these people.

One of the things that struck me on reading one of these pamphlets was that they reported that patients walk around in drab, faded, denim uniforms made by themselves. That they themselves made them is important. I believe denim is the fashion these days, but I do not think this applies to the hospitals. What is significant, as I have said, is that they are making these clothes themselves. These people have been taught to use a needle and cotton or a sewing machine. They have been taught how to iron, how to wash the clothes and repair them. Yet, this is being used as an example of how patients are ill-treated. That is something I cannot understand.

What is more, they look happy in their work.

Yes, they are happy.

I come to the next point I want to make. These institutions are described as prisons. It is claimed that there is no discharge for the patients and that they are left there to die. This is so far from the truth that it should never have been allowed to be published. These institutions house thousands of non-Whites who are sent there from the hospitals and I think it is wonderful that such a large number of these patients are discharged. These institutions are able to send these patients home again. They take care that the patients and, I have noticed, the women in particular, are taught to remember where they come from. They are taught the addresses of their homes so that, if they should get lost on the way home, they will be able to say where their home is and from what hospital they come. This is the sort of care these people are given. They are taught how to handle money. The money they earn is given to them when they are discharged so that they have money to take home with them. They are looked after on their way home! They are given transport to get them back home. To make sure that they know the value of money, nurses teach them day after day what a R10 note, a R5 note, or a cent piece, etc. looks like. These people have never known this before. To us they may be everyday things, but to a person who has never known how to use money, it is a great step forward.

What is it about this Bill that has perturbed so many people, though not, I hope, members of Parliament? What is it about this Bill that has perturbed people outside who have not had a chance to study the Bill properly and who have not had it explained to them? The Bill states that any person can be punished if he—

Well, I think that people who publish false information should be punished—

That is important because quite a number of these people who are discharged may be perfectly normal for a while but they may have remissions and some people will, during this time when the patient is again becoming mentally disturbed, grasp the opportunity to get such a person to write down or tell of his experiences. Such statements are not always correct. They may be distorted and are not seen in a normal way by the patient who has a remission. That sort of thing should be stopped as well. It is right that the hon. the Minister put such a provision in the Bill.

The people who want to publish such material, are given a chance to do so, but they must take reasonable steps to ensure that what they publish, is true. What are “reasonable steps”? I think—my colleagues agree with me—that if a man wants to write an article about an institution of which he has been told has some or other defect, all he has to do is lift up the telephone, get in touch with the superintendent and ask for an appointment to discuss the subject. He may or may not be given that appointment. He may or may not be given the opportunity of discussing the matter with the superintendent or some other responsible person. He can also phone the Secretary of Health, or even the Minister. Such actions show that he has taken sufficient trouble to justify his writing. If he is rebutted, he can always say: “I phoned the Minister and he would not have anything to do with me. I took reasonable steps and could do no better. Or I phoned the superintendent of the hospital. This is also a reasonable step to take.” The hon. the Minister cannot lay a charge if the person concerned can prove that he took reasonable steps. However, if he writes scurrilous, untrue, twisted articles about these institutions off his own bat, I think he ought to be punished. In such circumstances he should at least be brought to court so that the judge can decide whether or not he committed an offence.

For these reasons I want to support the Bill. We on this side of the House feel that this Bill is necessary. We may find later on that this measure should be amended, but I want to see this measure on the Statute Book and consequently we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Rosettenville devoted the final part of his speech to a very important aspect of the legislation, viz. that relating to nurses, staff and patients in those institutions. What he said was quite correct. The original Act of 1928 was entirely rewritten in 1973. The 1973 Act replaced the old Act. The 1973 Act introduced an entirely new approach in bringing the mental patient, the mentally ill person, closer to the community again. We know the story of how mental patients were treated 30 to 40 years ago or hundreds of years ago—in those times they were pushed aside. The new Act was compiled with the specific aim of inculcating a new attitude among the public, a new approach on the part of the community, a new approach to all the different aspects and, above all, the realization that mental illness can befall anyone, just as anyone can contract a cold.

With reference to what has occurred—the hon. the Minister informed us in detail on this score—I should like to put a few facets very clearly to the House. The first is that we must take cognizance of the fact that the medical profession will not allow its integrity to be called into question. The second is that we must take cognizance of the fact that the legal profession, similarly, will not allow its approach and judgment to be called into question. I want to illustrate these statements by summarizing briefly the procedure adopted when we are dealing with a mentally ill person. As far as I know there is no legislation which brings about closer co-operation between the medical and legal professions. The chief aim is to protect a person who is incapable of looking after himself. I know of no other Act which makes it possible for so much overlapping and co-operation to occur between two professions.

What procedure is adopted when a patient has to be admitted to an institution? If anyone is concerned about his child because he suspects that the child is abnormal, he can apply to a magistrate—he has to submit a doctor’s certificate together with his application—for the child to be examined. Already, this involves co-operation between the medical and legal professions. I have now dealt in brief with the provisions of section 8 of the principal Act. In terms of clause 9, the magistrate considers the application and then he himself has to examine the patient, or if not, he must have the patient examined by two doctors, one of whom should preferably be a district surgeon. Only after completion of the examination can he find that the patient is a danger to the community or to himself. We must note that at this stage the patient has not been received into an institution at all. I now come to section 10, in terms of which the magistrate directs that the patient be detained in an institution or dwelling. If the patient is really dangerous, the magistrate may direct that he be detained in a police cell. If the magistrate has directed the detention of the patient, then in terms of the provisions of section 10(6) he must further direct that the patient be visited regularly by a medical practitioner. Section 11 places a limit on the powers of the magistrate since it provides that an order issued by the magistrate is only valid for 42 days. In fact, therefore, the section is only a safety measure.

Section 12 provides that if the patient is referred to an institution, the magistrate must immediately be notified of the patient’s arrival at the institution. Immediately the patient arrives at the institution, he is examined by the superintendent, if he is qualified to do so. If the superintendent is not qualified, the patient must be examined by a qualified medical practitioner. Section 12(8) provides that the period for which a patient may be detained by virtue of an urgency application may not be longer than 10 days. If the further detention of the patient is essential, he can only be detained further at the direction of the magistrate, but for not longer than 21 days. We see in this, too, a protective measure and it is the consistent aim that assurance be made doubly sure. This is a facet which runs through the legislation like a golden thread.

Section 17 provides that the Attorney-General of the area in which the institution is situated is the patient’s official curator ad litem. The curator ad litem must be notified of the patient’s detention and he must then, through the clerk of the court, submit all the certificates issued in respect of the patient, to a judge of the Supreme Court. The judge will then consider the patient’s case. He does not do so in open court, but in chambers. If the judge regards the detention of the patient as being justified, then he makes an order to that effect. If the judge does not regard the detention as being justified, then he directs that the patient be discharged. Anyone who is not satisfied with the judge’s detention order may through the curator ad litem contest the grounds on which detention was ordered. Section 25 provides that periodic reports concerning the patient detained in the institution must be sent to the Secretary for Health. Such reports may be submitted annually or biannually. The institution in which the patient is detained has a board and, as the hon. the Minister said, that board is required to inspect the institution once every two months. It is provided in law that any patient has the right to submit complaints to the board. Furthermore, the board has the right to discharge any patient from the institution in co-operation with the Minister.

I have briefly sketched the procedure, and it now goes without saying that we cannot allow anyone to call into question the justness of our legal administration or the integrity of our medical service by publishing false documents.

Then, too, there is the question of attacking the person’s personality. We are dealing here with people who cannot think for themselves. They are people who are incapable of living a normal life owing to disease, circumstances or inherited defects. They are protected by this legislation. It is true that such people are sometimes quite normal. This even occurs during their treatment in an institution. During a period when he is normal, such a person is even able to debate better than some of the hon. members. If one is acquainted with this condition, one will know that within minutes the same person may undergo a radical change. One will swear that one is then dealing with an entirely different person to the one with whom one was dealing only a moment previously. Is it right, then, to hold out to the public what is said during an abnormal period? How can his complaints relating to the shocking injustice done to him be regarded as that of a normal person?

Then, of course, there is also the effect on the public of this attack on the treatment of the mentally ill. Through the years we have tried to inculcate among the public the feeling that a person who is mentally ill should not necessary be isolated. The publications which have now appeared attempt to bring the public under the impression that mental illness is a frightful condition. The publishers of such articles must accept the responsibility for the fact that their publications can result in people in need of urgent psychiatric treatment crawling into their shells rather than applying for treatment.

The hon. member for Rosettenville set out very clearly the task of those who work with mentally ill people. There are the nurses and the psychiatrists and they are people with an absolute dedication to and love of their work. I can assure you, Sir, that it is not pleasant work, because one is dealing every day with the negative side of life, and when one is even more isolated, it is not pleasant to work with physically healthy people who are mentally ill.

I shall conclude, Sir, by indicating to you why it is so essential for this clause to be included in the Act. I want to quote a few extracts from one of those so-called pamphlets A certain institution is referred to, and the false statement is made that it has a “patient population of over 10 000”, and they go on to say—

I also want to mention that this organization was previously the subject of a judicial commission, and it is stated here in large type in the same publication—

If this does not constitute a blatant infringement of the administration of justice, then I do not know what is. But this is stated here in connection with the investigation of this movement, Scientology—

That was after the investigation. They said that perjury had been committed—

This is the first time in my experience that it can be said that Police records have suddenly disappeared within two months.

I should like to conclude by appealing to the hon. the Minister, not only to implement this legislation as soon as possible, but also to consider the possibility, in co-operation with the Publications Board, of regarding literature of this nature as undesirable now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is before us has three separate parts, although it is a very brief Bill. The first is to delete certain provisions which have lapsed, and we have no quarrel with that at all. The second is further to regulate the discharge of State President’s decision patients, which is dealt with in clause 1. We welcome this clause and have no quarrel with it at all. As regards clause 2, however, we have very strong objections and it is for that reason that we will not support the Bill at Second Reading.

Whenever legislation is before this House which deals with hospital matters or health matters, and particularly the sort of matter which is before us now, there are no members in this House who do not approach it except with deep sensitivity, and those of us who, through the auspices of the Department of Health have visited various mental homes in South Africa and those of us who had occasion to do this on a regular basis long before coming into this place will know something of the heartbreak of these institutions. No matter how scientifically good they might be, no matter how well prepared, no matter how good the facilities, no matter how loving the care of the staff, those who visit there come away heartbroken. It is a fact of life, and it is true, but nevertheless it is a very disturbing fact, particularly as the number of people with mental problems, and of retarded children and retarded men and women, seems to be very much on the increase, both in this country and in every country in the world. Therefore, whenever one approaches this subject of the care of mentally handicapped or retarded people, as I say, one does so with deep sensitivity. One must pay tribute to those who care for the mentally retarded, to those who have given their lives in this service and to the parents and the families of those who have loved ones in institutions, and therefore whenever we talk about these institutions and whenever any newspaper or magazine of any description refers to this, it ought to be done with the greatest sensitivity. This of course is not always done, as we acknowledge and concede. I want to say right at the beginning that I hold no brief for Scope or for the Scientologists or for any other magazine or newspaper. When I look at the publication issued under the name of the Church of Scientology, I must say that one is deeply distressed and disturbed at the approach they take.

It is shocking.

It is indeed shocking and it is something which no one in their right mind, whether they are directly related to any of these institutions, whether they participate in them, whether they administer them, or the general public, would want to continue. We ought, however, to realize that when claims of this kind are made, and made in such a sensational way, there are ways in which we can react to them. We can, for example, sue for defamation whenever the information is wrong or incorrect. I think that when we look at clause 2, there is a strong difference between paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new section which is being inserted. With regard to (a), there is a prohibition against sketches or photographs and the paragraph reads inter alia—

The distinction which this paragraph makes is that it excepts the Newspaper Press Union. In his speech the hon. the Minister was almost lyrical in his praise of the Press in general for the responsible way in which they approach this very serious matter. Therefore we find it extremely difficult to understand why, after excepting the NPU in paragraph (a), it is included in paragraph (b). Now, one appreciates that there is a vital difference between (a) and (b), but one would have hoped that that same exception would have been made here on the basis of the fact that the newspapers thus far, in the words of the hon. the Minister himself, have been quite responsible in their approach. My colleague, the hon. member for Parktown, will deal specifically with this whole subject and the question of censorship when he speaks in this debate. I want to make only one other point at this time, and that is that having said that there is no justification whatsoever and no excuse whatsoever for the kind of exploitation employed by the Scientologists in their magazine, so inaptly named Peace and Freedom, one is grateful that the reply to this has already been given by the Acting Secretary for Health, Dr. J. Gilliland who, in an interview with The Sunday Tribune, makes specific reference to the charges which are made in this so-called magazine. The one fact emerges and which has been debated in this House before, and indeed, under the Health Vote, I think, last year, but certainly during last session, is that, in relation to the whole question of the care of the mentally retarded and the mentally handicapped, the department has conceded in this House, and publicly in this statement, that there are shortcomings, inevitable shortcomings, because of the lack of facilities and the lack of money and manpower in the care of the mentally handicapped. But nothing should distract us from this central point, namely that there are thousands of patients who are being cared for by private enterprise.

This, of course, is the responsibility of the State, more so than in many other things. One realizes the plight of the Department of Health in this matter. However, I think I would be wrong if I did not draw attention to the fact that—and this point the acting Secretary of Health himself makes—in 1963, when this was instituted, it was a temporary measure. Well, we all know that it has now become a permanent measure. This is one of the main reasons why there has been a controversy over this. Let me state it again so that we can be clear on this: I do not defend this magazine in any way. I want, however, to make it very clear that I believe that the Department of Health must look at the question of thousands of patients being under the continued direct care of private enterprise. One knows that the department cannot do everything or do it overnight. However, I very much hope that the State will accept its full responsibility. I know that it authorizes, controls and directs all that goes on in these institutions—a fact which sometimes escapes the general public. We know this, because we have visited some of these institutions. We should emphasize and stress it again and again. However, I hope that arising out of this rather nasty and bitter controversy, good will come for the patients we are talking about. After all, they are the most important. I therefore say again that although we understand the motivation behind this Bill, and although we accept the first two parts, we feel, because a major principle of the Bill includes a direct act of censorship, that we cannot support the Second Reading. My colleague, the hon. member for Parktown, will speak about this more specifically.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands has just delivered a long tirade, but he has definitely failed to convince me that he does in fact have a reason for not supporting the Amendment Bill. In any event, the reason for his being unwilling to support the Bill has nothing whatever to do with medical considerations of any kind. The hon. member sees censorship in this, but the Amendment Bill clearly states that any member of the Press Union is entitled to write about mental hospitals, on only one condition: He must make sure that his facts are correct, and this he can get from the hon. the Minister or the Secretary for Health. There is nothing preventing him from doing so. There is no censorship of the Press Union. When he was still at The Star the hon. member for Parktown, who is still to speak, would have been free to write about this. The hon. member for Pinelands said that he did not support the periodical Freedom, the Scientology publication. In a while I shall quote from that publication. Why are the hon. the Minister and the department opposed to the brochures of the Church of Scientology? As the hon. member for Pinelands quite rightly said, the nursing of mentally ill people is a difficult task that demands sacrifice. People devote their lives to toiling to provide this social service which must be provided in our country. It is the task of the department and of this House to ensure that the people who carry out the work are not hindered or obstructed in their efforts, because they are doing their very best on behalf of the patient.

The hon. member for Brentwood dwelt at length on the guarantees established by the Mental Health Act. The Act establishes guarantees enabling a patient in an institution to go to court himself, if he so wishes, with an application that his case be reviewed. If such a person is incapable of doing so himself, his parents or guardians or, if he has no guardians or parents, any other person or friend may go to court to ask that he be discharged. The people of the Church of Scientology, too, are entitled to do this. If they want to give the impression that they are anyone’s friend, then they may present a petition to the court, and the court will ensure that the case is reviewed.

However, this is not what the people of the Church of Scientology want to do. For some obscure reason they are obstructing the Department of Health in everything it does.

Its officials, too.

Yes, its officials too. I do not think the hon. member for Pinelands is aware of this, but a vendetta is being waged against the Secretary for Health by these people. Last week one of them was found guilty of theft because he had stooped to breaking into the office of the Secretary of Health in an attempt to obtain certain documents. There is no secret about this; the young man was found guilty.

The hon. the Minister is now requesting us to authorize him to act in the event of anything like the following appearing in one of the editions of Freedom—“sheep found in maximum security ward at Weskoppies”. It is nonsense to write that sheep run loose in the wards of Weskoppies. Hon. members should listen carefully to what I am now going to quote—

A great deal of sentiment is aroused concerning the whole matter. I read further—

Such allegations place the department under suspicion. Hon. members must bear in mind that this person was admitted to the Institution because he sold a case of whisky to a Bantu. I read further—

The patients referred to here are the so-called State President’s decision patients. A State President’s decision patient is a patient who is referred to an institution by a court. Are we really to allow these people who are so sanctimonious, to besmirch the court in this way? There are other things in this publication which one does not even want to read in this House. Allegations are made against an institution like Stikland in Bellville, which is one of the finest institutions in the whole country. In my opinion the department, and we in this House, would be neglecting our duty if we were not to act against these things. We know that everything is not 100% in the institutions for the mentally ill. I do not think anything in an institution for the mentally ill could ever be 100%.

What has the department achieved through the agreement they have entered into with the Smith Mitchell Company in terms of which they are accommodating a large number of these patients on a private basis? They are doing so in a proper manner, as the hon. member for Rosettenville said, and they do it very well. It was a particular privilege for me to visit a number of these institutions, including some in the homelands Thaba N’chu and Lebowa. Exceptional work is being done by the Smith Mitchell Company and, as the hon. member for Rosettenville said, no private company operates without being compensated. These people do of course get something out of it. But what has been achieved in this way? We admit that there is a major backlog as regards the hospitalization of mentally ill persons. There is no doubt about that. In recent years this private company has been able to provide 7 000 beds for people who would otherwise have been squeezed into the existing hospitals, resulting in extreme over-crowding. Substantially improved facilities have been created as a result of this arrangement by the department. I am not saying that the department should not build bigger hospitals. I do of course ask that more and bigger hospitals be built. In my opinion it is only the duty of the civilized state to care for its lesser-privileged people. Among the lesser-privileged people, these people are probably most to be pitied. In the last few years substantial progress has been made in the field of psychiatry. It has been agreed that a threefold service be provided: by the State, the provinces and private initiative. We find that at various universities there is a professor in psychiatry who also serves provincial hospitals, although he is remunerated by the State. A great deal of progress is being made, and we must not make the task of these people, who sacrifice their lives to create improved facilities, services and situations for these lesser privileged people, more difficult. That is why it is a privilege for us to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, all the speakers who have participated in this debate so far, including the hon. the Minister, are medical practitioners, and I believe that, by virtue of their training and experience and by virtue of the fact that they have all at some time in their careers taken the Hippocratic oath, the opinions they express should be taken into very serious consideration. My hon. colleague from Rosettenville, who is a medical man, has expressed the point of view of this side of the House. The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Fauresmith referred specifically to Scientology and to scientologists. Judging from the reaction of the scientologists, it would seem to me that they realize that aspects of this Bill could very well be directed to them. I believe there is evidence that the scientologists have directed their attention and their activities to South Africa to quite a large extent. Is this a good thing for South Africa? Because as early as 1965, the facts reveal, throughout the world there were 17 central organizations of Scientology, four of these situated and operating within South Africa. Who and what is the founder of Scientology? Information that I have garnered from reports of other parts of the world, say that he is Ron Hubbard. Initially he was an author of science fiction and phantasy. He was the holder of a suspect degree which, I understand, he subsequently renounced, as well as a self-bestowed doctorate of Scientology. In 1950 he wrote his first major work, entitled Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health. Apparently dianetics has been defined, because in Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard Dictionary it is defined as “a system for the analysis, control and development of human thought evolved from a set of coordinated axioms which also provide techniques for the treatment of a wide range of mental disorders and organic diseases: The term and doctrine introduced by L. Ron Hubbard, C.E., Doctor of Science, American Engineer”.

Then we have the lieutenants of Scientology, who operate one degree lower on the scale than Mr. Hubbard himself, and they are known as “clears” …

What?

“Clears”, and they are defined as …

Clears?

A “clear”—c-l-e-a-r. Is that clear?

It is interesting to know that 10 years ago, in 1966, 10% of all the “clears” in Scientology had South African addresses. I want to refer briefly to the report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology instituted by the Parliament of Victoria in 1965. On page 43 of the report the following is said about the founder of Scientology—

Over the years increasing use has been made of the designation “Church of Scientology (Pty.) Limited.” As far as I am concerned, the term “(Pty.) Limited” is a unique term to equate with any church or religion. I want to read another extract from the same report. It states this, and I think it is very significant—

This is the Victorian report—

The amending Bill before us deals with mental health. The Victoria report was headed by a Q.C. and we can therefore assume that it was a judicial commission. In chapter 23 of the report, entitled “Dangers to Mental Health”, reference is made to HASI, which for the benefit of the Chief Government Whip means Hubbard Association of Scientologists International. The report states inter alia that—

I think that is pretty damning, but there are two brief paragraphs which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The one also appears in chapter 23, under the heading “Dangers to Mental Health”—

The concluding paragraph is also brief and, I believe, significant—

Here I feel one should come nearer home to South Africa and refer to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Scientology which was published a few years ago. The conclusion in this report, on page 232, states this—

This Bill has not been placed before the House at the whim of a Minister or at the whim of his department. It has been placed before this House as a result of the unanimous findings of a commission of responsible people, and it is for these reasons that we on these benches support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Berea who has just resumed his seat, on his balanced speech and his balanced point of view. In addition I specifically want to congratulate the hon. member for Rosettenville who, last night in particular, delivered an outstanding address with knowledge and conviction. Unfortunately I cannot say the same of the Progressive Party. I think the time has come for those people to begin to ask themselves seriously whether they are merely looking for a solution or whether they themselves form part of the problem. I think they should ask themselves that question very seriously. To be honest, I have always thought nothing of the policy of the Progressive Party. Nevertheless I had credited them with a little more sense than this. To adopt the attitude that they are unable to support this Bill constitutes a direct affront to decently educated, learned people who are decent Christians.

Order! I do not think the hon. member can say that because he is reflecting on certain members of this House. He must therefore withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker. In order to have a better grasp of the problem, it would be as well if we were to exchange a few ideas about mentally ill people, psychiatrists and psychiatry. There are people who are of the opinion that the mentally ill person, the mentally disturbed person, is someone who is described in everyday language—we in the medical profession certainly do not advocate it—as someone who is mad, crazy or totally foolish. When I, as an advanced student, had to examine such a patient for the first time, after an hour I was still unable to find anything wrong with that person. In fact the person concerned had an IQ higher than mine and furthermore had a balanced outlook on life in many respects. However, this educated woman, who had an M.Com. degree, believed that if one could increase the price of gold—she knew exactly how much gold was produced in the Western world and made a sound estimate of the amount produced in the rest of the world—one would have such a good income that one could solve the problems of the world. This is a reasonably logical argument, but she believed her argument so vehemently that she was prepared to murder the Prime Minister merely to get to court in order to put the matter to the public, because the Governor of the Reserve Bank did not want to listen. It may be realized that to make a proper diagnosis in the case of such a person, and to give them the proper treatment, one requires special knowledge and understanding. A layman is unable to do this.

Perhaps I could mention another case of a mentally disturbed person, although I do not want to go into it. We in this House know about a certain mentally disturbed person who came in here in apparent innocence and within seconds had committed a murder. This is the kind of problem which exists, and these are the situations which psychiatrists and psychiatry have to deal with. Psychiatrists are people who have received a proper, scientific training, the same training as mine, but after the usual medical training have still to undergo a few years of practical experience and, after four years of further study, specialize as psychiatrists. The qualifications of these people are far superior to those of Mr. Ron Hubbard. The degree to which the hon. member for Berea referred was never obtained. There is proof of this. These psychiatrists are subject to the law of the land like anyone else. They also fall under the control of the Medical Council and are subject to discipline in terms of the ethical rules of the Medical Council. As far as psychiatry is concerned, we know that this is a scientific field, a branch of medical science which is solidly based on sound scientific principles, scientific principles which are supported by years of experience and research. Research is still being carried out in this sphere. Nor is it strange that psychiatry is a recognized profession throughout the world. Mental patients, therefore, are often apparently normal but tragic cases which can be very dangerous. Psychiatrists are properly trained people, trained men who are properly qualified in psychiatry as a scientific subject. But what does Scientology say? In order to save time, I am not going to quote references, but I shall quote to you what they have to say about psychiatrists and psychiatry. What is their view of the people about whom I have been speaking? The following—

So it continues. I read further—

So one could continue, page after page. Mr. Ron Hubbard himself writes the following in a letter dated 19 December 1966—

He is as mad as a March hare.

This is the standpoint and the attitude of these people against whom we are now asking that action be taken, people who the Progressive Party want to soft-pedal. This little association, known as the “Society for the Care of Mental Health” has a patron. I wonder whether the hon. members of the Progressive Party will not tell us who the patron of this Scientological front organization is. Perhaps this could cast a little more light on their attitude towards this Bill.

I want to conclude by asking: What does this Bill involve? This Bill protects the right to privacy to which patients are quite rightly entitled, to prevent their photographs being displayed indiscriminately in public. In the second place this Bill prohibits the distribution of false information. The word “false” is used. The following is stated in clause 2(b) of the Bill—

It is further stated in the same subsection—

After all, this Bill does not prohibit the truth. It prohibits falsehood. I shall not say that the hon. member for Pinelands is hypocritical before I have made quite sure. I am not going to say it, because I am not quite sure yet. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, before you ask me to, I withdraw that. What I want to stress—and now I am being very serious—is that this Bill prohibits no one from doing the right thing. It prohibits people from doing bad and wrong things. If anyone should refuse to support this Bill, then that amounts to an affront to medical science, to the medical profession and to the science of justice and to the Government of this country.

Mr. Speaker, nothing that has been said in this debate so far—least of all anything said by the hon. member for Krugersdorp during the last 10 minutes—has really brought us anywhere. This hon. member seems to be under the pathetic delusion that we have some kind of axe to grind for scientology. Heaven help us! He also seems to doubt our right to take part in a debate of this nature. If one opposes a motion one not only becomes unpatriotic, one also becomes part of a problem.

Nevertheless, I shall try my best to attempt to put to this House my considered view—and I speak primarily as an ex-newspaperman. It is obviously the view, let me say, of this party, that clause 2 of this Bill is both objectionable and dangerous, not least because it continues a trend in Government circles to work in secrecy. In saying this—and I hope our colleagues on the other side of the House will listen to this—I do not for one moment condone any of the examples that the hon. the Minister gave us yesterday when he referred to “leuenagtige en lasterlike artikels” about mental patients and institutions, or about the staff of these institutions. One must be mentally deficient to subscribe to any of the views that he read out here. Nor do I for a moment condone any kind of invasion of the privacy of mental patients who obviously need the protection of the State and of the society. My colleague stated that very emphatically. It is my contention that these “leuenagtige en lasterlike artikels” to which the hon. the Minister referred are the absolute exception in South Africa. That is clear from the evidence we have had today and last night. In the cases quoted by the hon. the Minister reference was made to an obscure and hardly known little journal, which is apparently the mouthpiece of the scientologists. They must be very pleased about all the publicity they have had in this House this afternoon. Heaven knows, they could never get it by purchasing it for money. That is the one thing. [Interjections.]

Wait a bit. Just wait a bit. That is the one obscure little journal that we have been told about. The other one is a popular magazine, which incidentally—for the edification of those who do not know—is produced by Republikeinse Pers. However, that is only by the way. The latter is known for overstepping the mark in various directions, and for inevitably paying the price for that. I want to repeat it, for the sake of those who are deaf and cannot hear, that I hold absolutely no brief for either scientology or its wretched little journal. Nor do I hold any kind of brief for Scope.

The Bill before this House today proposes—merely on the strength of the examples that have been quoted here—a restriction on virtually the entire South African Press, on every single daily newspaper and on 98% of the magazines in this country. This means that the vast majority of publications will now be penalized for the irresponsibility of a few—two, in fact, that have been quoted as examples. This is really using a sledgehammer to try and wound a gnat. I am, of course, referring to the insect variety. I do not want to be misunderstood as far as this is concerned.

I want to contend—and I have legal opinion to support my contention—that there is, in fact, ample provision in the common law to take punitive action against the publishers of “leuenagtige en lasterlike artikels”. The common law can also provide protection for the individual patient.

The hon. member for Fauresmith said that when I was editor of The Star I could have printed anything I wanted to. It just shows how wrong he is, and how little he knows about the functioning of newspapers. This is emphatically not the case, and I shall try to prove it to him this afternoon.

The State and individuals have both civil and criminal remedies at their disposal to prevent the publication of false and libellous articles. Why do they not act against them? The stuff that was read out here by the hon. the Minister is the most scurrilous stuff. He could have taken action against these publications under the common law. The common law provides for civil actions for damages and defamation against a publisher or writer, as well as for a criminal remedy, where the State can institute proceedings for criminal defamation. In both the cases quoted here, the normal defences to an action of defamation would apply. Truth is one of these. Why then do we want to bypass the common law with its tried and trusted procedures, and substitute an obnoxious clause for it in terms of which a journal or an individual is guilty until proven innocent. If there has ever been a worse inversion of the rule of law, I still want to hear about it.

That is the rule of law again!

That is right! The hon. member for Pretoria East had the perspicacity to know that it was coming. He knows it is an inversion of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain why I regard clause 2—and particularly subsection (b)—as obnoxious and also dangerous. I could perhaps read it for the benefit of all the members of the House who have not had the opportunity of doing so. It says:

This clause will have the effect—this, I think, is an extremely important fact to remember—of depriving the entire public of South Africa of facts and information to which they are entitled; I do not now have in mind material published in an obscure little journal or magazine. [Interjections.] I know they do not believe in democracy.

If the information is true, it can be published.

Oh, please, here sits a lawyer and he does not know the problems associated with this. This is going to deprive the public of South Africa of information to which it is entitled and which it needs to be satisfied that all is well in the institutions and with the way in which they are being run. I, therefore, emphasize that the effect of the prohibitions in this clause—I think this is vitally important—will be to put a stop to the publication of critical information about mental institutions and how they are administered, and I shall prove this. Nobody in his right mind could possibly defend the publication of false information, but how easy or difficult is it to decide what false information is? The hon. the Minister states—of course we accept this—that he and his officials will help to verify the facts. However, I submit that the problem from a newspaper’s point of view, and therefore also from the public’s point of view, is far more difficult than that. The experience that newspapers have had of the functioning of the Prisons Act—which incidentally has this identical clause in it—is that, firstly, it is very difficult, understandably so, to get officials, who feel that they are about to be criticized or indicted, to give all the facts of the case to a newspaperman or to agree that certain strictures are correct. I mean, this is only human nature. Why should they? Of course they are on the defensive. After all, they are only human beings like some of us.

The second point I want to make will possibly not strike home in many quarters but it may penetrate here and there: It is extremely difficult, if not impossible—I hope my hon. friend from Green Point will listen to this—to satisfy a court that one has taken reasonable steps to verify certain information. If he has read the Rand Daily Mail case of some years ago, he will know exactly what I am talking about. From that case which involved the Prisons Act, it emerged that it was almost impossible to get prison officials to give one certain information. This is only logical: They are not going to indict themselves; they are not crazy! In spite of the fact that the newspaper concerned, and its officials, took what they and ordinary newspapermen thought to be “reasonable steps’’ to verify the information, the court decided differently. What, therefore, are “reasonable steps”? Can the hon. member for Green Point tell me what “reasonable steps” are? The court could not do so, but he may be able to. Unfortunately, we do not have him at our elbow all the time when we are writing about cases of this nature. No court has yet given a definition of what “reasonable steps” are. So what are newspapers to do? How must they know what “reasonable steps” are? Therefore, the point I want to make is that…

Order!

… the effect of the Prisons Act—and we must relate this to the Bill before us—has been to draw a veil of secrecy over the functioning and the administration of prisons and the treatment of prisoners. Let me say emphatically that the absence of such information, which every civilized country in the world regards as essential for the proper functioning of such institutions, has not been in the national interest of South Africa. Hence, we have here almost insuperable practical difficulties—this is my point—in applying the kind of prohibition envisaged in this Bill. That is my first point.

Moreover, I think we should bear in mind—and I am sure the hon. the Minister and his officials will agree with this—that down the years newspapers and periodicals, not only in South Africa but elsewhere in the world, have done magnificent work in drawing attention to shortcomings and worse in mental institutions, furnishing facts and information that have brought about improvements in these institutions. It would be deplorable and tragic for the whole country if this kind of information were no longer to be published. I am not suggesting that there are scores of institutions that are not well run. Equally, I do not think anybody can really argue that they are all above criticism or that, in some cases, there is not perhaps a great deal amiss. The same applies to individual public servants. Most of them are dedicated, but there may be exceptions. What hon. members on the other side and, it seems to me, some on this side also fail to realize fully, is that responsible exposure in the national interest is so essential. It is not only in the interests of the public but ultimately also in the interest of the unfortunate patient. I feel that this positive exposure is going to be made almost impossible in terms of these clauses, and that is why we oppose this Bill. What the authorities, the hon. the Minister and his officials, should realize is that whatever their motives may be—I accept that their motives are almost beyond suspicion—and whatever their intentions may be, secrecy of the kind imposed by this Bill inevitably creates doubt, suspicion and gossip-mongering. It creates the suspicion that there is something to hide, that there is something to be covered up. It does not matter how totally unjustified these suspicions are, they will persist and they will be something the hon. the Minister and his officials will have to cope with. They may, in fact, prove far worse than the kind of scurrilous stuff we have had quoted to us this afternoon from these two little journals.

I have been looking for some kind of precedent for secrecy about mental health institutions, but I have not been able to find any. The nearest thing to a precedent I could find involves the Soviet Union. I do not want to put ideas into anybody’s head, but in the Soviet Union I think mental institutions are used by the Government to lock up its political opponents. Fortunately, this is not the practice in South Africa, and therefore I see no need for secrecy to be applied in this country.

I now want to deal briefly with what I regard as a serious illogicality, in fact a paradox, in this Bill. The proposed section 66A(a) applies only to non-members of the NPU. That means that all newspapers and nearly all periodicals are exempt. The proposed section 66A(b), however, applies to every newspaper, magazine or periodical in this land. I am not satisfied that the hon. the Minister has given us an acceptable explanation for this illogicality and paradox which becomes greater in the light of the hon. the Minister’s tribute to the South African Press. Hon. members will recall that he said—

He went on to say—

Then, after that glowing tribute with which I should like to associate myself, he goes and does this to the Press in one and the same breath! I simply do not understand it. Why does he not exempt members of the NPU? Can I have the hon. the Minister’s attention, or is he perhaps just getting an explanation for it now?

You may speak. I can hear behind my back, too.

That is all right. I want to know why he does not also exempt members of the NPU from the provisions contained in paragraph (b)? He has not told us that. I concede readily that there is a very strong case to be made out on compassionate or humanitarian grounds for not wanting photographs to be taken and published of patients or groups of patients, but, for heaven’s sake, why not leave this to the common sense and decency of the South African Press? Has he no confidence in them at all? Why legislate for it? There is a mania in South Africa for legislation. We have developed an absolute obsession in this country about legislation. People think everything can be put right by saying “Maak nog ’n Wet”. Here we have it: “Nog ’n Wet. Maar wat kan ons nou hiermee uitvoer?” If there is a case—I agree that there is—to be made out against the publishing of photographs of patients, what is the justification for the prohibition on pictures of buildings being taken? Why should pictures not be taken of buildings? If buildings that are being used to accommodate mental patients are inadequate or undesirable for one reason or another, I want to say that the more they are photographed and exposed to public gaze and criticism, the better. Why, in heaven’s name, does the hon. the Minister want to stop the publication of these things? Who is being protected by this kind of prohibition? Not the patient, not the public and not the Department of Health. Then who? I can see absolutely no sense in this provision, which, as we know, comes straight from the Prisons Act.

For all the reasons we have mentioned here this afternoon I, like the hon. member for Pinelands, cannot possibly support this Bill. Somebody said the other day that South Africa already has more than its share of legislation which prohibits or even precludes genuine public inquiry into state activities. We do not, in heaven’s name, want to add to the list we have already: Prisons Act… [Interjections.] This will not make any sense to the hon. member, so he need not listen. Besides the Prisons Act, we have the Defence Act, the Official Secrets Act and others. I am not saying that in some cases there is not a very good case to be made out for secrecy provisions, but as often as not ex-newspaper people and those who are in the profession will say to you that a lot of these provisions are not justified. In the case of the Bill before us, these provisions certainly cannot be justified under any circumstances. We have gone far enough in this country along the road to secrecy, to operating in the dark, when this is not necessary.

It is the Progs who operate in the dark.

Yes, we need to shed light on dark places, including Boksburg. We should do nothing to discourage our newspapers and periodicals from probing and uncovering in a responsible way what needs to be exposed and uncovered. On the contrary, they should be encouraged to do so in the broad public interest. I am not talking of the school of sensationalism because that has nothing to do with it.

In conclusion, I want to say once again that secrecy breeds suspicion and encourages corruption. That is why we in these benches oppose this Bill. We also oppose, in the process, the Government’s mania for secrecy which is implicit in it.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened most attentively to the hon. member for Parktown. I thought that he, as a former newspaper man with a great deal of experience, would have been able to present to us a positive picture of the attitude of the Press in respect of this matter. Even though I have listened to his speech, I was unable to decide whether he is opposed to these matters being made public and whether he also wanted to protect the right of the Press to publish everything. On the one hand he said that the poor, unfortunate people in mental hospitals have the right to privacy, but in the same breath he said that the Press also has the right to see matters for themselves there and to make investigations and to publish their findings. He condemns the fact that false information is made public, but in the same breath he condemns this Government for making it an offence and laying down in legislation that false information may not be made public. What kind of arguments are these?

We have to bear in mind that we are dealing with a very unfortunate component of our community, with people for whom, when one comes into contact with them, one has profound sympathy as a result of the particular circumstances in which they find themselves. These people have to be allowed to recover in peace, quiet and isolation so that they are able to return to the community. Our entire psychiatric service is geared to making it as peaceful and as quiet as possible for these people. In view of this it is absolutely absurd to allow magazines and newspapers—and I regret having to say this, but some of them have very little ethical norms as far as this is concerned—to publish stories of cases which are only aimed at creating sensation.

It makes no difference to me whether Freedom has a circulation of ten or 100 000. I have reason to believe that Freedom, the circulation of which the hon. member for Orange Grove tries to belittle, has a far bigger circulation than he is aware of. We are not being asked to subscribe to it. One receives this deceitful little publication through the post without having asked for it. What is at issue is not whether such information is circulated among 10 people or one; what concerns me is the principle.

The patient in a mental institution is entitled to keep matters confidential between himself, his family and his doctors. For that reason it is essential that the kind of legislation we are discussing this afternoon should be placed on the Statute Book. The families of these people are suffering because of the fact that their relatives are finding themselves under these unfortunate circumstances in mental institutions. No one has the right—neither has the Press—to give publicity to such an unfortunate situation. Surely it is time for these steps to be taken timeously to ensure that the mentally ill can recover in isolation under peaceful circumstances and that the psychiatrists and other people who have to assist them can continue their work in peace. There are more than enough avenues through which irregularities could come to light. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most members of the House listened almost with amazement, if I may put it that way, to the hon. member for Parktown when he criticized this Bill—I think he did so very extravagantly at times—and expressed his opposition and that of his party not to the main clauses of the Bill, but specifically to paragraph (b) of the proposed new section 66A in clause 2 of the Bill. In fact, at one stage he almost contradicted himself, clearly by inference, when he questioned the hon. the Minister as to why he did not provide the same facilities for the Newspaper Press Union in regard to the provisions of paragraph (b) and merely prohibited others outside the Newspaper Press Union in accordance with the provisions in paragraph (a).

I found that rather extraordinary. Perhaps the hon. member is not clear about what I want to convey to him. The hon. member questioned the Minister as to why he had stated that only in respect of the proposed section 66A(a) any person not being a member of the Newspaper Press Union who, without authority in writing, does certain things, would be found guilty, while the same exemption did not apply in respect of paragraph (b). I find that completely contradictory in his attitude, because if it were applied to the Newspaper Press Union, the hon. member would apparently be perfectly satisfied with the clause. Otherwise, why does he want to know that? He has simply admitted it himself. In other words, if it were the case that any person, not being a member of the Press Union, did the sketching or photographing, published false information, etc., the hon. member would be perfectly satisfied with the legislation. That is the obvious inference to draw. Otherwise, why did he ask why the Minister did not at the same time provide in a paragraph (b) the same protection for the NPU as he provided in paragraph (a)? Sir, I cannot understand and I do not think many other members in this House can understand how he can attribute to the Bill all those sinister motives of secrecy, the desire to preserve, almost in the form of a mediaeval inquisition, the treatment of people and the desire to avoid any information reaching the public on what is taking place with regard to these people. One would imagine that the basic ethical approach of any newspaperman, and more particularly one of the calibre of the hon. member for Parktown, would be to follow the standard suggested, viz. not to publish any information that is known to be false, and also to examine and try to verify any information received by his newspaper. This should particularly be done in view of the fact that, as has frequently been pointed out, the person whom it is endeavoured to protect, is the person who requires most protection; the person who, of all people, is the most vulnerable, viz. the mental patient, who very often has not the funds to look after himself and cannot take the step which any organization or institution could take of instituting an action of defamation against the newspaper or any other steps that may be necessary. Therefore, the objective here is to protect this most vulnerable section of the community.

After all, what does the section seek to achieve? It seeks to protect these people from disclosing their most intimate affairs, perhaps the most vulnerable of all affairs, the unfortunate situation of the person who will be regarded, on that information being disclosed, as someone who is mentally deficient, mentally ill and not able to take his place in society. What greater indignity can the average human being suffer than having that information exposed to the public, unless there is some good reason why the attention of the public should be drawn to some iniquity or injustice which is taking place in regard to this individual? There are, for instance, wild claims of incarceration for 10 or 15 or 18 years, but the law makes ample provision for a guardian, a friend or a relative to go to court and apply to a judge for an inquiry into the detention of any person in an institution of this nature. According to the definition of the word “reasonable”, which the hon. member for Parktown was seeking, “reasonable” is defined as “able to be reasoned with, exercising common sense and sane judgment, conformable to reason, conformable to what is fair and just, within the limits, not extravagant nor exorbitant”—and this is only according to a limited dictionary. Possibly, with the use of Webster’s Dictionary, the hon. member could get many sound explanations as to what the term “reasonable” means. It basically means ordinary common sense which we expect to be resident within the confines of the mind of any newspaper editor.

Every man has his own conceptions of what is reasonable.

That is the explanation given here. All that is asked for in the clause is that a person should not publish false information. This is the first point. The second is that if he has published false information, he must prove that he took all reasonable steps to verify his information. I do not think one could wish for a more simple request to be made to any person. After all, let us be quite frank. The newspapers have always contended that the pen is mightier than the sword. Surely, if the pen is so mighty, the unfortunate public is entitled to be protected. For what more unfortunate people can one seek protection than these people who have been incarcerated?

I do not even want to deal with the Scientology organization because I do not think that matters so much in relation to what is being sought to be done in terms of the Bill. The most important aspect is the provision of a form of protection so that people are not vilified, false information is not published and besmirching does not take place. We find that the besmirching takes place as a result of information reaching the public first, it very often cannot subsequently be undone, not even by apologies or withdrawals. If a person says anything without verifying what he says, and if what he says besmirches somebody, then he should be punished. The individual is as much entitled to the protection of the State as the NPU is entitled to enjoy its privilege of publishing facts for the public consumption. To suggest that the Bill contains a further inhibition or restriction of the freedom of the Press is to me an extraordinary statement. I challenge the hon. member for Parktown to proceed with a series of articles to prove that this is a further inhibition or restriction on newspapers printing the true facts.

I am talking about the interpretation of what is false and what is not.

No, all this clause asks for is the protection of people; it does not call for a newspaper to be restricted in any way whatsoever. It asks for the normal, natural thing to which any member of the public is entitled. Why should a member of the public suffer the indignity of having his affairs exposed unless he appears to be doing something which is inimical to his fellowman or to society? That, however, is what the newspapers want to do. If they want to do that, they must at least try to seek the true facts and stick to them.

Every responsible newspaper does that.

Of course, and we expect them to do it. Therefore there is nothing to worry about; that is my very point. The hon. member contradicted himself by every statement in his address to the House a little earlier. Obviously, if it is a responsible newspaper, that is all we expect. No responsible newspaper would, in any way, be concerned; in fact, they would encourage a clause of this nature. They would encourage it so that they do not become part of the little rag to which the hon. member referred when he said it was not of any consequence.

Did you read The Cape Times last week?

I read The Cape Times quite regularly. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do read the newspaper quite regularly, but I prefer using my own common sense on the subject. I want to go further and tell the hon. member what has taken place in the past on issues of this nature. I want him to know that over the last 15 years this country has made an unparalleled advance in the field of mental health.

I am not denying that.

Just a moment; I want to go a little further than that. That is merely a premise.

Order! The hon. member for Parktown has already had an opportunity to speak.

The hon. member must remember a book called The Snakepit. The position of mental health in many countries of the world 10 to 15 years ago was very serious, almost as bad as we had it at one time when we used to confine people in goals because we had no hospitals or proper places of detention in which to look after them. A newspaperman in the USA spent two years in a mental institution and wrote a famous book called The Snakepit in which he exposed what was going on in that institution, but he knew the facts—they were all true—because he had lived there and had suffered there. He was therefore able to write a book which could not be refuted. That man took all the steps he could to verify the information he was going to bring to the public, and he made a great contribution to the cause of mental health. I cannot understand how newspaper people can in any way object to a clause of this nature.

Generally there has been a lot of talk about the whole question of mental health arising out of this particular Bill. I cannot conceive that in the process of the evolution of the science of the treatment of mental disorders, the State would have any reason to be afraid of any facts becoming exposed to the public. Members of Parliament, as well as other people, have visited all the institutions. The hon. member for Rosettenville gave details about this visit. They visited all these State institutions. They have been to Pretoria, Valkenberg and to other places, and they have also seen private institutions. I am happy to say that the general opinion today is that we have made a tremendous advance in this particular field of health. We should be very proud of this, because it can stand up to scrutiny in any part of the world.

This Bill is nothing but a simple document. As to the opposition to it, I am not suggesting that that is the motive of the party seated on our left, when opposing this Bill—there has been much agitation and propaganda directed privately at members of Parliament, and through the newspapers generally. I had the opportunity of interviewing a certain gentleman, and I was able to tell him clearly what I saw for myself. I asked him whether he had ever been to one of the institutions, and he said “no”.

[Inaudible.]

I am saying something which I firmly believe is true. I want to make use of my privilege to do so, if the hon. member on the other side has no objection. I merely want to say that the people involved in this issue have never seen things for themselves. Save for this form of agitation, there was actually no real opposition to this Bill. I am very disappointed indeed because some of the hon. members seated on our left have objected. I was particularly disappointed with the hon. member for Parktown, because we are aware of his integrity as a newspaperman. He is the first person who would take all the necessary steps himself if these types of stories reached him. He knows it, and should support this Bill. In fact, he should not even talk on the matter, except to wish the Minister well.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend entering this debate, but after listening to the hon. member for Jeppe, I would like to make a short speech on the Bill we are examining. The question of our advances in mental health is simply not the issue. Nobody denies for one moment that South Africa has made tremendous advances in the treatment of patients who are suffering from mental and psychiatric diseases. There is no argument about that. The hon. members for Pinelands and Parktown never in any way attempted to denigrate the medical profession or the work being done in South Africa by the various associations to improve conditions for mental patients throughout South Africa.

This is not the issue. The issue in this Bill is a very simple one: It constitutes a further inroad into Press freedom. It is as simple as that.

The issue is centred around the one and only clause that is very important in this Bill, i.e. clause 2, more particularly paragraph (b) of the new section to be inserted. I am astonished by the fact that the Opposition is sitting quietly there supporting a Bill of this nature. I do not believe they have read this Bill properly. I do not believe that they realize that paragraph (b) was excluded from the overall permission given to members of the NPU to continue to publish articles and photographs about the institutions.

May I ask a question?

If it is a sensible one, which I doubt.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she has any objection to the Press publishing false information?

I am coming to that. It is the next part of my speech. Before I come to the subject relating to the question of the hon. member for Umlazi—which I was going to deal with anyway—I would like to say that it is due to intelligent, open and free comment, by newspapers throughout the world, in different countries, that the whole attitude to the treatment of “madness” and mental health has changed over the last two or three decades.

Nonsense. It was due to the improvement of medical science.

It is not nonsense. There was a time when “mad” people were shackled and chained up and treated as if they were agents of the devil. There was a time when all this happened. As the world developed …

It was due to the improvement of medical science.

No, it was not only the improvement of medical science. There has also been an improvement in attitudes, an improvement of humanity, a more sophisticated and intelligent attitude to the treatment of insanity. That is one of the main reasons why “mad” people are not simply shackled and tied today the way they used to be in days gone by—thank heavens for that. Medical science has in fact advanced in various ways, and drugs are being used as well as various forms of treatment.

This is most important of all.

I am coming to that in a moment.

The hon. member does not realize it.

I realize everything the hon. member would like me to realize. I am still answering the argument raised by the hon. member for Jeppe, who said that medical science had made such wonderful advances in South Africa and that we on these benches did not appear to realize it. The point I am trying to make is that this is not the issue. The issue is a further inroad into Press freedom.

I now come to the whole question of true or false. If hon. members had bothered to look up the Prisons Act and had looked at section 44, they would have seen that mutatis mutandis—if I may borrow a term from the lawyers—the clause in this Bill is identical. Let us see what happened with section 44 of the Prisons Act. I want to ask, or rather challenge—that is the phrase the hon. member used in connection with my hon. friend from Parktown—the hon. member for Jeppe—if he would just lend me his ear for one moment—to tell me whether he has seen a single article about prison conditions since the Rand Daily Mail case was concluded some eight or 10 years ago or more. Has he seen a single article exposing conditions in prisons in South Africa since that case? Let us remind the House about that case. The editors—I say “editors”, because there was a leader-writer as well—of the Rand Daily Mail were found guilty, if I remember correctly, on two charges. These were minor charges of inaccuracy in the whole case that went on month after month and cost the Rand Daily Mail and SAAN something like R330 000. What newspaper is going to take the risk of exposing anything—true or false—about prison conditions after that? I would like to repeat: They were only minor examples of inaccuracy in the newspaper reports. The sentence was very light, because the infringement was very light. However, the cost of the case was enormous. How does one take reasonable steps to determine whether what one publishes about a closed institution—this is the point: an institution to which the public is not admitted as of right—is true or not? How does one establish the truth of what goes on in such an institution? You cannot, because the persons in charge of these institutions, as the hon. member for Parktown has rightly said, are certainly not going to indict themselves. Believe me, it is very difficult to get prisoners to give evidence against the very people in whose charge they are, because a prisoner is the most helpless person in the world. It is very difficult to get an ex-prisoner to give evidence, as the Rand Daily Mail found to its cost when dozens of people opted to come forward as witnesses on their side of the case, but faded away like the mists of dawn when the hour approached. They were afraid that they might be framed.

Their fear might have been completely unjustified, but when one has been in prison, there are ways of getting to an ex-prisoner and letting him know that maybe he is not really in the clear and that the authorities might be after him. It happened in case after case of witnesses who were going to appear in favour of the Rand Daily Mail. Now, this very same clause that applies to prisons is being introduced. One cannot simply walk into a prison. I should know, because I am in the middle of a contretemps with the hon. the Minister of Justice about admission to prisons myself. I have pointed out to him that in every other country in the civilized world, obviously not behind the Iron Curtain, people are welcome to visit prisons. There are prison-visiting committees that are welcome and members of Parliament are certainly welcome to visit prisons in England, America, Scandinavia and in other civilized countries, but not in South Africa. Unless one goes on an organized tour or unless you promise not to talk to certain prisoners, it is very difficult to get into prisons.

Judges can.

Judges can visit prisons and they are the only people in South Africa who, as of right, can visit prisons. [Interjections.] I might be wrong, but that is not the point. I am talking about ordinary access to prisons.

If that is not the point, what are you talking about?

What do you mean? Do not bully me. You will not get very far in trying to bully me, because I am used to dealing with bullies.

How do you propose to stop false reports?

False reports can be stopped by the ordinary law of libel, the law of damages. As regards that potty little journal that all of us received from the Scientologists, for whom, as this House should know if it remembers previous debates on this subject, I have very little time indeed. I think that journal has published a highly defamatory and libellous article about these institutions, which I must say I have not visited, but I have visited other institutions run by the same people and I do not believe they would maltreat mental patients under their care. I have seen their other patients and I have visited institutions, and although they are by no means luxury institutions, they certainly are better than nothing. Believe me, the State has abrogated its responsibility in this regard in not providing proper institutions for Africans suffering from TB and for mental patients and, therefore, somebody has to provide these services. They may not be luxury institutions, but I find it hard to believe that the people whose institutions I have visited, would maltreat mental patients. I believe that those articles are highly defamatory and those people have the ordinary law of libel which they can use against the Scientologists or against any other journal that publishes that sort of thing.

The whole world does it.

Well, I want to know if there is another country in the civilized world with a clause like this. Is there another country in the world that does not allow people to expose conditions in mental institutions? It is only by the exposure of conditions in these institutions that one gets advances in civilized countries. For these reasons, I believe this to be a further inroad into Press freedom and I can see no reason for this when the ordinary law of libel can surely be applied against people who write defamatory articles. I have confidence in our Press. Those articles do not show faces that are identifiable and therefore I see no necessity for this. I see this as another law which is going to prohibit the public from having knowledge. I take as an example section 44 of the Prisons Act, which has been responsible for a complete shut-down of all news …

False news!

No, not only false news, because as I have told the hon. member, it is almost physically impossible to verify news as being false or true when one is trying to write an article or give information about those institutions. For these reasons, I support my hon. colleagues for Parktown and Pine-lands 100% in every word they have said.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton has tried to justify the opposition of the Progressive Reform Party to this Bill by quoting the Prisons Act at length, various sections of the Prisons Act which, she says, are the same as the provisions of this Bill. We are aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill—had the hon. member for Houghton been present she would have heard the hon. the Minister—referred to the fact that there was a similarity between the clause and the relevant section of the Prisons Act. So it is nothing new. It is something which had been before the House when the debate started last night. When one considers this legislation as a whole, we on this side of the House have come to the conclusion that persons who are patients in psychiatric hospitals—quite rightly, in view of the advance which has been made in medical science we no longer talk of lunatic asylums but psychiatric hospitals—are entitled to a degree of privacy and to the right to have that privacy, as are the relatives of those unfortunate persons who are receiving treatment at these psychiatric hospitals. Indeed, in other legislation as far as children are concerned, we have seen how the Children’s Act also protects children from undue publicity and sensationalism. As we view this legislation, it is aimed at preventing sensationalism which is false and which can be to the detriment of the whole cause of psychiatric treatment as a science and of the patients as well. We believe that it is important that this should come about, particularly in view of the fact that recent cases have been given wide publicity, publicity which has tried to create a wrong impression entirely of and which has cast a slur on the whole profession of psychiatry. We view this legislation in a positive manner, as being aimed at obviating the situation which has arisen and which has been aggravated by the present campaign which has been launched against psychiatry as a profession.

Therefore the position of the NPU is that they are required to play a very responsible role, because obviously any person or organization is still at full liberty to campaign for a reform of the laws affecting mental patients. We know that there are perhaps shortcomings in the present system. The Government itself and we on this side of the House have supported commissions which have been appointed to investigate various aspects of the treatment of mental patients. We have had the Rumpff Commission, we have had the Van Wyk Commission and we have had amending legislation in 1973. If we study the latest report of the Department of Health dealing with psychiatric hospitals, we find that there is tremendous overcrowding, to the extent of some 3 000 non-Whites, more than 3 000 patients in excess of the capacity for which these hospitals are able to cater for. We have had the opportunity to visit these hospitals and to see what is taking place there. There is nothing to prevent any organization who wishes to bring about a reform of the legislation relating to mental patients, to do so, provided it is based on facts; provided they do not resort to sensationalism which is not based on facts. We believe, in principle, that this is the right course to take.

The members of the Progressive Reform Party have voiced their strong opposition to paragraph (b), whereby the Newspaper Press Union is included as far as this aspect is concerned in the publishing of false information, knowing the information to be false, and this is provided for in the clause. It does indicate that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that that information is not false. The position as to what are considered to be reasonable steps, is a matter which requires an explanation from the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate as to his interpretation of “reasonable steps”. If they are going to publish information affecting a group of people, such as those who are patients or those who have been patients in such institutions, then surely it is absolutely essential to ensure that that information is correct and that no false information is being published. We know the pressure which is often brought to bear on ex-prisoners, people who have served prison sentences, to obtain a sensational story from them. It must be ascertained that the information which that ex-prisoner gives is correct and not false. Similarly, the ex-patients, those persons who were patients and who are provided for here as well in terms of this clause, will also from time to time have pressure brought to bear on them to give them a story. Surely, any responsible person who is going to publish such a story must take the necessary steps to ensure that the information which is to be published is correct and not false.

As we see this clause, it covers that situation and we believe it is necessary. That is why we on this side of the House believe that it is in the interest of the patient and in the interest of the profession of psychiatry to see that steps are taken to ensure that false information is not published, information which is to the detriment of the profession and to the detriment of the patient. We believe it is only right that these people are afforded the protection which they are unable, in many circumstances, to give themselves.

Mr. Speaker, there has been reference to the similarity between the Prisons Act and the provisions of this Bill, and I believe it is necessary for one to record the decision of the Judge-President of the Transvaal, Justice Cillié when he dealt with the case to which reference has been made. I want to say at the outset that I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands. He said that, in reporting on matters dealing with mental institutions, care should be taken that any report is published with the greatest sensitivity and circumspection. I agree with him entirely. I believe that the provision which is included in section 66A is to ensure just that, namely that where something is published, the information must not be false or known to be false, and that steps must be taken for testing its truthfulness and correctness. May I just very briefly refer to the judgment in this case which is contained in the 1970 (1) S.A.L.R. at page 479—

The Judge-President then said this—

I do not think there will be any objection to that, either from the hon. member for Parktown or anybody else. I quote again—

And the State must prove that that information is false.

Yes. The learned judge continued—

Where more so than in relation to mental institutions and mental homes? The hon. member for Parktown had some difficulty as to what is reasonable.

The judge dealt with this aspect fully and I commend the judgment to the hon. member. He said: First of all one looks at the source of the information. In this particular case the source of the information was two ex-prisoners and two warders who were dissatisfied with their position in the prison service. The learned judge said that the information given by those people, should be verified further. If you get information from a man with an axe to grind, surely that must be verified.

This judgment by the Judge-President of the Transvaal completely satisfies me that this Bill can be supported and that the new section 66A(b) is really necessary. The NPU can publish whatever it likes, provided it is accurate and, if it is proved to be false, they must only prove that they took reasonable steps to ascertain the accuracy of what they published.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.