Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) That the resolution adopted by the House on 5 March 1982 discharging the order for the Second Reading of the Black Local Authorities Bill [B. 60—’82] and referring the subject of the Bill to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, be rescinded; and
2. (2) that the order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged and the subject of the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution for inquiry and report, the Committee to have leave to bring up an amended Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we think the Government’s change of attitude to the question pertaining to the Select Committee to which this Bill should be referred, should not pass without some comment and, I hope, also not without some form of debate.

It was generally understood that the Bill in question, being a Bill dealing with Black local authorities, would be referred to a Select Committee. I believe all parties clearly understood that that was going to be the procedure to be followed. Following that broad agreement, the hon. the Minister announced on 5 March 1982 in this House that this Bill would be referred to a Select Committee. We had no objection against that procedure, and consequently supported the motion.

The motion now before the House, however, is to rescind that resolution and to have this Bill referred now to the Select Committee on the Constitution. When we first heard of that, I must say we were upset at the Government’s change of attitude. We thought then there would be good reason to oppose this measure. I must point out though that on reflection we also found certain reasons which gave us cause to support the proposal. I want the hon. the Minister to understand this. This Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee which would then have been constituted by the various parties represented in this House. It is now being referred to a specific Select Committee, the Select Committee on the Constitution, which has already been constituted and which has a very limited terms of reference.

Why do we believe then that a good case could be made out for the Bill to be referred to a new Select Committee? That is to allow hon. members with a special area of expertise to be members of that committee. If one looks at the composition of the Standing Committee on the Constitution, one notices that it only includes one hon. member who is also a member of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development. I believe it is the hon. member for Klip River. He is the only one of those 12 members, all experts on Black affairs, who is also a member of the Select Committee on the Constitution. That means that 11 out of the 12 experts in this House who serve on the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development are not going to be serving on that committee, unless it is reconstituted.

Secondly, we have had a long tradition of a Select Committee on Black affairs to which, in the normal course of events, Bills dealing with Black affairs have been referred in the past. We are now by-passing these two Select Committees in favour of the Select Committee on the Constitution. In the first instance we do not believe that this latter committee necessarily represents the expertise of those hon. members in this House who should be considering this particular piece of legislation.

That brings me to the second point. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development can, I am sure, help us, even at this early stage. Some 15 months ago, when these three Bills were announced, they were announced as a package deal. They were presented as the Koornhof Bills. These were the new deal. I do not want to recount that whole history, but the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is aware that it is very difficult to consider any of these Bills in isolation. Each one of these Bills relates to the other. The one deals with local authorities for Blacks; the second with community development for Blacks and the third with orderly urbanization and stabilization. The question of property ownership becomes a vital factor. The question of who is legally entitled to vote is dealt with in the first of these three Bills. That Bill, however, does not state who is qualified to vote. There is therefore an inter-relationship between these three Bills. We believe that these three Bills should be seen as a package deal, and so we want to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is intended that each of these three Bills will be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution.

The answer is yes.

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear that that is so. We are delighted because then at least there is going to be a continuity of examination, and we hope that before the Select Committee is required to report on this Bill they will also have sight of the second and third Bills. Can the hon. the Minister give us that assurance?

Mr. Speaker, if I …

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. the Minister cannot speak now. He can, however, nod his head. He is very good at nodding his head. [Interjections.] We welcome the assurance that each of these Bills will be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution. Can we know in advance whether, before they are required to report on the first Bill, the Select Committee on the Constitution will also have seen the second and third Bills?

If possible, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that if it is not possible this legislation should be held back until it becomes possible, because it is not appropriate to pass the first Bill without having sight and agreement in respect of the second and third Bills. A good case could therefore be made out why we should rather oppose this particular motion and adhere to the original decision of this House. I do, however, want to inform hon. members opposite and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs that we nevertheless find that there is an overwhelming reason why we should support this motion today, in spite of our reservations. That is that this is a formal recognition by the Government for the first time in the history of South Africa that Black local affairs are an integral part of the constitution-making process of the Republic of South Africa. We find that this is a fundamental departure from the Government’s earlier attitude and procedures.

If one looks at every other measure, for example the Ciskei legislation, the Venda legislation, and all other measures dealing with Black local government, one will find that they have all been sent to special Select Committees. Never once, however, have they been referred to a Select Committee dealing with the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. In case the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs should not be aware of it, I should like to read the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Constitution. I read from the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Monday, 1 February 1982 as follows—

We are now referring this Black Local Authorities Bill to a Select Committee the specific function of which is to consider the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act and other matters which may affect the constitutional position of the Republic. We say that now for the first time this Government has decided that a measure dealing with Black political rights, even if it is in respect of the third tier of government, should be seen as an integral part of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Here then is a clear cleavage. In the past Venda, Transkei, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana were all seen as a departure from the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The fact that this Bill is now being referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution shows that for the first time the Government is seeing it as an inclusive element, so we see this proposal of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs as a first, and I believe a very welcome, timid step in the direction of “gesonde magsdeling” as far as the Coloureds, Indians, Whites and the Blacks are concerned, because if it was not so it would not be referred to the Constitutional Committee. While we have reservations about its composition and while we have reservations about the absence of a package deal, but because we see this as a major break through in the direction of “gesonde magsdeling”, taking Black affairs out of the exclusive Black field and seeing that Black constitutional matters are an integral part of Coloured, Asian and White matters, we on this side of the House, in spite of our reservations, are going to support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we need not turn this matter into a very complicated issue. The fact of the matter is that the Minister concerned was of the opinion that as far as the contents of the Bill was concerned, he should refer it to the appropriate Select Committee. I just wish to point out that in the minutes of today’s proceedings the appointment of two members as members of the Select Committee on the Constitution was announced, precisely in order to balance the committee in such a way that it would be able to deal with matters relating to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development as well as matters relating to the constitution. These two hon. members are the hon. member for Pretoria West and the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. Mr. Van der Walt is the chairman of the Commission on Co-operation and Development. Therefore, as far as the composition of the Select Committee is concerned, it is a balanced one.

The hon. the Minister has every right to refer this measure to a committee which he thinks will best be able to deal with it. I think that what he is now proposing is the appropriate way. We did in fact discuss the matter before the time.

The hon. member for Sea Point, however, is now approaching the matter from a certain angle, which he may just as well have refrained from doing. This angle is that he is now trying to read into this that a constitutional step is being taken which could indicate a development in future which could herald a new approach, which could throw a new light on the matter. We should not argue about this matter in this particular way. The proposal is concerned with two things. In the first place it is concerned with matters affecting a department. In the second place it is concerned with an already existing Select Committee which was appointed to look into matters which fall within its purview. I cannot think of a wiser way of doing this than to constitute the Select Committee on the Constitution in such a way that both aspects of this proposal are covered. Consequently I do not think we need to argue about this matter any further. It is what the hon. the Minister in his wisdom proposed, and that is the way we on this side of the House see it. The hon. the Minister approached me as Leader of the House and asked my opinion, and after I had considered the matter, I told him that he could proceed. In other words, the hon. the Minister also did this in consultation with me. What was before me was a simple matter, and on the basis of the arguments which were raised, I told him that in my opinion it was fine the way it was. Consequently that is the way matters stand here. There are no ulterior motives. The hon. member for Sea Point should not always read ulterior motives into this kind of thing. It is not in any way a complicated matter either. It is a very simple matter. It is at the third tier of government that development has to take place, and that is why hon. members of this House are being appointed to look into this. The hon. member for Sea Point should not try now to make cheap political capital out of this matter.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the Third Reading stage of this Bill. While the House has not option but to vote the funds for which the hon. the Minister has asked in the interests of the continued operation of our Transport Services, it is appropriate to review once again at this stage the effect which the hon. the Minister’s proposals will have on these services and on the economy of South Africa.

There is no doubt that from the point of view of the general public and the economy as a whole this is by far the worst Railway budget that we have had in years in South Africa, irrespective of what the problems are with which the hon. the Minister has had to contend. As I said during the Second Reading debate, apart from a few concessions to elderly people and to servicemen which were welcome, there was nothing in the hon. the Minister’s proposals in introducing his budget to rejoice about either for the present or for the future in South Africa. On presenting his budget, the hon. the Minister presented a very sombre picture of the economy generally and of our prospects for the immediate future. In his search for an additional 15% in revenue to balance his books the hon. the Minister has imposed a series of tariff increases and increases in fares across the board which are not only highly inflationary but which also in the prevailing climate carry the very real danger that they will be counter-productive as far as the needs of our Transport Services are concerned. I want to emphasize that. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister spoke about intensifying marketing and public relations in respect of our Transport Services so as to encourage greater usage of these services. However, there can be no greater inducement to the public to make more use of these services than passenger fares and rail tariffs that they can afford. That would be the greatest inducement of all if the hon. the Minister is trying to encourage greater usage of these services and trying to ensure that they become better patronized. This is where I fear that the hon. the Minister’s greed in his budget may well be counter-productive.

Let us for a moment look at the picture that the hon. the Minister has presented to us. He told us that the rise in the value of imports, the lower gold price and the poor demand for export goods had led to a deficit in our balance of payments position and he added that the rising interest rate and the higher rate of inflation had merely compounded these problems. He then said—

Again, Sir, as I say, this is a very sombre picture of the immediate future. He said too that as a result of these circumstances and this tendency, import volume could decrease by approximately 5% and export volume could be expected to increase by only approximately 2%. In referring to the Transport Services, the hon. the Minister said that the effect of this would be that the increase in the demand for transport services would consequently also level off and that working estimates were therefore based on a real growth rate of 2% add on an inflation rate of 13%. However, having sketched this—a 2% real growth rate and an inflation rate of 13%—he then proceeded to feed that inflation rate by raising tariffs by more than 15%.

I want to quote again figures that I quoted during the Second Reading debate and to which the hon. the Minister did not respond when he replied. I want to ask him when he replies to this debate to indicate whether in fact these figures are correct. These are figures relating to the revised tariff regulations arising out of the increases that the hon. the Minister has announced. Again I wish to quote a few examples. This is how the consumers, the public of South Africa, are going to be affected. Tariff No. 1 dealing with items such as toilet preparations will go up by 16% as a result of the hon. the Minister’s budget. Tariff No. 3, dealing with basic items like tea and coffee, will be increased by 17,2%. Tariff No. 6, relating to basic items like oils and canned fish, is to be increased by 17,8%. Tariff No. 8 relating to another basic item of foodstuffs, like margarine, is to be increased by 18,1%. I want to know whether these increases are correct. Have I given the right interpretation of the effect which the budget of the hon. the Minister will have on increased tariff regulations as a result of those increases? If this is so, then it is going to push the inflation rate up for the ordinary consumer to far beyond the 15% level.

What about salary increases?

Never mind salary increases; I am talking about the effect these increases are going to have on the economy, on the consumer in South Africa.

I now want to deal with the cross-subsidization argument which was used by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech. It was also used repeatedly by other hon. members during the debates. Passenger services showed a loss in 1981-’82 of R628 million. The hon. the Minister then said that if one allows for what he termed external compensation—this is compensation via the Treasury—of R285 million, this would mean that there would be a balance of R343 million to be made up by cross-subsidization. In order to meet this situation, the hon. the Minister then attacked the profits made by harbours, by pipelines and by rail goods services. These items he attacked in order to make up for the losses being incurred on passenger services. This year, in terms of the Estimates of the hon. the Minister, losses on the rail passenger services are estimated at about R690 million, and the State will contribute R314 million via the Treasury. This means that the balance of R376 million, using the hon. the Minister’s own words, will be made good by cross-subsidization from other profitable services. The hon. the Minister went on to tell us that the service which has to bear the brunt of this is to be the rail goods service. In terms of the speech of the hon. the Minister, the rail goods service is to be the service which will have to bear the brunt of the losses on passenger services.

Then, however, to use the hon. the Minister’s own words, he confesses—here we are talking about the rail goods service—

He is therefore telling us that passenger services are running at a loss, and he is telling us that in order to make up for that loss, he has to attack the profits made by the rail goods service, but then he goes on to say that even this is declining and therefore it will not be possible to do this indenfintely.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister where he goes from here. He admits that he is being compelled at the present time to rob Peter in order to pay Paul, but he also tells us that Peter is getting poorer and then he will not be able to continue paying at the same level in the future.

Whom would you have robbed?

And so the hon. the Minister goes on. He then says that he is now being compelled to have a relook at passenger services in South Africa, and is compelled to make drastic changes to the passenger services. He gave three examples of these drastic changes. Firstly he said that there would have to be a curtailment of uneconomic services, secondly, that he would have to look for increased revenue—in other words, he meant increased passenger fares— and thirdly he said that there would have to be intensified marketing in so far as the passenger services are concerned. We certainly shall await the results of these drastic changes with great interest. Certainly there are uneconomic passenger services. When one has to cater for, as the hon. the Minister says, only a few thousand passengers per day, there is undoubtedly a case for their replacement by a bus service which can be operated more economically, if this, in fact, is so.

My guess, however, is that the uneconomic services accounted for, account for only a small percentage of the passenger losses. These uneconomic services are those services on which he thinks he may have to cut back. Can the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Third Reading debate, indicate what percentage of passenger losses is in fact accounted for by these so-called non-productive services which he believes he will now have to curtail? Surely the greatest share by far of the losses in regard to passenger services is in respect of the uneconomic but essential services needed for the conveyance of our urban commuters to and from work. We have dealt with it before. I dealt with it during the Second Reading debate and also during the Committee Stage.

This is the most critical aspect in respect of our passenger services which needs attention. The hon. the Minister has told us again that this is the subject of negotiation between himself and the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has told us that this will involve discussion of the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee and that hopefully we can expect the necessary legislation to be placed before Parliament next year. I have tackled the hon. the Minister before in respect of the negotiations which are supposed to be taking place—protracted negotiations—between him and the hon. the Minister of Finance. I also want to know, if in fact the private sector is going to be affected by the recommendations, what consultation is taking place between the hon. the Minister and the private sector in respect of the hon. the Minister’s intention in regard to this matter. I also want to know whether the draft Bill will be published well in advance, whether opinions will be invited in respect of its contents, and what generally is the contact the hon. the Minister has with the private sector in this regard.

There are also other drastic changes, apart from the curtailment of uneconomic services, which the hon. the Minister has mentioned. These are for instance the increase in fares and the question of marketing to which the hon. the Minister referred. In a way this could be a contradiction in terms and the effect of increased fares can of course be counterproductive, as I have already said. What the hon. the Minister should be doing is to encourage the public to make use of his passenger services by offering travel which is quick, cheap and convenient. In other words, the hon. the Minister should entice commuters, particularly in our large urban areas, to use public transport rather than their own motorcars. The public transport facilities in South Africa are probably amongst the worst in any developed country. People do not make use of public transport because there is not an adequate public transport service in most of our urban areas. I believe it is high time that we took a long and serious view of this aspect and its importance to South Africa.

The Progs are only driven around by chauffeurs.

In dealing with marketing the hon. the Minister gave us only one example, namely the 40-off scheme for pensioners. Naturally this scheme is welcome, but much more is needed if we are going to market our passenger services. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what he has in mind to encourage passenger growth on our rail services. I want to warn again that the increased fares are hardly an inducement to encourage people to use the rail passenger services. This has been shown already in regard to the increased air fares in South Africa, and I think the same applies to the rail passenger services.

As far as air fares are concerned, the hon. the Minister, after announcing yet another increase in air fares in September 1981, predicted a growth of approximately 7% in domestic air traffic. I and other hon. members on this side of the House warned at the time that the increase in air fares could be counterproductive and discourage people from travelling by air. And what happened! Instead of 7% increase which the hon. the Minister estimated when he presented his budget last year, the S.A. Airways in fact ended up with a decrease of 0,2%. This would seem to substantiate the claim that the hon. the Minister has to be very careful that he strikes a balance when increasing fares between measures which can result in an increase of revenue for the S.A. Transport Services and measures which will in fact drive people away from using those services.

It is not only in respect of passenger services that the effect of this budget can possibly be counterproductive. This also applies to rail goods services. Last year, instead of the hon. the Minister’s estimate, that goods traffic would increase by 4%, the total tonnage of revenue earning goods traffic increased by only 0,9%. The most alarming aspect of this was the decrease in high-rated traffic by 6,6%. This is our money spinner when it comes to goods services, and it decreased by 6,6% during the last year. One must ask again why there was this decrease in high-rated traffic. The hon. the Minister said it was due to the relentless swing from rail to road.

No, that is not what I said.

Yes, the hon. the Minister used those words in his budget speech.

It is because there is a world recession.

The hon. the Minister now says it is due to the world recession. The other day he told us it was because of a relentless swing of high-rated traffic from rail to road. Why is this so? Why is the road service more attractive to users than the rail service? I also believe that the only reason why the public sector would prefer road service to rail service would be that the public sector found it more efficient, more reliable, more economic. This is something to which the hon. the Minister must give attention.

We have examined the budget, we have studied his speech and we are obliged to vote the money he has asked for in order to keep the services running, but if one looks at the situation in its totality, one remains convinced that the increases he has asked for are excessive and can only be highly inflationary. We believe that they are going to add to the cost of living burden in South Africa, and we also believe that there is a very great and very real need for far greater imagination and efficiency in the operation of both our passenger and goods rail services in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is so easy for the hon. member for Berea to talk about increased tariffs, but when the hon. member for East London North referred to the salary increases that were granted, it was also easy for the hon. member for Berea to throw up his hands and tell us that we were not discussing salary increases. This is typical strategy of the official Opposition when it comes to this kind of confrontation in a political debate involving finances.

The hon. member referred to the passenger services. Later in my speech I want to refer to that subject again, but at this stage I just wish to point out that it would surely be irresponsible to continue in an undisciplined way with the non-taxation of our passenger services so that cross-subsidizing has to be continued in an irresponsible way. I think it is time payment for passenger services was brought into line with the service rendered. Before I discuss this, I just want to point out that the increased tariffs have probably met with general acceptance already. The hon. the Minister and the Management of the Transport Services are to be congratulated on a realistic and acceptable budget under the present circumstances.

Talking about congratulations, I should like to take this opportunity, in a more official capacity, as a matter of fact as town clerk of Acacia Park, to convey my congratulations to Dr. Grové—who has now been elected mayor of Acacia Park—on his fine promotion in the Transport Services. [Interjections.] It is a fine promotion.

Acacia Park? Where is that?

The NRP should not ask where it is. They do not know about Acacia Park because they have never lived there! We want to congratulate Dr. Grové most sincerely on his excellent promotion. We are certain that in the Transport Services he will receive the same cordiality and support he already receives in Acacia Park. We wish him everything of the best. There is no doubt in our minds that his period of office as mayor will be enjoyable. For this reason we also want to wish him a happy and enjoyable period of service as General Manager.

I have already said that the increased tariffs did not come as a surprise to anyone, except perhaps the official Opposition who do not understand financial realities at all. It is their task to make financial fools of themselves, as the hon. member for Berea did during the Second Reading debate and again in this debate. However, let us debate the realities. Unfortunately it is true that the increased tariffs may have an inflationary effect. The hon. member for Bellville said that the tariff increases were the result of the inflationary conditions in which we find ourselves. This is true, and it would certainly be ridiculous to want to deny this. However, the impact of inflation on the economy will depend on the discipline and responsibility shown by commerce and industry in accepting and dealing with these increases. An incorporated tariff increase of 15% does not mean an increase of 15% in the price of goods. I think it is important that we take cognizance of this. Rail transport is and remains a small component in the total cost of any consumer item. This is only logical, and anyone denying this is politically stupid, as are some of the hon. members of the Opposition. However, I want to make an appeal to commerce and industry, and particularly the sectors dealing in ordinary consumer items …

Order! Did the hon. member say that Opposition members were politically stupid?

Hear, hear!

Yes, Sir, I did.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. I want to make an appeal to commerce and industry, and particularly to the sectors dealing in ordinary consumer items such as food and general household goods, to incorporate the increase in rail tariffs with the greatest circumspection and with responsibility and in such a way that it will be honest, responsible and justified. Unfortunately there are irresponsible dealers and industrialists who are going to seize upon the tariff increases to push up prices even further. Such steps will be irresponsible and will be disservice to South Africa and the consumer. I think the present state of our economy is such that we can expect commerce and industry to display responsibility in this regard. I want to thank those people who are only going to add on the tariff increase and are not going to seize on the opportunity to push up prices even further.

Transport is one of the vital components of every developing and industrialized country. Transport is intertwined with and forms an integral part of the economic activities of every country, and in South Africa this is probably true to an even greater extent because of the long distances that must be travelled and because three-quarters of the sections are underutilized. In the second place, we have here a complex and demanding passenger transportation service which makes almost impossible demands of the S.A. Transport Services. This is what the hon. member for Berea is ignoring. That is why the hon. the Minister had no choice but to announce that he would take certain steps to improve passenger services. In the first place unprofitable services will be cancelled. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter with the greatest circumspection, and to consult interested parties before cancelling any services. Unprofitable services may subsequently turn out to be services that do in fact meet a need.

The hon. the Minister also mentioned intensified marketing to improve the passenger services. I am sure this announcement was generally welcomed. In this regard one could probably differentiate between direct and indirect types of marketing. The former would include a regular fast service with the least inconvenience for passengers. Overcrowded trains that cannot accommodate all the passengers are certainly not conducive to enjoyable travelling conditions. The golden rule of a fast, safe and regular train service therefore applies here. But it is also true that the user of transport—here I am referring more specifically to the commuter—will have to reconsider his preferences in respect of his travelling habits. Let us consider a few examples in this connection.

At present the motor car is the preferred mode of transport and is used almost recklessly by people to get to work and back home again. As a result of the increased GST the price of fuel has also been increased as from the beginning of this month, and the increased rail tariffs would also have an effect on this price. But what is important here— and this is my view—is that we no longer consider fuel to be a scarece commodity in South Africa. We use it with a careless and irresponsible attitude that borders on recklessness. Before a regular bus service was introduced at the start of the present session of Parliament, I found the train service between Acacia Park and Cape Town very convenient. I can assure hon. members that it is enjoyable and convenient to make use of that train service, and I also want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to consider this service unprofitable, because it will still be used by many people in future.

A preference among passengers for bus transport instead of train transport is also discernible, and I want to use the trip between Mabopane and Pretoria as an example. A train service between these two places was introduced, but the bus service is still preferred and for this reason the trains are inadequately occupied and remain underutilized. I referred to this matter during the Committee Stage, but I repeat that in my view it is necessary for the S.A. Transport Services to reconsider the entire matter to ascertain what can be done in this connection.

Today I want to make an appeal to all users of transport to think carefully about their preferences as regards modes of transport, and in particular to take the interests of the country as a whole into consideration.

As far as marketing is concerned, I want to express my thanks for the concessions to national servicemen. This is a wonderful gesture by the S.A. Transport Services, and everyone in South Africa is grateful for it.

In addition I just want to refer to the financing of the capital programme. The fact of the matter is that the S.A. Transport Services could approach the overseas market with confidence to raise a loan of R450 million. It is a positive testimonial for South Africa that we are still able to obtain overseas capital.

We have now come to the end of this budget debate. We are entering a difficult economic phase, and as far as the economic impact is concerned, it will be necessary for us to think and act coolly in future, and we on this side of the House would like to assure the hon. the Minister and the Management of our support and assistance. Officials of the S.A. Transport Services share the same loyalty, and will continue to ensure, with understanding and hard work, that the Transport Services will overcome these difficulties.

In conclusion, I want to express my thanks and appreciation of the respective transport groups for the enlightening tour we were able to take at the beginning of the year when we visited the various harbours. The value of such tours, particularly to members of the transport groups, and also to members of the Select Committee, cannot be over-emphasized. It is essential that we visit as many places as possible, because this improves one’s practical experience and judgment when one has to assess what inputs have to be made.

May I conclude by mentioning the names of Mr. Gawie le Grange, the Director of Public Relations, and Mr. Jannie Raath in this connection. I want to praise them for the way in which they arranged this tour. It testified to an excellent organizational ability and we thank them sincerely for it.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of this debate on the S.A. Transport Services, and are now occupied with the Third Reading. If one considers in brief what the effect of the increases is going to be, it is only fair to say that they will be inflationary, and that this will have to be borne in mind when future inputs are made. Of course, one must not make hasty judgments when discussing matters of this kind. However, I believe that in future we shall have to give serious consideration to possible cutbacks in expenditure.

Of course we in these benches also want to thank the officials of the S.A. Transport Services for the way in which they perform their tasks every day. Naturally there are certain matters on which we cannot agree with the hon. the Minister today. One of these is the “dop” system that is now the order of the day on flights. [Interjections.] Years ago this “dop” system was used here in the Cape to lure labourers into working for certain employers. It caused one of the greatest social problems in the world, particularly here in South Africa. Today, in order to recruit passengers for S.A. Airways flights, the same system is being used. Passengers receive free drinks on flights, merely to make it more attractive for them to fly.

Shame on you! [Interjections.]

You are being absolutely ridiculous now!

Oh, come on, Johannes, you remind me of old Balaam’s ass. [Interjections.] This is the first time I have heard Balaam’s ass speaking here in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we cause this “dop” system to be investigated. [Interjections.] We cannot allow free drinks to be supplied to passengers on flights, particularly as liquor is becoming more expensive by the day. I am asking that this system be abolished. If a man wants to drink, let him, but let him pay for it. [Interjections.] I would rather see good food being served to passengers on flights, and less liquor. I do not like this “dop” system. [Interjections.]

I should now prefer to discuss something else. This is an item which does not appear in the budget, but I have already received letters about it. I am referring to the Railways hostel at Langlaagte, the Louw Geldenhuys Hostel. That hostel is not going to be enlarged. No change is going to be made to the existing building complex.

I should now like to refer to the aim of that hostel. That hostel provides accommodation for apprentices, many of whom come from rural areas and do not know the city at all. It is of vital importance that those young men undergoing their apprenticeship in the city, should live close to their place of employment. I am told that there is accommodation available for these people 27 km away. Does the hon. the Minister know how many trains run at night in that area? I am not asking this in a negative sense. What I mean is that no trains run at night for those young men, who do not know the city at all, to use. There is no bus transport for them either. Many of them work at night, and a large proportion of them also work shifts. The city is a strange place to them. They come from all over the country to work there. In January this year, for example, there were 30 apprentices, and a large number of health officials among these people. Workers from 13 departments make use of that hostel.

I do not want to complain here today. I am not a man who complains. Hon. members know me. [Interjections.] However, I want to tell hon. members what the rooms look like in which those young men live. There is only a small steel cabinet and a bed in each room. Improvements must definitely be made. Every day we talk about manpower. However, when we talk about manpower it seems to me as though we are not talking about Railway people. We shall have to give attention to the conditions of service of these people. Some of these people, such as drivers and people from elsewhere for example, who are called out suddenly, cannot live in Germiston or 27 km away. I think Dr. Piet is the one who said that a man cannot get up in Soweto and go to work in the centre of town, and he gave various reasons for this. Yet we expect these people to do so. These people do not know the city at all. It is completely strange to them. Often women also work there. How are they to travel at night from Germiston through the city to Langlaagte and from there in another direction to their place of employment? I am asking this question because it is essential that I do so. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give many replies to this, but he will not have a solution to the problem before the hostel at Langlaagte is repaired to that it can make adequate provision for these people.

Lately we have been discussing this matter frequently. We have been cleaning the outside of the building for two years now. I have now received good news in this connection. An investigation has already been completed on how the place is to be cleaned and I hear that the work will be done in 1983. I am expressing my thanks for this in advance. In 1983, we hope, it will be clean and it will be a pleasure for those people to live there. I visit the place often. Kitchen facilities and other facilities are not adequate for these people. Of course I would be the last person to bring colour into this matter. Let us take New Canada as an example. A hostel is being built at New Canada—I am now referring to item 469 of the capital budget—at an estimated total cost of R92 million. I made inquiries last year concerning the number of people who will be accommodated here. I was told that when the hostel is full there will be about 9 000 people there. It will therefore cost approximately R10 300 per unit for workers earning R100, R200 or R300 a month. I am not complaining about the expenditure but about the poor treatment of the Whites of Langlaagte. That is why I am asking today that attention be given to this matter. I hear that the hon. the Minister is going to Koedoespoort on 22 March to expel the hon. member there from the party. But surely we must have a free vote there. We must not follow the show of hands system so that people can subsequently be identified. We must just see to it that they retain their posts.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to the argument of the hon. member for Langlaagte later on, after I have first dealt with the arguments of the hon. member for Berea.

I should like to begin with the idea that the hon. member still holds about cross-subsidization. I agree with him. Cross-subsidization or subsidies are not the answer to a large number of problems in any economic system. However, at this stage we still have the problem of an inherited tariff system. There is the clear train of thought that aims at adjusting this tariff system and bringing it closer to cost. A good deal of progress has already been made with this, but we have an inherent problem with passenger services. Together with the hon. member for Berea of the official Opposition I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consult with his hon. colleague the Minister of Finance as soon as possible with regard to the question of the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee. I think that this committee will be able to solve a good number of problems for us. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I agree with him. When that legislation dealing with the content of the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee is introduced, the Opposition is going to quarrel with us again. The hon. the Minister was correct, but the money that is wanting must be found somewhere. It has been spelled out very clearly in this budget what the problems related to the transport of passengers are. However, that problem of obtaining funds to supplement the shortfall must be solved somehow if we cannot make use of the system of internal subsidization. The problems with the transport of passengers have been accurately sketched, but I do not agree with the solutions proposed by the hon. member for Berea. Using more trains will simply increase those problems. Who travels on those trains? It is not the peak hour passengers only. Undertaking large capital works, doubling the lines, tripling them or increasing them six-fold, which is happening at the moment, and using those lines as well as the trucks, the wagons, the locomotives and everything else involved between four o’clock and six o’clock every day only, is not a solution to the financing problem in connection with the shortage of passenger services. We shall have to look for another solution, but simply involving more and more people in the peak hour traffic, is not a solution to the problem under any circumstances.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Langlaagte. I want to express my sympathy towards the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. It seems to me as if this debate will be known as the “tot debate”. Previously we had the egg debate in connection with the quality of the preparation of eggs served for breakfast on the Airways. This debate has now degenerated into what I want to call the “tot debate”. I just want to say that at this stage when we are dealing with an expenditure of approximately R6 500 million, I think that there are more important matters to be discussed than the one or two free drinks that are served on our aircraft. I get the impression that the people who are so concerned about the free drinks at the moment, want to protect themselves against their own transgressions.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that?

I withdraw it, Sir. I just want to say that it seems to me that the speech by the hon. member for Langlaagte is his first attempt to recruit votes for the foundation of his new party which will take place next Saturday. [Interjections.] I hope this is not so; I really hope not.

The previous speakers have already pointed out the influence of this budget and it has been pointed out in particular what the effect of it will be. However, when the realities of the situation in this country are studied and this debate is analysed on the basis of those realities, then we find that a magazine of which the NP and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs are not very fond, viz. the Financial Mail, wrote the following about the budget on 5 March 1982—

Coming as this does from a magazine that in actual fact is not always favourably disposed towards the Government, this indicates that when one compares this budget with the realities, it is not nearly such a poor budget as hon. members of the Opposition are trying to allege in this House. This budget is a balanced one and I should like to quote three points only about it. Many points have already been raised in other respects.

The first point that I want to make, is that the budget keeps pace with reality, the reality of the current economic situation. We are experiencing a downswing in the economy and therefore provision must now be made for an even sharper downswing that may possibly still lie ahead. The second point is that the budget makes provision for the challenges of the future. This is not an ostrich budget, which entails hiding one’s head in the sand when problems arise; this is a budget that accepts the realities, as I have already said, and lives with them until better conditions arise. Thirdly, it is a budget of give and take, regardless of the period of struggling in which the S.A. Transport Services is involved. It is not a question of taking only; people have been given things, too. Too little attention is given to what it costs the S.A. Transport Services to give as well.

During the course of my Second Reading speech I addressed challenges to the official Opposition. I challenged them to come up with a solution. We know what the problems are. It is very simple to express criticism with regard to known facts, but we are still waiting for solutions. One does not conduct politics, particularly not financial politics, in a style whereby one merely expresses criticism; one offers solutions too. One does one’s share in the matter. Up to this stage the issue has simply been what should be done to combat the costs, but nowhere has it been said how this should be done.

The point that must be borne in mind when we look at this budget, is that the budget is not affected by circumstances within the RSA only; it is also affected by circumstances abroad. We could continue to spell out at length what is happening abroad, but on 24 March we will have the opportunity to take a further look at it. However, since transport is of a derivative nature, it must be borne in mind that what happens to the economy abroad as well as in South Africa, influences the achievements of the S.A. Transport Services, not only directly, but immediately too. Transport is one of those activities that forms the best barometer of what is happening in the domestic economy of a country at a given moment.

All prices are increasing; this is as plain as a pikestaff. How can it be expected at this stage that the S.A. Transport Services should not also take action to cover their cost increases? I feel that the idea of continuing to argue because there has been an increase of approximately 15% is not taking up the challenge that we put to the Opposition to give us a solution to the problem.

I want to come back to the salary increases, because the largest percentage of this increase was to remunerate the worker in the S.A. Transport Services for inflation, his services and productivity. More than 250 000 people work for the S.A. Transport Services. It is one of the largest organizations when we look at capital, turnover and the number of people employed by it. When this is taken into account, we can say that the human material of the S.A. Transport Services is the single greatest asset at its disposal. Consequently, I am very pleased and grateful that the hon. the Minister went ahead, regardless of the criticism and other problems that he envisaged, and remunerated these people fairly for the services that they have rendered in the past and in anticipation of those they will render in the future.

We all know that there are powers operating against the RSA, against good, healthy labour relations in particular. Those powers will infiltrate the S.A. Transport Services as well. I want to ask that all forces be summoned by the Management, the hon. the Minister, the trade unions and so on in order to counteract these powers. I am asking this because stability in the transport industry is one of the most important conditions for a continued economic boom in this country as well as the expansion of our strategic position within Southern Africa.

Transport Services are a fine example of what can happen when chaos prevails. One simply has to look at television to see what happened during the tremendous snow storms in Britain where, in addition, there was a strike by bus drivers and train staff. We cannot afford this type of thing happening in our country. This unstable situation in the United Kingdom unfortunately has a destabilizing effect, not only on the people who make use of the transport services, but on the entire economy as well, and we are part of the low point in the total economic situation in which problems are being envisaged, everything must be taken into account and utilized in order to maintain stability in the labour force of the S.A. Transport Services, as is the case at present.

With the clear way in which the budget has been set out, it is very clear to other people who have to render services to the S.A. Transport Services, what the future looks like. At this stage I want to ask that since it takes five to ten years to plan large capital works, such as infrastructure for the transport industry, and to put them into operation, we should not give a hearing to calls for curtailing the existing capital programmes. Curtailing existing capital programmes would simply lead to problems overtaking Us when the economy experiences a boom again. Therefore I want to call upon the hon. the Minister to continue with the capital budget which has been approved, because it is the capital budget that will carry us through and prevent problems when an upswing takes plane.

I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on not having cut down on anything that could be considered absolutely essential in the budget. One facet that I want to emphasize here, is the principle of maintaining capital programmes. Here I am thinking in particular of the large sum of money that had been invested in the assets of the S.A. Transport Services. These assets are very important and if they are not maintained, we shall simply be faced with more problems in obtaining capital in order to replace exhausted assets in four or five years’ time. Therefore I want to thank the hon. the Minister and ask him to continue to maintain assets in which capital has been invested and to protect them so that they will be available when the upswing takes place. This is also a very important facet if one thinks of the fact that money is not simply available forthwith to replace assets when one looks at the high rates of interest that are being asked for capital at the moment. The British Financial Times spelled out very clearly what happened when the United Kingdom began cutting down on its capital expenditure. The United Kingdom began by cutting down on maintenance expenditure and the result was that after five or six years, when the demand began to increase with the boom in the economy, maintenance costs doubled in relation to what they would have been originally if maintenance had taken place according to a normal programme—similar so that being followed by the S.A. Transport Services. Consequently I want to ask that we should go ahead at this stage with the budget for the year 1982-’83 as it appears before us.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to what the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed has had to say. We heard him referring to this debate as the “dopdebat”. I am also going to have a few words to say about that. I want to refer the hon. member to the very old English expression that says: “If you count the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves.” I think this is something that we in this House would do well to remember more often, especially when we glibly talk about “only R1 000 million, or what is one little drink compared with R1 000 million or R650 million?” It is every penny that contributes towards a saving.

This debate has been dominated by criticism and by very close examination of the tariff increases announced by the hon. the Minister during this Second Reading speech. I do not think that he or anyone else can, in any way, deny that the effect of these tariff increases is going to be inflationary, to say the least of it. This is another ripple that will make itself felt throughout our economy, another ripple that I fear is going to contribute, if we are not careful, to a tidal wave that is going to engulf us. This is sure to happen if we do not exercise extreme caution with increases of this nature, and here I am not necessarily referring only to rail tariff increases, but also to the general increases that seem to be coming upon us daily. Further increases in the Railway budget are increases that have an effect throughout every sector of our economy. They have an effect on the sweets that a child sucks, because the tariff for transporting the various components of those sweets has been increased.

Let us look at the possible disastrous effect that one of those increases will have on a comparatively new industry in our country. I thought about this the other day when we were out in Table Bay on the invitation of the hon. the Minister to see an excellent demonstration of the combating of oil pollution. I could not help but notice the effect that the last quarter of a century’s activities in the development of a viable ship-building and ship-repair industry here in South Africa have had on the aesthetics of our harbours, including Table Bay harbour. I also know what it has done in Durban. Over the past 25 to 40 years we have had something completely new developing in South Africa. We have a burgeoning industry. We undertake major repairs, doing ship-building, repairs and servicing. We also undertake mechanical repairs. We have new electrical firms in the ship-building industry that have come into the marketplace and have developed, undertaking repairs to equipment that are quite staggering in their scope. We also do menial tasks such as the cleaning of ships, the painting of ships and, even more menial, the cleaning of the holds of ships that have carried what could be termed “dirty cargoes”, as well as the servicing of those holds so that the ships can be used for other cargoes. This is all done in our South African ports. There are ships that come to our ports for these services, having discharged their cargoes in say Beira or Maputo, which was previously Lourenco Marques. They then come down to Durban for certain services, after which they return to ports like Maputo to load further cargoes. Those are the lengths to which they go to be serviced in South African ports.

The increases in harbour tariffs, however, are going to have a disastrous effect on that particular aspect of the industry. We must therefore ask ourselves what effect the harbour tariff increases are going to have on this very lucrative source of international or foreign income. We must also ask what effect it will have on the enormous amount of capital that has been ploughed into developing these industries by private enterprise. I sincerely believe that the hon. the Minister must urgently address himself to this very real problem. I think that he should probably seriously consider amending charges for vessels that put into our ports for servicing rather than for discharging or loading cargoes. I think he should seriously consider maintaining the level of this industry and making sure that its activities do not fall off, because this is grist to the mill, if I may use the term, or money for old rope, as the saying goes, I think he should seriously consider having special charges for these vessels that come in to use the services that we have developed for shipping in our harbours in South Africa.

In this budget the S.A. Airways has come under the spotlight as never before. The air tariff increases must be accepted by us all, I think, as having been somewhat excessive over the past two years. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will accept that. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that these increases are not going to lead to greater usage of our national carrier. It is not going to happen. I think he suggested once that this might be the case, but it certainly will not happen. I want to say that the major effect will be that the traveller will become more critical and more demanding. It is an old truism that when the price of a commodity is increased the consumer becomes far more critical, because he resents paying that increased price. The SAA is going to have to extend its world-renowned flying reputation to the service it gives the passenger and the travelling community on the ground. Everyone is therefore going to have to be on his toes to ensure that the public gets nothing but the best. I do not believe that the public are going to settle for anything less than the best.

Let me hasten to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Langlaagte. By “the best” I do not mean free drinks. I believe people normally pay for food and drink and I see no reason at all why they should not pay for food and drink on SAA flights. Refreshments should be paid for. I do not see why one set of passengers should subsidize others. Not everybody drinks and not everybody wants to eat, but everybody who does drink will have a free drink. Let me also tell the hon. the Minister that there are a number of people who, while they do not drink, will take the free drinks and take them home. I have seen this. I have sat next to a person who did it and I was appalled by it. The person concerned ordered a glass with ice, and soda-water, and finished up by taking three little bottles of liquor, putting them into a handbag and carrying them home. Why should I have to subsidize that sort of thing? Why must I pay for that sort of thing? I see no reason for that. I feel very strongly about this. It is no good saying to me that surveys have shown that people would like to have a free drink. Of course they will say that. Offer anybody anything for free and he will accept it. Naturally he will accept it. Yesterday the Sunday Tribune carried an article—I am sorry that I do not have it with me—in which an Airways official was quoted as saying that sometimes people have three or four drinks on a flight. When one considers the price of liquor today, I think that that is asking for a bit much by way of a free drink.

Another aspect which I believe could be looked at is the time taken to load and unload aircraft. I am talking now about passengers. Recently, on a trip to Taiwan, I think every member of the group that went was very impressed by the time it took to load aircraft over there because people were put into a departure lounge that had been set aside for that particular flight so that when the people boarded the aircraft there was no need to count them all over again and to start taking an inventory of who was there and who was not. The doors were shut and the announcements were made while the aircraft taxied and took off.

Furthermore—and this is even more important—why do we insist on discharging passengers through one exit, particularly at terminal airports? Why do we stick to this antiquated idea? These aircraft have two and sometimes three exists. Why do we not empty an aircraft by using all the exists? When sitting at the back of the aircraft, there is nothing more frustrating than having to wait 15 minutes or more before one can put one’s foot on the ground. Why do we not open all the exists at the terminals, places like Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg, or wherever a flight ends, and let the people “go ashore”, if I may use that expression?

Finally, I want to say that I have always believed that airport control should fall under the S.A. Airways in the same way that railway stations have always fallen under the S.A. Railways. We have the situation in this country where the buildings at our airports and the staff at a certain level fall under one department, namely the Department of Transport, while the rest falls under the S.A. Airways or the Department of Transport Services—I do not know which. We as Members of Parliament do not know where the dividing line is, and certainly the general public will never understand where the dividing line is.

So what?

So what? Simply this: When one wants to know where the responsibility lies, one wants to know to whom one is talking. One does not want to be fobbed off and told: “Oh, that has nothing to do with the S.A. Airways; that falls under the Department of Transport” or the other way round. Even if there are Department of Transport’s personnel at airports, why can these airports not be operated by the S.A. Airways in their entirety, if necessary on an agency basis? I can see no reason why this cannot be done.

Unfortunately my time has run out. Naturally we support the Third Reading of this Bill, but we do ask that the hon. the Minister now set an example and does his utmost from this day forward to ensure that he can come back to this House next year with a well-balanced book.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend dealing with the specific points raised by the hon. member for Umhlanga, but I think the increase of harbour tariffs should be referred to here. In my view this increase is somewhat unreasonable, particularly in respect of services that are based on commission. This has been set out much better than I can by the S.A. Foreign Trade Organization, but clearly it is in the interests of our international trade if our harbour dues are kept as low as possible. As some of those dues are related to the value of the cargo, or the amount of cargo off-loaded, it seems to me somewhat unreasonable to increase these dues as they would in any event be protected through inflation and the natural increase in value.

The question of commuter transport—its financing, facilities and its functioning—has been the subject of much debate. All of us in this House also know that this issue is going to remain with us in the year ahead, and the question of cross-subsidizing and financing is clearly one that will have to be looked at very carefully in the next 12 months. Indeed, it is going to remain with us for as long as we have our urban communities in our society. It is, however, appropriate to consider the issues raised by the hon. member for Rissik, because this very same issue is going to be raised quite often by his party. Of course, it is not surprising that the matter should be used to fire the very first political shots by that hon. member’s party in this House, because the question of the crowding of trains and facilities is one which those people, who want short-term political gain without regard to long-term political peace and realities, will exploit.

Crowded facilities create problems anywhere in the world. Nobody likes to be jostled, to feel restricted, to have to queue, least of all when one is travelling. There are problems of litter, crime, toilet facilities, supplies of refreshments and organizing and supervising large numbers of people. These problems become further aggravated when racial and cultural factors intrude. Because Black people constitute a growing majority in our urban areas, the discomfort of overcrowding can and often is, often deliberately, seen in racial terms.

South Africa is not unique in having crowded commuter facilities. The whole world has these problems, and in many cases it is much worse than ours. We are, however, unique in seeking to solve them through racial measures which are planned to protect an ever-dwindling proportion of Whites, and this is being done at great expense to our country.

It is a sad, indeed a sickening thought that the political group in which the hon. member for Rissik finds himself is going to inflame and exploit racial feelings, which surely do exist in South Africa, and which also exist in other countries with commuter problems. Unfortunately the hon. member for Rissik is not in the House now. I do think, however, that it is reasonable to ask him whether he has asked any of the Black people who use Rissik station, in Pretoria, whether they also resent the overcrowding, the crime and the litter caused by inadequate facilities. Respectable Black, Coloured and Indian people resent as much as do respectable White people, and the hon. member for Rissik, who, no doubt, regularly uses Rissik station, the pressures and inconveniences of crowded and uncomfortable commuter travel. To quote but one example, I know a Coloured woman from Ennerdale, to the south of Johannesburg, who gets up at 04h30 every morning so that she can catch an earlier bus which will not be so crowded, even though she arrives at the bank where she works, an hour early. She always takes some clean paper to put on the seat so that she can sit on it because, she says, it is always so dirty. Most of the domestic workers who use Rissik station in increasing numbers always try to arrive after the morning rush and to leave again before the afternoon rush, possibly for the very same reasons.

On the Simonstown line White commuters will not even get into a coach reserved for Whites if it is even moderately crowded. They will rather wait for the next train to come.

The problems of commuter travel are universal, but when racialism is added they become even worse. I believe the solutions are to be found in three areas.

The first one is the provision of facilities. These must be designed to deal efficiently and comfortably with large numbers of people. That may mean the creation of larger, more modern additional facilities. There is no need for friction, racial or otherwise, if people have enough space in which to move.

The second solution is to have trained and sufficient staff to supervise, control, clean and enforce order in commuter facilities. The S.A. Transport Services will have to employ and train more people to do these jobs. The way to maintain high standards in litter control, the cleanliness of toilets and in combating petty crime is through properly supervised staff to enforce these standards.

The third solution is to educate the public positively through advertising, through good signage, through adequate staff and public address systems, and to discourage them by means of fines and sanctions against those who contravene the rules or who commit offences. Here again, there must be sufficient personnel to develop, execute and enforce this educational programme.

The solution which the hon. member for Rissik wants is no solution at all. He admits that the growing number of Black people who are using Rissik station are people who come to work in the geographic area around that station, primarily as domestic servants. Apart from the moral issues involved in using people to work in and clean our homes and for whom we want separate facilities, there is the other issue, which is that these people are almost certainly as frustrated and as irritated by the very problems the hon. member for Rissik raises.

Commuter problems, indeed all problems connected with amenities, must be deracialized and solutions sought along the lines I have already suggested. Most thinking Blacks, Coloureds and Indians know much better than the hon. member for Rissik what the worst aspects of overcrowding in commuter facilities mean. I am confident that those people will not propose racial solutions to these problems. In fact, to do so in South Africa, indeed in the world, is irresponsible, inflammatory and tantamount to looking for confrontation. South Africa, at this time in its history, needs attitudes like those of the hon. member for Rissik like it needs a hole in its head. We live in the 20th century and very soon we shall be living in the 21st century. We also live in Africa, an urbanizing Africa with rising expectations. We should like to see every racial reference ripped off every commuter facility in South Africa and replaced by better facilities and more personnel to ensure that decent, law-abiding people of all races can travel in peace and comfort.

I want to deal with one or two matters of minor detail. Firstly, there is the question of computer facilities. Both the railways and the airways make use of these computer facilities. The aircraft computer facility seems to be overloaded as there are often breakdowns and problems with that computer. I am sure that that is receiving the attention of the hon. the Minister. Then there is the question of railway bookings. I quite often use mainline facilities and it seems to me that the computer operation is not ideal. The train managers or controllers often complain that the computer facilities are not as good as the old manual facilities. Furthermore, and this is purely a practical matter, they do have problems with the size of the sheets of paper on their clipboards. This creates difficulty for them and travellers.

Finally, the hon. the Minister’s reply on the question of housing for Blacks was quite unconvincing. In Durban do there have to be 6 000 men available on stand-by for emergencies in the Durban coastal area? I find this astonishing. However, it seems to me the hon. the Minister gave us the real truth when he told us what it would cost to provide family housing. That then is the real reason. It is a political matter to provide family housing for employees of the S.A. Transport Services. Nevertheless, we hope the hon. the Minister will have the courage to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by replying to the hon. member for Berea. First of all the hon. member said that the immediate future presented a sombre picture. That is so. The immediate future, financially speaking, does not present a shiny or bright picture. The hon. the Minister of Finance is losing over R2 000 million revenue on the gold price. Nobody can argue about that point. There is also a severe drought throughout the country. There are also the increases in salaries that have to be met. In addition, the whole situation in the countries of our trading partners is deflationary. It is upsetting. We are receiving far fewer orders for our export goods than in the past. Exports to the United Kingdom and the European countries is definitely very much down on previous years. So it is indeed a sombre picture. But we faced an even worse situation in 1975. It might take us another year or even 18 months before we can show a greater growth rate in this country so as not to have unemployment. A growth rate of merely 2% will create unemployment in our country.

*There is no point arguing about it. This is indeed a sombre picture, and it would have an effect on any budget. The hon. member for Berea rightly said that inflation would increase as a result of this budget. Every price increase is inflationary. The hon. member singled out certain rates. He referred to rates 1, 3, 6 and 8 which increased by 16% to 18%. This is correct, for example with regard to margarine, to which the hon. member referred. On other consumer goods there are increases of more than 15%, which is the average. I have said that this is an average of 15% on our turnover. However, we must make ends meet, and that is why we have this budget.

†The hon. member again referred to passenger services and cross-subsidization. I admitted that we cannot have a different way of financing this organization. We have to cross-subsidize. The hon. member then asked me to inform private enterprise before introducing the Franzsen proposals. I can give him the assurance that we shall inform them. I do not think that they will be in complete agreement with our proposals of one-third from the employer, one-third from the employee and one-third from the Government. However, we will have discussions with them in this regard.

The hon. member also asked me what we were doing to promote marketing. Let me say that, among other things, we have this “40-off” scheme to encourage people over the age of 60 years not to travel during peak periods. This is one way of marketing our services. The hon. member also said that public transport in urban areas lagged behind. However, that is not all the Government’s fault.

No, I did not say that.

Take, for instance, the Johannesburg municipality. They have found that it is not financially or economically viable for them to have underground trains. That is one of our problems. If we had underground trains like European countries have, public transport in our country would be better than it is today. I want to tell the hon. member for Berea that he raised certain points here in regard to which I do not differ with him.

You would need at least a million people to make an underground train system viable.

Even more than that.

*I shall come back at a later stage to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Berea.

The hon. member for Gezina was quite right when he said that one cannot pass the 15% increase on to the consumer. Let us take the example of a tin of jam which must be transported from the canning factory at Dal Josafat in Paarl to Johannesburg. Those transport costs will increase by 0,03 cents. Therefore one cannot say that the cost of conveyance of that tin of jam will increase by 15%. The hon. member for Gezina understood the position correctly. One has to divide it up. It is 15% overall.

The hon. member also referred to non-profitable services and asked that we act judiciously in this regard. I just want to say to hon. members that in cases where we withdraw non-profitable services we shall consult the member of Parliament and MPC in that area, because this may result in bus services being introduced. Take, for example, the train service from Wellington to Paarl. This service has an average occupancy rate of 22%. We shall not summarily terminate that train service before making arrangements with private companies to introduce bus services. We shall arrange matters so as to cause the least possible disruption.

The hon. member also referred to the Mabopane-Pretoria train service which is underutilized. The hon. member is correct. This is due to the Belle Ombré station which has not yet been completed and certain problems we have experienced with Bophuthatswana. These matters are at present receiving our attention so that that train service can now be fully occupied. This has resulted in traffic congestion on the roads in the hon. member’s constituency. However, I shall keep the hon. member informed. I thank the hon. member for his contribution and I shall come back in a moment to the small boy he referred to, to indicate what we can do in this regard due to his initiative.

The hon. member for Langlaagte disappointed me. The hon. member spoke about the staff hostel at Langlaagte. He told me that he would not be present when I replied to the debate. I wonder if the hon. member did in fact read what my reply was in this regard. The hon. member came here and created the impression—and I find this disappointing—that we were acting unfairly. He intimated that the complex at New Canada was going to cost R92 million and that it was earmarked for Blacks. The insinuation is: What are we doing for the White people? I wrote to the hon. member and told him that an investigation had been instituted into the possibility of enlarging or replacing the Louw Geldenhuys staff accommodation at Langlaagte. At present, adequate accommodation is available in the Rand area for unmarried male employees, and therefore there is no justification at present for the building of new staff accommodation for the staff.

I have your letter, Mr. Minister.

It is expected that renovation of the existing staff accommodation will be completed by the end of February 1983. We are in the process of renovating it at the moment. However, the hon. member must understand that these people are not obliged to live here. The people that are accommodated there are drivers and other people who receive substantial salaries. However, the hon. member mentions the case of New Canada and states that there are people there earning R100 and R200 per month. These are the Blacks who are there and for whom we are making provision, but not at R10 000 per head. Sport facilities, recreation facilities, kitchens and all are provided, but surely the hon. member cannot say that this costs us R10 000 per person for accommodation. He is creating the wrong impression.

Have you seen the kitchens at Langlaagte?

Sir, that is unnecessary.

There is no sports field within a radius of 10 miles from there.

That is unnecessary. It is purely a question of accommodating workers at a place when they are simply unable to sleep at their homes. However, many of these people prefer not to stay in the hostel. These are people who want to sleep at home. Their salaries are such that they prefer to rent private accommodation. These are two entirely different matters which the hon. member is raising.

The hon. member spoke about the “dop” system. There is a specific connotation attached to a “dop” system in our country. Thinking about what happened under the old “dop” system in the Western Cape leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. We have had criticism. We see this ourselves, and the steward and the air hostess tell us that on a flight from Johannesburg to Durban—which lasts only 35 minutes—it is impossible to serve meals on an aircraft full of people. We therefore stopped serving meals. Those people say that if they have to push a trolley loaded with refreshments down the aisle and be given change, they are unable to finish serving before the flight lands. The size of our aircraft has increased and there is only one narrow aisle in which to push a trolley. Moreover, it is also our aim to reduce staff. In any event, we then said that we would serve a free drink.

What did we mean by a drink? More than 50% is tomato juice. I have just received a note from the hon. member for Rosettenville. In it he states that he made a point of asking on this morning’s flight. More than 50% is tomato juice. I expressly spelt it out—the hon. member was not present at the moment—that a free drink meant coffee, tea, milk, lemon juice or any other cool-drink. Only the person who wants an alcoholic drink gets it. If it is said that our intention is to encourage people to drink, that we want to introduce a “dop” system, then I say that this is a total misrepresentation.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed quoted from the Financial Mail.

Did you write the article?

No, certainly not. No, really, I do not write in the Financial Mail; perhaps in the sports section, but otherwise definitely not.

I am pleased that the hon. member quoted from that specific article. He said that we were keeping pace with reality. Indeed, the budget did keep pace with reality. We gave and took. Even though this year we gave a little less than we took, next year we may be able to do it differently.

He asked the Opposition to provide us with solutions, because the Opposition agreed that we should grant salary increases. It was agreed that we should give the Black man 17,5% in an effort to achieve parity, and the White man, 15%. It was agreed that we should grant everyone who retired before 1973 up to 20%. Everyone was grateful for that. However, I said that that would cost R416 million. We were requested to continue with the capital programme. If we were to prune this capital programme further, we should have thousands of unemployed people in the country. That, then, is why we also have essential capital works which are being proceeded with.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga too said that the budget was inflationary. The increases in so far as the harbours are concerned were high, but for five years there were no increases in that regard. Should we find that our ship repairs and services lag behind, we could always again have a look at an incentive for people to come to our harbours from Maputo and all those places to have their ships built.

He mentioned two steps per plane. We have steps on order. Let me point out that today, even under today’s circumstances, with not enough steps, it does not take one 15 minutes longer to get off the plane. It should be borne in mind that should we get additional steps, we would also have to employ additional personnel. All these items will have to be paid for. In any event, we have additional steps on order.

It was suggested that our airports should fall under S.A. Airways. I think I have spelt it out before that if we were to put the airports under SAA, we would get criticized by Lufthansa, El Al, TAP and all the other airlines run by private enterprise. They maintain that an independent body should control the airports. We cannot expect them to agree that their competitor should control the airport. Therefore, an independent body like the Department of Transport should control the airports. Such an independent body can also act as a referee. If their opponent is to control the airport, they will never be satisfied. One can go to France, Belgium and all overseas airports, and one will find that the company which operates as a carrier does not control the airport. On the other hand under our arrangement we get money from the central Government with which we can build an international airport. Were it not for this situation, we would have had to add the cost of erecting airports to the air fares. Where else would we have obtained the money? Now we get it from the central Government, it falls under the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North—I will shortly come to the hon. member for Rissik—referred to the computer facilities at airports. It is so that we have new stock on order. I have already dealt with the question of housing for Blacks and unmarried personnel during the Committee Stage.

*I should like to refer to a few final aspects. The hon. member for De Kuilen—the chairman of the study group on transport services—replied very effectively to the speech by the hon. member for Berea when he said, inter alia that: “We must remain solvent.”

†I think the hon. member for Berea also has appreciation for the fact that we must stay solvent. The hon. member for De Kuilen also said that the South African economy will again experience an upsurge and in that way things will eventually rectify themselves. I fully agree with the hon. member and I am glad he reacted so positively to this budget, which in certain respects is shocking. I agree it is shocking to increase some prices by up to 17% or 18%.

*However, the hon. member sketched the position clearly by underscoring the positive side, viz. that the economy will boom again, and when then happens, we shall be prepared for what will happen.

As regards expenditure on new projects I want to say that we have investigated everything thoroughly. We envisaged spending R2 750 million on capital programmes, and we pruned that by more than R500 million. Surely that is responsible budgeting. We also tried to reduce the working expenditure and took efficiency into account. Our total input of labour and capital has shown an average annual increase of 2,9% over the past nine years.

However, what has happened as regards the ratio of staff to turnover? If one does a calculation, taking into account our growth over the past 10 years and the expansion of our staff, one finds evidence of efficiency. Our volume of traffic has increased enormously, far outstripping the increase in staff. Since April 1973 our rates have increased by 109%. In contrast, the consumer price index has increased by 187%; the combined wholesale and retail product price index by 240% and that of fuel by 1 049%. I can give hon. members the assurance that the financial situation of this enterprise is sound as a bell and its assets are being properly maintained. Good progress is being made with the improvement of the debt ratio by way of the policy of present costs and self-financing.

What is the position as regards our labour relations? Labour relations are on a sound footing and we enter the difficult year with confidence. My test of any business enterprise is to apply the following criterion: What is its growth? What financial discipline is applied, and what is the position of the labour force in regard to the enterprise? On the basis of these factors, the situation in the S.A. Transport Services is very healthy.

The hon. member for Gezina made a very commendable request when he asked that we bring Fransie Geringer’s little friend, Mickey Hayes, to South Africa. I have already said to the hon. member that the Iata rules do not permit this. I received in my postbox a circular which the hon. member wrote to every member of Parliament. Before that, the management of the S.A. Transport Services as well as the S.A. Airways had each opened a list. The employees of the S.A. Transport Services will see to it that this little boy and his family will be conveyed, if not free of charge, then at the Apex rate, with as many other benefits as possible. I cannot spell out all these benefits at this point, but I wish to assure the hon. member for Gezina that his representations have resulted in our getting this praiseworthy reaction from the management of the S.A. Transport Services and of the S.A. Airways. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to the hon. member for Rissik.

He just talked a lot of nonsense.

I gave the hon. member for Rissik a polite reply. As far as I know, the hon. member for Rissik and I only differ in regard to what is to come out of the President’s Council. I read in editorials in the weekend newspapers that I should have told him to go and jump in the lake.

I cannot swim very well, you know!

The hon. member for Rissik fought an election with us on the basis of the 12-point plan, in which express mention is made of the acceptance of the principle of separate schools—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North does not want to know anything about that—and separate communities, where at all possible, as being fundamental to favourable social circumstances. I do not care what the Opposition newspapers write, but my reply to the hon. member was that a connotation is given to the concept of separateness in that the impression is given that one group is crowding out another. As far as Rissik station is concerned, here I stated expressly that if a thousand people boarded or alighted from trains on that station and 900 of them were Black, ninetenths of the facilities for boarding the trains would be set aside for the Blacks, while one-tenth would have to be set aside for the Whites. However, his request was— and this is my party’s policy—that we should not cause confrontation in this country by having a minority group crowded out or overwhelmed by a majority group under difficult circumstances. In the past it was felt that they should simply be given the poorer facilities. I mention the example of a station which has to be organized so that the biggest dining room is given to the Blacks. However, if the White man or the Black man comes to me and says that he would like a pleasant dining-room for his colour group alone, what is wrong with that? There is no difference between my policy and that of that hon. member. Therefore the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and I will always be in two different camps. Let us spell it out clearly to one another. He shall be in the Opposition for the rest of his life, while I shall be in the governing party with this policy for the rest of my life.

†That is the short and the sweet of it.

*I just wish to conclude with a few personal remarks. In the first place, now that we have reached the end of the debate there are some messages of thanks I wish to convey. The department has published an annual report, and I am very sorry that hardly anyone referred to it. It is an annual report few other Government departments could equal. It has been neatly compiled and has photographs of all our top men. It is a pity my photograph does not also appear in that book, because it would really have been a very good photograph. [Interjections.] In any event, the men whose photographs appear in this book have devoted a lifetime to our department. Some of them are about to retire on pension. For example, there is Mr. Jannie Venter, Assistant General Manager (Staff), who is retiring on 30 April, after 44 years of faithful service. Following on his heels is Mr. Koos Verster Assistant General Manager (Manpower) who is retiring on 1 June, also after 44 years of faithful service. Just consider what that means: 44 years of faithful service to the same organization.

Almost as long as my service to the NP.

On my left in the officials’ bench is Mr. C. van Coller, Assistant General Manager (Commerce), who is retiring on 31 July after 45 years of service. Lastly, in chronological order, I come to Mr. E. A. Fenske, Assistant General Manager (Technical) who is retiring on 30 September after 36 years of faithful service. Mr. Fenske started as an artisan and interrupted his service for a short while to become an engineer. I convey my sincere gratitude to these men for their faithful service. How can one keep a service like this in operation without faithful and loyal staff? Thus many people will understand when I say that I develop a feeling of love towards a man whom I have worked with for years, and that we have a very good understanding. We argue and create a fuss, and I say to Mr. Van Coller: “Really, man, we cannot increase the tariffs so much”. Then he gives his reasons. In this way we argue with the management until late into the night, and at long last we see that we have done the right thing after all. When Dr. Loubser accompanied me across the street to this House today, he said to me: “This is the last time in a lifetime of service that I am going to the discussion of a budget in this capacity.” He said it with a touch of sadness, but was able to add: “I am leaving behind me an undertaking which has people who are able to take over the reins.” Being a good General Manager he gathered around him a group of men who could take over without disruption. I am sincerely grateful to him.

In the Ministry we have a new man as Administrative Secretary, Mr. John Miller. I thank him and his staff for their service and for the work he is doing in respect to our relations with the Commissioners and also the management.

Finally, I want to extend an invitation to all hon. members to come to us with their problems every Thursday morning. If an hon. member has a problem, he can contact me. We have the machinery to investigate the problems hon. members may encounter in their constituencies. It has happened that I have walked into my office to hear from our staff that an MP has forgotten to book his place, although he has to be on a flight within an hour and a half. When I see what Steph Van Blommestein and Hennie Terblanche do to accommodate MP’s, I want to thank them, too. I also want to thank all hon. members, on whichever side of the fence they may be sitting, for the attitude they have displayed in this debate. This was really a “smart” debate. With that I conclude.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of this Bill. In principle the aim of the Bill is to place all natural scientists, particularly those in private consulting practice, under the control of an all-embracing South African Council for Natural Scientists. The reasons that have been put forward to justify this, are chiefly threefold in nature. The first is that there are similar regulations with regard to other professions, for instance engineering. The second is that the measure will assist in eliminating overlapping between border disciplines. The third is that provision is now being made for a register of natural scientists which would then grant a special status to the natural scientists, which would mean that more people would come forward for training in the natural sciences. None of these three arguments that were put forward during the Second Reading Stage and the Committee Stage actually convinced us that this Bill is in fact desirable. I do not think that the registration of natural scientists would grant them a status higher than they have at present. Nor do I think that it would be an important factor at all in attracting a larger number of people who would present themselves for training in the natural sciences. Time will have to tell us to what extent the Bill will eliminate overlapping. I simply do not believe that the problem of overlapping is indeed so great that it warrants a Bill with these far-reaching proposals. Thirdly, the fact that there are similar regulations with regard to other professions, has not yet convinced us that it should be done in this sphere, too, particularly if one takes into account the fact that the natural sciences as such do not comprise a profession. What is being envisaged here, is to grant professional status to branches of the natural sciences within the broad framework of the natural sciences. In that respect this measure therefore differs radically with, for instance, the measure with regard to engineering. In that sense I nevertheless believe that the impression is being created that the proverbial sledge-hammer is being used to kill a gnat. The impression is strengthened if one takes into account the fact that the principle of determining tariffs for natural scientists is not applicable to people who are in private consulting practice only. According to the definition in clause 1, people who work for a salary are therefore not affected by this measure, and since the vast majority—I do not think the statement was questioned here—of natural scientists are not in private consulting practice, but indeed are employed by larger companies and industries—someone told me that probably 90% of natural scientists are employed by companies—this regulation will also apply to a small number of scientists.

The definition of the work that must be done by natural scientists is more comprehensive, viz. the entire aspect of job reservation. In view of the exceptions in clause 20(3) with regard to employment by the State, i.e. when the Minister grants permission for the State and all its branches not to consider itself bound to the job reservation laid down by the council, as well as the possible exemption for which provision is being made in clause 31, it would appear that the possibility exists for a tremendous apparatus to be created here which is in fact going to be of limited scope and value for the objectives of the Bill.

During the Second Reading as well as the Committee Stage it appeared that the greatest objections applied to the provisions in clause 7, particularly the powers that are being placed in the hands of the Minister. We argued the issue in the Committee Stage and I believe the Minister has convinced us that in this regard he can act only on the advice and recommendation of the council. Therefore, he has no independent jurisdiction to draw up rules himself in this regard.

Except for the discharge of the councillors.

Yes, that is correct. As a result of this, some of our main objections to the Bill have fallen away. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister could assure us that this is not the intention and that, according to the legal advice that he has obtained, he does not in fact have those powers.

We find it something of a pity that there should be this infringement on private initiative in this way, which in our opinion is unnecessary. We would rather have seen this matter being left to supply and demand, i.e. with regard to the nature of the work as well as the tariffs that are being laid down as guidelines.

However, I nevertheless want to express my appreciation towards the hon. the Minister for the amendments that he has accepted, because I feel the Bill has been improved by doing so.

In conclusion, there is one thing that I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and this is the question of appeal against decisions made by the council or its committees. I am referring in particular to the provisions of clause 22. It is a general philosophical question that arises here, and I should like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister, who is a lawyer himself, so that we can see whether we could not make another arrangement in this regard.

This Bill follows in the steps of a large number of existing Acts, in terms of which subordinate statutory bodies are in fact being empowered to act as a court, with regard to procedure, right to issue summonses, the penalties that it can impose and the hearing of evidence. In a certain sense it is being said that this type of arrangement is acceptable, particularly with regard to certain spheres. Therefore, what happens is that someone is tried by people who are his equals, and that they would be better qualified to pass judgment on the question of whether the man who is being accused, has committed a crime or not. Therefore, they are considered to be much more competent to pass this judgment than outsiders who are not familiar with the sphere of activities, would be. I appreciate that standpoint to a certain extent.

However, if we look at this straightforwardly, it appears that we are dealing here with a situation in which, in the first place, such a statutory body draws up the rules, and in the second instance, also acts as prosecutor when it is of the opinion that those rules have been broken. In the third instance, that same body also has the power to impose penalties, and in the fourth place the fines that are imposed by that body, flow into its own coffers. I believe that the hon. the Minister will concede me the point if I say that it is in fact an unheard of situation that the body that takes action, is also the body that creates the crime, that is the prosecutor in the case, that passes judgment, and then in addition benefits by the fine that is imposed.

It has definitely not happened often in the history of South Africa that we have been faced with a situation of this nature. I would nevertheless recommend to the hon. the Minister, one day when he has the time to do so, to look up what the results were when these four principles were applied in the trial of the Zulu chief Langalibalele, in the seventies of the previous century. It led to a tremendous outcry both here and abroad, with regard to what was considered an injustice that was committed here. I do not want to waste the time of the House. However, hon. members will recall that Chief Langalibalele ignored the instructions of the man who was at the head of Black administration in Natal, Sir Theopilus Shepstone.

As was customary in the local administration of justice at the time, Shepstone called together his own court—a court consisting of himself and other Black chiefs—and imposed a very large fine on chief Langalibalele as a result of his disobedience. The protest that was raised against that decision at the time, was in fact based on the four points to which I have just referred. Surely one simply cannot have a body that draws up the rules, and acts as prosecutor at the same time, imposes punishment and in addition benefits from the fine that has been imposed. Basically this is a faulty legal principle. I want to point out that we encounter this same thing in other legislation in South Africa too.

It was largely due to the agitation against the verdict in the case against chief Langalibalele that forced Sir Theopilus Shepstone to resign his position in Natal. He was succeeded by someone else as head of Black administration, following which he turned to another matter—the annexation of the Transvaal in 1876. However, that is just in passing. I think there is a tie between these two things.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister and the House to ensure that in future we should rather avoid a situation of the nature that I have just sketched. I feel that basically it is contrary to our own concept of the administration of justice and rule of law, as well as of the objectivity of a court of law.

Now there is only one more thing for me to say. This is that I hope that this council will function properly. I hope that it will eliminate the existing problems, particularly with regard to overlapping and that, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, should real problems arise in the application of this legislation, that he would feel free to come back to this House to amend the legislation here. We support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, by passing this Bill, we are now creating a controlling council for the natural sciences profession.

I want to point out that the natural sciences profession lies somewhere between that of the professional engineer and the medical practitioner. The medical profession includes people such as dentists, general practitioners, chemical pathologists, radiologists, surgeons, etc. Therefore they are people who practice across a very broad spectrum. Similarly the engineering profession includes people such as civil, chemical, mechanical, metallurgical and electrical engineers. In the natural sciences profession one finds people like chemists, physicists, geologists, botanists, etc. These are people who study these directions and then practice in them.

In my opinion it is interesting to note that in terms of the Professional Engineers’ Act one cannot register as a civil engineer or as a mechanical engineer. One registers as a professional engineer, and then one is subject to the provisions of the professional code of conduct. I want to quote from the Gazette of 17 July 1981, para. 10.4, which reads—

In other words, if someone were trained as a civil engineer and in the course of his career he gained some knowledge of certain spheres of mechanical engineering, there is nothing to prevent him from specializing in those areas and rendering services. Nor do we register someone as a chemist or as a physicist in terms of this legislation, but as a natural scientist. I assume that the professional code of conduct will probably be similar, viz. that he will not be able to do work for which he has not been trained.

The three professions to which I have referred, viz. the medical profession, the engineering profession and the natural sciences profession, all require a fairly long period of study before the profession can be entered. Medical practitioners have to obtain two degrees at university, viz. the degrees M.B. and Ch.B. This takes a minimum of six years. Then there is another year of internship. In other words, only after seven years can he enter the profession properly. Professional engineers study together in an engineering faculty during their first year at university; and then they must study for a minimum of four years before they can obtain a B.Sc degree in engineering. After that they have to serve for three years as engineers-in-training. In other words, it also takes seven years to enter the profession as a full-fledged professional engineer. In terms of the Bill that is before the House at the moment, a natural scientist also requires four years to obtain a degree, or the equivalent thereof, as may be laid down by the council or by regulation by the Minister. After that he still has to gain three years appropriate experience as a scientist-in-training. In other words, it also takes seven years after matriculation before such a person can be registered as a natural scientist. Medical practitioners can all put “Dr.” in front of their names; engineers “Pr.Eng.” behind their names, and in terms of this Bill the natural scientist will be able to write “Sci.Nat.” behind their names.

It was alleged during the Second Reading debate, and once again by the hon. member Prof. Olivier a moment ago—with which I still cannot agree—that registration as such is not a solution for counteracting the drop in the number of people who are interested in that particular profession. It was also alleged that mere registration would not be able to grant status to a profession. I want to agree in one respect, viz. that the mere act of registration does not grant one anything, but the controlling council that we are introducing here, will I believe work towards creating the necessary status where it does not exist at present. In the first place it can do this by its disciplinary powers. I have indicated previously that there are three ways in which the disciplinary powers, as defined in the Act, can be implemented. The first is by means of a warning. In the professional engineering practice and in other professions too this is generally the method that is followed. If someone is found guilty, the object is not to break the person, but to build up the profession to the benefit of the community. It is enough of a disgrace to be convicted of a crime and then be called onto the carpet to be held accountable for one’s crime. Furthermore fines can be imposed, and in this respect I differ with the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The fines are extremely small. The fines, as laid down in the Professional Engineers’ Act, 1968, are R100 and R500. Now we see that the fines that are being laid down in the legislation that is before the House at the moment are identical to those that appear in the Statute Book 14 years later. Therefore, they have not been increased by an inflation factor of say five. The fines are very small. It costs the council much more than that fine that it imposes to prosecute someone. It must appoint an advocate for the trial and this is an expensive procedure that could cost something in the order of thousands of rands in order to impose a fine of say R100 in the end. Therefore I do not agree that there is a strong argument that the body that carries out the prosecution is enriched by the fine. I think it is a great loss to the body to institute any prosecution.

To reply further to the argument of the hon. member Prof. Olivier, I want to point that it is the leaders of this profession who serve on the committees of inquiry. They are some of the best people in the country and I cannot accept that those people would easily impose a wrong penalty for the sake of prosecuting, for instance, of whatever. As I say, the aim is to build up the profession to the benefit of the community.

It is a well-known fact that the implementation of the Professional Engineers’ Act resulted in the educational or academic standards of the engineering profession in South Africa benefiting a great deal. Negotiations were conducted with universities, through the co-operation between the Council for Professional Engineers and the Federation of Societies of Professional Engineers, and uniform courses were introduced so that we know exactly what we mean today when we say that a person has obtained a degree in engineering. Furthermore I want to point out the confidence that the public has gained in the profession as a result of the deeds of such a council. I want to refer here once again to the code of conduct of the professional engineer.

Paragraph 10.1 reads as follows—

I want to state that by placing this legislation on the Statute Book, we are creating a specific lebensraum for the natural scientists on South Africa and that in doing so we are placing pioneering legislation on the Statute Book. When the Professional Engineers Act was passed in 1968, it was pioneering legislation as well. In Canada the position is that some of the provinces had laws to control the engineering profession. In the USA there are certain States that have such laws, but there is no federal law. We here in South Africa took the lead with legislation like the Professional Engineers Act. In the United Kingdom there is a charter under which the engineers have to register, but of course engineers do not enjoy any legal authority under that charter.

I want to contend that one has a degree of distortion when one has people with equal training who are doing similar work and working in a team, whilst some of the members of that team only enjoy professional status.

When I was in the USA, I encountered scientists who had left Europe and the United Kingdom and the reason they gave for doing so, was that there was a better lebensraum for them in the USA because the trade unions there were not so oppressive and in general there were not so many restrictions.

I want to mention another example of the destruction of lebensraum. I have been told on good authority that there is a certain European university where the trade unions may also nominate a member to the appointment committee. If the appointment committee is in session and that member of the trade union happened to be the cleaner, then the norms that he would have applied would be how many spoons of sugar one candidate took in his tea in contrast to another candidate. Such a pattern does not offer a lebensraum for a natural scientist.

As I said, with this legislation we are engaged in pioneering work and today I feel very happy that we have now reached the Third Reading of this important legislation.

I now want to refer to the funds of the council. Where is the council going to obtain its funds? In terms of clause 7 it comes from registration fees, examination fees and subscriptions. Furthermore in terms of section 8(4)(a) the Minister, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, may advance funds to the council from moneys voted by Parliament. I want to point out that the Council for Professional Engineers obtained R35 000 in this way to start with. That money was repaid at the prevailing interest rate. If one looks at the situation today, one finds in the latest annual report of the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers that they have investments amounting to R700 000. Therefore they have repaid their debt and now they also have R700 000 invested. The point that I want to make, is that we cannot ask a great deal of money from the taxpayer through this legislation; the council that is to be formed will be self-supporting on the strength of the money that it collects from its members.

If one looks at clauses 18(13) and 18(14) one finds that when the Bill comes into effect a four-year degree in the natural sciences, granted by any South African university, will be recognized as the examination required for entry to the profession. I accept that the council will recommend to the Minister that other equal qualifications will also count as entry requirements. Here I am thinking for instance of training at a technikon. Certain courses at technikons will inevitably have to be recognized as entrance requirements.

The report of the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers was placed on our desks recently, and in it I read that there are 9 686 professional engineers and 3 482 engineers in training in South Africa. Therefore it is a ratio of approximately three to one. The category of engineers in training comprises a very important category in the engineering profession. In a similar way the current Bill provides for scientists in training. The S.A. Council for Professional Engineers has approved of as many as 100 training programmes at various organizations with a view to the training of engineers in training. On page 4 of the abovementioned report I read—

I also want to refer to the last paragraph on page 4 of the abovementioned annual report, and I want to read it by replacing the words “professional engineer” where they occur, with the word “scientist” because it should apply in exactly the same way—

With these few words I should like to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of this House. Actually, I am merely rising to thank the hon. members for their contributions. Many thanks to the hon. member for Pretoria East, who is himself a natural scientist and for whom it is a great day to see legislation being passed that will at long last regulate his profession as well.

In reply to what the hon. member Prof. Olivier said, I should like to make a few observations. As far as the motivation for the legislation is concerned, the hon. member will remember that I did not single out numbers or status of natural scientists as the only motivation. Since we are discussing this in any case, the hon. member will probably concede that the registration of professions definitely has an important symbolic significance. This probably applies to most professions. In this connection it is important to bear in mind that the initiative for the registration of natural scientists did not come from the government, but from the natural scientists themselves, organized as they are in the Joint Council of Scientific Societies. The merits of the registration of natural scientists have been debated by the council, which has been the mouthpiece for the various affiliated societies—there are 11 main societies and 12 affiliated groups—since 1978, which more or less coincides with the passing of the Professional Engineers’ Act. I want to refer at once to what the hon. member Prof. Olivier said, namely that the vast majority of natural scientists are not in private practice and that the legislation before us at present excludes scientists who are lecturing and doing research, and will therefore apply only to a minority of natural scientists. I concede that point. But this, of course, is not only true of this professional group; it also applies to other professional groups. The fact of the matter is that I do not think this House should object when professions want to organize themselves and want to take steps to discipline themselves. I do not think we should stand in their way.

Negotiations took place over a long period—I have already indicated that these have been under way since 1978—within the ranks of the natural scientists themselves and within the ranks of those persons employing the natural scientists. A large number of natural scientists are employed by universities, and initially there were in fact objections from the Committee of University Principles. I want to give the hon. member all the facts. Eventually it was agreed that a referendum should be held among the natural scientists themselves, and 90% of them—this also included those of them who were not in private practice—voted in favour of the registration of natural scientists. The hon. member will recall that I pointed out that one of the most important needs of the times in which we are living is the establishment of a technological infrastructure. The natural scientist can make a significant contribution, if not a predominant one, in this connection. Therefore it seems to me that if we take steps to enhance the status and image of these professional groups, it must of necessity encourage and be of advantage in the recruiting for these specific professions.

The second point the hon. member made and to which I want to react, is his attitude to disciplinary action, where we have the situation that one and the same body draws up the rules, acts as prosecutor, takes charge of the hearing, is the judge and also determines the punishment. The hon. member feels that we are creating an inherently dangerous situation in this way. However, it is not unusual for professions to discipline themselves. Nor is it unusual for professions that organize themselves into professional organizations and maintain discipline within those organizations, to accommodate these powers within the same administrative or committee system. Although it is possible— one cannot exclude the theoretical possibility—that excesses may occur in this connection, one must nevertheless take the general practice and the reality to be decisive. Exactly the same rules apply in the medical profession and, what is also very important, in Government departments, specifically the Police and the S.A. Defence Force. These organizations draw up the rules themselves, deal with the prosecution themselves, take charge of the hearing and decide on the form of punishment. I think that for the purposes of applying disciplining—and all four of these facets are built into this practice—it is probably best that this be done professionally.

During the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage the hon. member also argued about the question of the right of appeal when someone is found guilty. My information is that if someone is found guilty in terms of the Act, he has a right of appeal to the courts. That specific facet is therefore covered.

I personally believe that we have taken an historic step, as the hon. member for Pretoria East said, and that in this specific connection we are probably world leaders in the field of the kind of legislation we are discussing here today, as well as in the field of legislation in connection with professional engineers. I concede that there can be very strong arguments against registration, but I think we must decide here what is best on balance. The standpoint of those hon. members now that we have debated the matter, and their support for the Third Reading, leads me to believe that I have succeeded in convincing them that it is better on balance that we agree to this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The responsible hon. Ministers stated in this House, at the time when the legislation controlling the relevant professions was discussed, that it would be reconsidered after the professions had put their house in order. The organizations representing the professions were empowered by law to perform certain functions. I think I can state without fear of contradiction that the legal powers bestowed upon the associations are imperfect and that the progress achieved can mainly be ascribed to voluntary efforts on the part of these professions.

The associations representing the professions have informed me that they have gone as far as possible, under present conditions, with the performance of their statutory functions, and made representations to me to create more extensive measures to control the professions. I was also informed that the associations are experiencing problems with the performance of their statutory functions of control, and this could come into conflict with the performance of their functions as representative bodies which should have the promotion of the interests of their members as a first priority. In the light of the above, and in the interests of patients, I have come to the conclusion that the time has come for the necessary legislation to be created for the control of the ethical conduct of practitioners on a more extensive basis.

A draft Bill embodying such measures was published in the Gazette for information and comment at the beginning of last year. In response to the publication the Medical Association of South Africa expressed the opinion that the professions should be controlled by the South African Medical and Dental Council. I discussed the matter with the executive committee of the council and it was decided that it should be considered by the council. For this reason the legislation was not introduced during the second session last year. The matter was considered by the council at its meeting in October last year and the following decision was adopted—

1. (i) the council had carefully considered the Bill to provide for the control of the practice of the professions of chiropractor, homeopath, naturopath, osteopath and herbalist, the documents relating to the matter which had been placed before the council, and had debated the matter most thoroughly;
2. (ii) there was strong and clear consensus amongst members of council that the practice of the professions mentioned in the Bill was not based on scientific grounds and could therefore not be related to the practice of medicine and other professions covered by the provisions of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, 1974 (Act 56 of 1974);
3. (iii) in view of the above the council, as it was obliged to do in terms of section 3 of Act 56 of 1974, would advise the Minister that it did not see its way clear to affording recognition to or co-operating with the so-called associated health professions described in the draft Bill.

This resolution was passed by a majority of one vote. I am still of opinion that all the professions practising a curative service should be controlled by the council in terms of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, 1974, but in view of the opinion held by the council, I have no alternative but to introduce legislation in order to control the ethical conduct of practitioners of these professions in the interest of patients. I must emphasize that the Director-General has on my behalf done everything possible at council and executive committee meetings to bring home the desirability of having these associated health professions under the control and jurisdiction of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. The decision of the council is to my mind short-sighted and no blame must ever in the future be laid by the medical profession at the door of the Minister or the department. We have indeed done our best, but to no avail.

The provisions of the Bill are based on present legislation controlling the medical and related professions with a few modifications. I am therefore not going to discuss the provisions of the Bill in detail. However, I wish to invite attention to some of the modifications.

In clause 4(2) provision is made for the South African Associated Health Service Professions Board, the proposed body to control the professions, may perform functions in the territory of a State which formerly formed part of the Republic. This provision is made in order to assist the States concerned, should they request assistance.

Hon. members will notice that the aforementioned board will be constituted by the appointment by the Minister of its members, some from lists of names submitted by the associations referred to in clause 5, and that no provision is made for the election of members. It is proposed that this procedure should be followed in order to curtail costs in view of the limited number of practitioners involved who will bear the financial burden of the board by way of registration fees.

Attention is also invited to the persons who are deemed to be or may be registered in terms of the provisions. All the persons registered in terms of the Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Herbalists Act, 1974, or whose names were entered on a list in terms of the Chiropractors Act, 1971, are deemed to be registered in terms of the provisions of the Bill in terms of clause 43(3). The only other persons who can be registered if they do comply with the conditions are chiropractors who were practising their profession on 16 June 1971, and the practitioners of the other professions concerned who were practising their professions on 2 December 1974, the dates on which the present laws came into operation. The only persons who can be registered as students are those persons who were registered provisionally on the date of commencement of this Bill under the Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Herbalists Act, 1974. Clauses 16 and 18 make provision for registration of such persons. Newly qualified practitioners are therefore not registrable in terms of these provisions and this corresponds with the provisions of the present two laws concerned.

In this regard I wish to mention that representations on the draft Bill have been received, especially from chiropractors, that this limitation must be deleted. The main problem I encountered in regard to this is that we have no recognized educational institution in South Africa which offers education for the qualification of practitioners of these professions and which can be controlled, and that under the present laws no provision exists in terms of which the minimum educational requirements or the qualifications recognized for registration can be prescribed. During my recent visit to the USA, I visited an institution accredited with the Department of Education of the Federal Government of that country, which offers courses for the training of persons as chiropractors. There are a number of institutions offering such training in the USA and other parts of the world. The department and I are not in the position to investigate and evaluate such training and to co-ordinate with other statutory bodies charged with control over the training of personnel. I am of the opinion that this function can best be performed by the proposed statutory body of control. I am further of the opinion that it will not be in the best interest of South Africa to make provision for the registration of new practitioners before the questions of training and qualifications, formal rules for ethical conduct and the scope of practice of the different practitioners have been formally regulated. These are matters which must first be sorted out by the proposed board.

It will be noticed that provision is made in clause 16(2) that the Board may amend the registration of homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists, and that the board may also register a person already registered as a practitioner in one of these professions, as a practitioner in another such profession. The South African Homeopathic Association has done its utmost to evaluate the training of practitioners. However, in the course of events the association might have made a mistake in the evaluation of the training of a practitioner, and the practitioners as such were also not au fait with the requirements. The provision is therefore aimed at creating an opportunity for rectifying any mistakes with the registration of practitioners which might have occurred.

The performance of certain acts by practitioners is prohibited in clause 32. Representations have been received that this provision must be deleted, and that matters of this nature must be dealt with under the ethical rules. I quite agree that it would be more convenient to deal with these matters under the ethical rules, but the enforcement of such rules would be entirely in the hands of the proposed board, and if the board should have any different views the purpose of the provisions could be completely disregarded. Furthermore, in any opinion it is not merely a question of ethics, but whether a practitioner should be allowed to perform within the framework of the law certain acts or not, and this is the prerogative of Parliament. I am, therefore, of opinion that the provision should be retained.

This Bill is an endeavour to put the control over the professions on a sound footing and to remove some of the measures which give offence to practitioners. I am well aware of the fact that the chiropractors are dissatisfied because the limitation on the registration of new practitioners is retained, but in view of the circumstances which I have indicated, I am of the opinion that it will be premature to change the position at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. I wish to move the following amendment—

We on this side of the House feel very strongly that such a committee should be appointed. We approached the hon. the Minister last week in this regard, and his reply to our request was in the negative. I am sure the hon. the Minister will allow me to give the reasons submitted by him for not agreeing to the appointment of such a committee. He said, firstly, that the draft legislation had been published for information and comment and, according to him, had also been accepted by the representative bodies of the professions concerned. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister which professions he was referring to. I submit that the medical profession is also concerned about this legislation, although I do not think that the medical profession feels as strongly about the acceptance of this Bill as do the chiropractors, homeopaths, osteopaths etc. I shall therefore be very grateful if we can motivate our reasoning today in a calm and collected manner, and do not become emotional and make accusations that doctors are ganging up against a certain group of people and that there is the fear on the part of the medical profession that, should these people be registered, they may suffer financial loss. The hon. the Minister has just recently refused a 6% increase in doctors’ fees and I am sure he would agree that doctors in South Africa are reasonably well-off. I do not think that doctors will oppose this legislation for any other reason except that they have the interests of the public of South Africa at heart. I accept the hon. the Minister’s statement that the professions covered by this Bill are satisfied, but I think it is important that we should also put the medical profession’s opinion, and then we can discuss the matter.

It is easy for a person to relate the case of an aunt who had a sore elbow which was cured by a chiropractor. What we must do is think and talk scientifically. We must approach this Bill in a completely scientific way in order to understand it properly and come to the best possible arrangement in respect of all patients in South Africa.

*I have the permission of the Medical Association of South Africa to speak in this House about their problems relating to the Bill under discussion. I am therefore entitled to quote the following letter. I believe the hon. the Minister has a copy of it. However, I want hon. members to have a clear impression of how the MASA feels about this matter.

Do you not have the letter they wrote to me? If you have that, you have the whole solution.

Unfortunately I do not have that letter. I do have a letter to Dr. De Beer. I believe that hon. members have the right to hear what the medical profession thinks about this. In the first place, the medical profession is not satisfied with the way in which this legislation has been put forward. In the letter I have before me, it is put as follows—

I believe that this is extremely important—

1. (a) Dat, sover die MVSA se kennis strek, daar nie eens met die S.A. Geneeskundige en Tandheelkundige Raad in hierdie verband geraadpleeg is of aan die raad kennis gegee is van die voomeme om sodanige wetsontwerp te publiseer nie.

The hon. the Minister can tell me whether that is correct or not. This is the letter which I am permitted to quote here today. I quote further—

And this is very important—

1. (a) om behulpsaam te wees met die bevordering van die gesondheid van die bevolking van die Republiek …

Then it continues—

1. (b) om, behoudens die bepalings van die Wet op Verpleging (1957), die Wet op Chiropraktisyns (1971), die Wet op Aptekers (1974), alle aangeleenthede rakende die opleiding van persone in, en die wyse van uitvoering van die praktyke wat nagevolg word i.v.m. die diagnosering, behandeling of voorkoming van liggaamlike of geestesgebreke, ongesteldhede of tekortkominge by die mens te beheer en gesag ten opsigte daarvan uit te oefen;
2. (c) om skakeling op die gebied van die opleiding bedoel in paragraaf (b), in die Republiek sowel as elders, en die standaarde van sodanige opleiding in die Republiek te bevorder;
3. (d) om die Minister van advies te bedien aangaande enige aangeleentheid wat binne die bestek van hierdie Wet val;
4. (e) om inligtinge aangaande aangeleenthede van openbare belang wat deur die raad in die loop van die verrigtinge van sy werksaamhede kragtens hierdie Wet ingewin word, aan die Minister oor te dra.

That is the purpose of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. That is also the purpose of the council in regard to the legislation under discussion. In the same letter it is said that the MASA finds this course of action strange and disturbing. I quote further—

I shall expect the hon. the Minister to react to this in his reply. It sounds to me as if the MASA is not satisfied with the way in which this legislation is being dealt with. Moreover, the MASA is of the opinion …

Did you listen to my Second Reading speech?

I am referring to the MASA now. I am not speaking about the S.A. Medical and Dental Council.

[Inaudible.]

The MASA is of the opinion that the time allowed for comment or representations was totally inadequate. The result has been that the MASA has not been able to inform the members of its branches and groups in this regard and call for their opinions in this regard, something which, in the nature of the matter, it would have liked to do. I quote again from the same letter—

Therefore the first statement I want to try to make is that I believe that everyone in South Africa who is concerned with health services is satisfied with this Bill.

†I think the statement has been made before that chiropractics and homeopathics are not scientifically based and therefore there are some people who will not accept them as members of the health group in South Africa. Therefore, I think we should briefly review the philosophy underlying chiropractics. This practice was propounded by a man named Daniel David Palmer in the city of Davenport in the USA in 1895. Palmer claimed that the secret of all disease had been revealed to him and that it was caused by displaced vertebrae which pressed against nerves. By displacement and pressure they elongated the pathway of the nerve in a manner similar to that by which an impingement upon a wire of a musical instrument induces it to become taut by displacing it from a direct line. This pressure upon a nerve creates greater tension, increased vibration and consequently an increased amount of heat. It is very interesting to read what Mr. B. J. Palmer said under oath during a trial case in America. He was the son of the founder of chiropractic.

That was before the Boer War.

It was before the Boer War? [Interjections.] I think that sound argument is the scientific way to debate the matter. It may have been before the Boer War but I think, and I hope the hon. the Minister agrees with me, that it is still valid.

†I should now like to quote Mr. B. J. Palmer’s replies under oath during the trial—

When I look to my left here I wonder whether this was also by accident! I quote further—

[Interjections.] I do not know why it bothers the hon. the Minister so much that I am quoting this. I obtained it from a former Minister of Health. He, too, used it in a debate. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister does not agree with him. I quote further—

I think the hon. the Minister needs a few manipulations. I quote further—

This is how the practice of chiropractic started. I am not opposing this.

When was the first open heart operation?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be patient because I want to advance this argument in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister must just give me a chance. I am not trying to oppose the legislation. I sympathize with these people. All I am doing is to try to put the two cases in order to explain why I am calling for a Select Committee. I am not opposed to any person. If the hon. the Minister cannot understand me, that is not my fault.

†I should like now to refer to the other side of the story. The hon. the Minister must please bear with me. I should like to quote a letter from the Chiropractic Association of South Africa to put their point of view. They talk about the therapeutic principle which, for the information of hon. members, means how to cure. They say—

[Interjections.]

*I listened attentively when the hon. the Minister spoke. I think that this is a weighty matter and I know that many of the hon. members on that side of the House are not interested in health affairs. I suggest that they should try to learn something about the health of South Africa. Perhaps then they would be able to help. We find this in many other discussions about health. I now quote further—

†I may say, Sir, that this letter was written last year. It goes on to state—

I want to emphasize these words “therapeutic tool”; this is what they call it—

They then go on to specify the treatment that can be used in respect of certain conditions. In this regard they say, inter alia—

*We have now seen how this profession arose and how it developed to where it is today and in what regard they consider that they can be of help to the public. I say that it is important that we should put their case in this debate as regards what they are prepared to do and how far they can go in that regard.

I think it is important that we should just refer back to the Commission of Inquiry into Chiropractors appointed by the State President on 19 October 1972 under the chairmanship of Dr. H. O. Mӧnnig. At that stage Dr. Mӧnnig was the Prime Minister’s scientific adviser. This commission did not consist of doctors; only one of the members of that commission was at that stage a medical doctor. The terms of reference of that commission were, inter alia—

The answer to part (a) of their terms of reference was: No. The answer to part (b) of their terms of reference was as follows—

In answer to paragraph (c) of their terms of reference, their finding was as follows—

I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister to which he can reply a little later, and thereafter we can debate the matter again. What has changed since then? What has changed? At that stage they were unable to help as far as the health services in our country were concerned, but now they can do so. I should like to quote from Hansard of 1971 (cols. 4056, 4057 and 4058) from a speech by the present hon. Deputy Minister of Co-operation. He, too, is a medical doctor. I want to ask him what he meant at the time and in what way this has changed. We can accept the Second Reading of the Bill if the hon. the Minister can prove to us that a change has taken place since that commission stated that a step such as the one we are considering now could not be accepted because it posed a danger.

What are you quoting from?

I took it from the debate on the 1971 legislation.

Before the legislation was accepted, not so?

Correct.

Legislation was accepted then, was it not?

Correct. It makes no difference whether legislation was accepted or not. What are of importance are the statements made by a commission recognized by this House. That commission did not consist of doctors alone. Once again I ask that we do not choose sides on the occasion of this Second Reading debate. I am trying to indicate why I say that I am not satisfied that the hon. the Minister has furnished sufficient evidence to justify the acceptance of the Bill. That, too, is why I wish to propose that a commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate this matter further.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation said in column 4056—

He did not consider them a danger to us. He thought that our profession worked well enough. He then continued—

This is what he said in column 4057—

At this point we should refer to the Bill to see why what the hon. the Deputy Minister said has since completely changed, but before I deal more fully with this aspect, let me quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say in column 4058—

Now we have before us a new Bill, the Associated Health Service Professions Bill, clause 3 of which provides—

1. (a) to assist in the promotion of the health of the population of the Republic.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us, when he replies to the debate, in what way the chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists have changed so that he can now introduce this Bill. Once he has told us that, we may then be able to decide what ought to be done.

I want to go further and what I am going to say now should in no way be regarded as some form of advertisement. If I have to see a patient who complains of a pain in his chin or a numbness in his chin going down his arm, I shall go into his history and his family history. I shall then examine him and thereafter I shall do special investigations. Because I know that such a pain or numbness can be a symptom of some heart disease I shall do an ECG. If that is positive, I shall go ahead and do a coronary angiogram and if that is positive, I shall operate. This is the way the medical profession treats patients. Where does this come from? It is not sucked out of our thumbs; it is a scientific development from the days when the doctor could only go into a patient’s history, examine him and give him tablets. Thereafter the stethoscope was introduced and this enabled the doctor to listen. Then came the ECG machine, then X-rays and then came surgery.

What will the osteopath or the naturopath do? He will go into the history of the patient. He has a basic idea of examining the patient. If he is a chiropractor registered in terms of the Bill, he can take an X-ray and do an internal examination and then manipulate the patient’s spine. The homeopath can also do that and give one a drug which is diluted 1 000 times.

In terms of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act I can be brought before the Medical Council for malpractices and be struck off the roll if I as a qualified, registered doctor do what the chiropractor, the osteopath and members of related professions do. Is that right?

Of course yes.

If the chiropractor should do what I do, he can be brought before his new council and he can likewise be struck off his roll. I cannot understand how a Bill such as this one can be acceptable.

In terms of what Bill can a chiropractor be struck off the roll?

In terms of this Bill, if he pretends to be a doctor.

What will the position be if this Bill is withdrawn?

The hon. the Minister must allow me not to go into too much detail now. [Interjections.] However, I am prepared to debate this issue with the hon. the Minister in the Committee Stage. Even if the hon. the Minister is correct—I think I have to submit he is correct—than it is still not right and I still do not accept that it is right.

Let me give hon. members another example. The hon. the Minister must answer us on what I am going to say, because our views will be judged by what the hon. the Minister says. I want to refer to clause 32(1)(a)—

1. (i) perform any operation on or administer any injection, excluding any intramuscular or hypodermic injection, to any person.

In other words, he is not allowed to administer an intravenous injection, but he may administer an intramuscular or subcutaneous injection. I find that strange and I want to ask the hon. the Minister why these differences occur? The hon. the Minister will agree that an intravenous injection is more dangerous and difficult. Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that a subcutaneous or intramuscular injection also carries a great risk, that it can cause severe drug reactions or anaphylactic shock? Can a chiropractor or a homeopath deal with this kind of situation? I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to us the reasoning behind this.

Clause 32(1)(a)(iii) reads—

Is it the hon. the Minister’s view that if the practitioner or student gets the analysis from somebody else that he can then deal with it?

Clause 32(1)(a)(iv) reads—

I agree with that. Will the chiropractor be able to diagnose cancer if I complain to him about severe tiredness, while it could be cancer? The chiropractor might treat me completely wrongly. I think the hon. the Minister has left out from the Bill a definition of a chiropractor, homeopath, naturopath, osteopath and a herbalist. I want the hon. the Minister to try to define to me what they are and what the basis of their training consists of. I want to state it clearly that there is no doubt that people such as chiropractors, and homeopaths will always attract patients and there will always be people who will find benefit from their treatment. We would like to see their standards raised. I would for example suggest to the hon. the Minister—we can debate that—that the homeopath must do five years medical training before he follows a clinical course. In France homeopaths must first become qualified doctors before they can become homeopaths. We in the medical profession can accept that. We do not want to condemn the chiropractor and we do not want to protect the doctor. I really would just like the hon. the Minister to help me get clarity about the fact that this Bill will indeed achieve that.

I have very little time left.

You have full time.

No, I do not need it. I think the hon. the Minister is listening to me and will help me. I should like to conclude by saying we have to be very careful in this debate …

Are you against the chiropractors?

Has that hon. member perhaps had a little homeopathic medicine tonight? The hon. the Minister must be very clear in his mind when he applies and must try to meet us halfway. Let us not say that the doctors are ganging up on chiropractors. [Interjections.] Let us not try scoring silly political points on this issue. [Interjections.] The health of the country is very important, and I think the hon. the Minister would be the first to appreciate that we in this country need this Bill to be an effective measure, so that everybody can benefit.

In the little time left to me I just want to quote the concluding paragraphs from this document I have here. I quote from page 6 of the MASA document—

1. (1) Kennis word daarvan geneem dat dit die doel van die Wetsontwerp is om ‘ … beheer oor die beoefening van die beroepe van chiropraktisyn, homeopaat, naturopaat, osteopaat en kruiekundige …’ uit te oefen en die MVSA vereenselwig hom graag hiermee. Die MVSA is trouens van mening dat dit absoluut noodsaaklik geword het dat daar behoorlike en strenger beheer oor die gemelde beroepe uitgeoefen moet word. Die Vereeniging dra ook daarvan kennis dat daar nie tans aanvaarbare bewys gelewer kan word van erkende, wetenskaplike opleiding, van ’n wetenskaplike-aanvaarbare grondslag waarop die betrokke beroepe berus, en van behoorlike standaarde van praktykvoering en etiek nie, en solank dit die geval is, is die MVSA van mening dat geen nuwe persone toegelaat moet word om tot die betrokke beroepe toe te tree en dit te beoefen nie.
2. (2) Die stigting van ’n Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Geassosieerde Gesondheidsdiensberoepe om sodanige beheer uit te oefen, sowel as die voorgestelde samestelling van die Raad en die uiteensetting van sy oogmerke is egter glad nie vir die MVSA aanvaarbaar nie! Dit is die MVSA se vaste oortuiging dat die enigste liggaam wat daartoe in staat sou wees om behoorlik oor die gemelde beroepe beheer uit te oefen, die Suid-Afrikaanse Geneeskundige en Tandheelkundige Raad sou wees!
   Die MVSA besef terdeë dat die Geneeskundige Raad waarskynlik nie graag so ’n taak op hom sou wou neem nie, veral nie waar dit moontlik as erkenning van die betrokke beroepe vertolk kon word nie, en sou graag hierdie uiters belangrike aspek met die Raad wou bespreek het … Die MVSA glo egter dat die samestelling, kundigheid en status van die Geneeskundige Raad sulks is dat hy, en net hy, daartoe in staat sou wees om gesaguit te oefen oor die standaarde van opleiding, die standaarde van praktykvoering, die werk-omvang sowel as die etiese standaarde van beoefenaars van die betrokke beroepe. In hierdie verband kan uiters waardevolle inligting van die AMA verkry word, wat dit bo alle twyfel stel dat slegs in dié State van die V.S.A. waar die “licencing body” sodanige beheer uitoefen, wanpraktyke deur die betrokke beroepe behoorlik aan bande gelê is.
   Indien dit baie duidelik gestel sou word dat die aanvaarding van beheer oor die betrokke groepe nie noodwendig erkenning van hulle as aanvaarde gesondheidsberoepe sou impliseer nie, behoort die taak vir die Geneeskundige Raad aanvaarbaar te wees.
   Ter afsluiting wens die MVSA met al die erns tot sy beskikking ’n dringende beroep op u, en deur u op die Minister van Gesondheid, Welsyn en Pensioene sowel as die Kabinet, te doen om, in die lig van wat hierbo gesê is, nie met die beoogde wetgewing voort te gaan nie.

We shall have to debate and seriously consider both sides of the question, that of the medical profession on the one hand, as represented by the Medical Association, as well as the hon. the Minister’s attempt, with this new Bill, to find a satisfactory solution for both parties. Since everyone is not in agreement, let me again plead with the hon. the Minister to allow a Select Committee to be appointed so that an in-depth study can be made in an attempt to formulate an acceptable Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity of saying a few words about this Bill on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House. I want to assure the hon. member for Parktown that I listened to his speech with great interest. Before making a few remarks about certain statements which he made, I just want to say that I want to try, in the first place, to lay down some guidelines by way of a few general statements, and in the second place, to consider the proud tradition of the medical profession. Furthermore, I wish to examine certain reactions from the medical profession, and then I want to devote some attention to the Medical Council. Finally—and this lies at the heart of it all—I want to examine this Associated Health Services Professions Bill. In this way I want to show that what the hon. member was pleading for is in fact happening.

The hon. member for Parktown moved an amendment asking for the appointment of a Select Committee. I want to suggest that the things he requested and the object he wants to achieve can best be achieved by supporting this very Bill, because what is being done here? The Government is proposing that a certain council be established. This council will watch over the four or five associated professions. If the council is established, there are two things in particular that will have to receive attention, of course, i.e. the training of the people who fall under that council and the control and discipline to be exercised over those people. The intention and wish of hon. members on this side of the House is that this council may eventually be placed under the supervision of the Medical Council. It would be better than a Select Committee if the Medical Council could supervise the council which is to be established and which will have to produce a very well-reasoned submission with regard to its total training.

The hon. member referred to the situation in France, where homeopaths, for example, first have to register as medical practitioners and are then allowed to study and practise homeopathy. The general feeling among chiropractors and homeopaths is that the standards required of them must be high, that the academic qualifications they have to attain in order to practise must be of a very high standard. I do not wish to discuss what exactly these should be, but as far as I am concerned—I do not think there will be any problems about this eventually—these people will be prepared to enroll at a medical school and eventually to complete the entire course, after which they will specialize by following a course of their own, a practical course. Hon. members must not forget that we had legislation in this House last week in which reference was made to certain disciplines in the medical world in respect of which we speak about super-specialists because we live in such an extremely specialized world. I want to allege that here too we are dealing with such a specialist who does his work in an extremely competent way. The hon. member asks for a Select Committee to investigate these associated profession, but the same object can best be achieved by supporting the Bill, because it envisages the establishment of a council for the associated professions, and I believe that all hon. members of this House should do everything in their power to persuade the Medical Council to take the proposed council under its wing, so that the council which is to be established will be able to exercise control over training, to lay down the disciplinary rules with which the people concerned must comply, and, where necessary, to take the necessary disciplinary measures.

The hon. member for Parktown made a few statements and referred, inter alia, to cancer patients who go to see practitioners of these associated professions. As far as that is concerned, the hon. member may be quite right. He also spoke about injuries which patients may sustain, and I concede that this is also possible. However, what is the best way of preventing this? I am now talking from the point of view of the Medical Council as I have heard it expressed. After all, when a person falls under the discipline of one’s particular council, one can ensure that such abuses do not take place. This is exactly what I am pleading for tonight. The sooner this council is established and falls under the Medical Council, just like many other paramedical professions, the sooner we shall achieve the object which we all want to achieve i.e. to control people who engage in certain practices. These practices were investigated as far back as 1962. In 1972, legislation was passed to regulate them, and now we find ourselves in 1982. In spite of this, the hon. member asks what has happened in the meanwhile. I can tell him that since 1962, a very great deal has happened. South Africa as a whole has developed and medical practice has also developed. Our techniques have improved: there has been a great population increase, and the training disciplines abroad have improved enormously. Year after year, higher requirements are being set, not only for the medical profession as such, but also for the associated professions. I have even learnt from one of the friends of the hon. member for Parktown that his own son recently applied to be admitted to a chiropractic training centre in the USA. The hon. member need not say whether or not my information is correct. I also learnt that his son was turned down because a St. 10 certificate is not enough. He must complete a 2 year course at a university.

He was turned down because his father is a Prog.

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who also used to be a very good Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, has hit the nail on the head. I would almost say that if we could draw a little blood, as we do with the cattle on the farm, we would see that they have a great many ailments, and the worst is being a member of the PFP. However, let me come back to the point. I am saying that everything has changed. If the hon. member asks me what has changed, I say that everything has changed. The hon. the Minister will reply further to certain points raised by the hon. member for Parktown.

I want to make a few statements, and the first is that today is a historic day in the history of the South African health services. A new development has taken place, and we say the time has come for a group of professional people in associated professions to be combined under one council. These professional people are prepared to subject themselves to discipline, to have their training controlled and eventually to be subject to the discipline of such a council of their own.

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

No, sit down! The hon. member has talked enough nonsense this afternoon. It is a historic day in the sense that after an inquiry conducted in 1962, which led to legislation in 1972, we have now decided, in 1982, that the time has come for us to recognize these people and to accommodate them at the medical level as well.

Furthermore, I also want to say that South Africa’s health services are known to be among the best in the world.

Why do you not write an article about it in Nat 80s?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the cobbler should stick to his last. Just as the hon. member for Parktown was and still is an outstanding heart specialist, and has been trained as one, we have other people in other spheres who have also been thoroughly trained and who are also good specialists.

Tell us about them.

It is just possible that the hon. member for Parktown will also turn to a chiropractor one day to get his creaking old joints and dry hinges functioning again. [Interjections.]

I wish to make a further statement about South Africa’s health services in their totality. It is specifically because we are an African country, a country which is being boycotted in this field as well, a country which has been expelled by the World Health Organization in an attempt to cut us off from all possible contacts in the outside world— which may not only harm medical services abroad, but also those in South Africa, and through them those in Africa as well—that I want to convey the message from this House today to the medical world outside that there is the greatest appreciation for what our own people are doing. I also want to point out that our medical practitioners in South Africa have to do an enormous amount of work, that an extremely heavy burden rests on every medical doctor in South Africa. Each one of them is burdened with the great task of rendering the best service to his own patients.

However, the medical profession in South Africa has a very good name. Our medical practitioners are held in high esteem in our society. I believe that this is merely because their training is so good, and also because their training improves every year.

I pointed out earlier that we had considered legislation in this House last week in which we had to provide for the so-called super-specialists among us. I believe it is a good thing that this has been done. We must in fact congratulate the product of our own development. What is also very important is that our research is very highly regarded throughout the world.

This brings me to the second aspect I want to bring to the attention of this House tonight. Especially with a view to the associated professions, which we are dealing with tonight, it is a good thing that we are accommodating them within the total medical setup in South Africa. In fact, they have a proud tradition. We have only to talk to any doctor in South Africa. We have only to visit any doctor’s consulting rooms, or even his study at home, and to look at his books. There we shall find not only the most modern literature, but also the best from the past. The medical practitioner is also proud of his past, proud of the tradition behind him. Of course, the medical profession has a very long history. It goes back for centuries, perhaps even for millennia. The roots of the medical profession go very deep.

When considering the medical world in its totality, it is also a great privilege for me to point out that the greatest thinkers and philosophers have in fact been people who had a basic medical training. Now that we are living in a century of materialism, a century in which idealism has been superseded by humanism and socialism, those thinkers are still the people who impress upon our medical practitioners today that they must not forget that the patient is in the first place a human being, a human being in need; someone who must first be seen as a person before having his complaints or ailments attended to. I want to mention the names of a few such medical thinkers here tonight. The first name that comes to mind is that of Tournier, with his well-known works The Meaning of Persons and The Healing of Persons. Then there are also people such as Thurneysen and J. H. Van der Berg. The latter is particularly well-known for his metabletics, in which he is of course a great supporter of Viktor E. Frankl, who is in turn the father of logotherapy. These are people who received the basic training to qualify them for practising medicine, but who nevertheless became the foremost thinkers in the human sciences of today, those sciences in which particular attention is given to human problems, i.e. medical anthropology.

Furthermore, we are living in an era—and this is a danger for South Africa—in which socialism, based on materialism and on the materialistic spirit of the age, has been gaining a very strong hold over our total health setup. Experience gained in England and in the USA shows us that the more health services are socialized, the poorer its quality becomes and the more expensive those services are. Now these medical philosophers say that they want to bring back the idealism, that they want people to be recognized in their need and they want to move away from the mentality of materialism. This is why— and I want to mention this specifically—a man such as Viktor Frankl, the leader of the Third Viennese School, brought about such an enormous transformation in the thinking of the medical sciences. Unlike Freud, Adler and Jung, he did not believe that everything was caused by fate, that man was simply at the mercy of fate. Frankl believed that man did have the opportunity to say yes to the demands made on him by life, and that he should therefore not run away from the demands and the problems of life. He sees man as the one who is acted upon, and not as the one who can tell the world to react the way he would like it to.

This brings me, in the third place, to the medical world and how the medical world reacted to this appeal by Viktor Frankl, the leader of the Third Viennese School. The hon. member for Parktown should benefit by this.

He needs a great deal of help.

From this medical world, the world which reacts to practical needs, new disciplines have emerged. New worlds have been opened up. New demands have been made. This requires training. It requires discipline. It requires control measures. I believe it is a good thing that this is so, especially where we are now dealing with this Associated Health Services Professions Bill.

This brings me to the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. I want to have it placed on record here today that that council has a good name. It is a council which renders outstanding service by ensuring that in the total health sphere, only the best treatment is given to the person involved—the patient. This is also the council which has taken the initiative—hon. members should take cognizance of this—in initiating and controlling a whole number of young disciplines which have emerged in response to the demands and the needs of the times, disciplines which also lay claim to acceptance in the medical world. I shall just refer briefly to a few of these young disciplines. One of them has been physiotherapy. The people who practise this discipline have received a good training, they are people who can have themselves registered as professional people, and who are recognized by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. They are people who are supervised in the two or three ways which I mentioned earlier on. Then there is psychotherapy. I believe this is what the hon. member for Parktown should turn to. He needs a little psycho-analysis. I say this with all due respect.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that statement?

Mr. Speaker, I only mean that as a specialist, the hon. member for Parktown should know that if we could give the physiotherapists and the psychotherapists their own councils, which are recognized by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, the chiropractors and the homeopaths deserve exactly the same if their training, their supervision and their control measures comply with all the requirements that have been laid down. That is all I wish to say to the hon. member for Parktown. That is all I am asking for in respect of this legislation. The proposed council must function under the supervision of the Medical Council.

They refuse.

Then it is a contradiction in terms if they refuse. The hon. member for Parktown cannot understand this. What other way is there of exercising control over a profession or a discipline than having it function under one’s supervision? How can I educate my child if he does not live in my house? How can I discipline him if I have not seen where he misbehaves? To me this is the contradiction in terms. On the one hand the Medical Council says that these chiropractors, the homeopaths and others must improve their standards, that they must be controlled and disciplined, but on the other hand, they refuse to perform that function. I say that these two standpoints are contradictory. That is what a contradiction in terms means, if the hon. member for Parktown does not know. If the Medical Council does not wish to control, how can it exercise control? How can it take disciplinary action?

I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. the Minister in saying that hon. members of this House should not play politics with this legislation and with this whole attempt to bring about order and discipline and better training and development in the medical world in its totality. We must not try to arouse emotions and we must try to negotiate for all groups, for the medical profession and the associated groups as well as for the patient and the client, so that justice may be done to all.

I want to conclude by coming back to what I have said before. In 1962 there was an inquiry, and in 1972 legislation was passed to recognize these people. We are now in 1982, and there are still people who say: Leave them out in the cold. Do not look after them; they do not exist; do not recognize them. I say we should do the only correct thing. We should establish the council and convince the Medical Council that it is their responsibility to keep an eye on this council and to ensure that this discipline functions the way a body with the highest medical ethics is expected to function.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Brits on his election as chairman of the health group on that side of the House. He is succeeding me, and I just want to tell him that in his contribution in this House about this Bill he gave a very good pastoral philosophical survey which in my opinion had very little to do with the legislation. [Interjections.] I put my standpoint in the caucus of that side of the House and the hon. member and hon. members opposite know very well what my standpoint in this connection is. They know that I disagree with them about this legislation, but I was deprived of the right to state my point of view within that caucus, so I am being forced this afternoon to put my standpoint in respect of this legislation across the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that it is untrue that he was not afforded the opportunity of putting his standpoint. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I listened quietly while the hon. member for Brits was speaking; I request the same courtesy, because this is a serious matter, concerning as it does the patients of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

When we consider the objects of the Medical Council, I want to point out that the objects laid down in the legislation for another statutory body are directly in conflict with the objectives of the Medical Council. The objects as defined in the legislation which regulates the Medical Council are that it is to control and to exercise authority in respect of all matters affecting the training of persons in, and the manner of the exercise of the practices pursued in connection with, the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of physical or mental defects, illnesses or deficiencies in man. Therefore it involves total authority over health care in South Africa.

What is being laid down in the Bill which is before us? Clause 3 lays down the objects of another body which is to be established, and that is to assist in the promotion of the health of the population of the Republic. This is directly in conflict with the objects of the Medical Council as embodied in legislation. I cannot help regarding the Bill as a motion of no confidence in the function of the Medical Council.

In terms of the Bill, a new statutory body is being created alongside the Medical Council. The new statutory body is to control people, professional people for whom no training is provided in South Africa. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to expect anyone with a scientific background to accept that a statutory body should be established for a profession for which no training exists in South Africa.

The Medical Association of South Africa, which is the mouthpiece of the medical profession, says in its comment on the legislation that it believes that the proposed legislation is of decisive importance to the future of all health services in the Republic, but especially of the standard of future medical services, and consequently it addresses an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet not to proceed with the proposed legislation.

One of the objections which the Medical Association has to the legislation is that the danger exists that the Bill may present the chiropractic profession, for example, to the public as a primary form of health service, as a profession which has to fulfil the primary health function of the medical practitioner. This is not an unfounded fear on the part of the Medical Association. In Hoofs tad of 10 March, an article did in fact appear under the heading “Nuwe wet beheer nou die medici”. So the fears of the Medical Association that these people will be regarded as medical practitioners, as doctors of a kind, have already been confirmed. We must not allow this impression to be created among the public, and the Medical Association is urging us not to do so.

Allow me to make just one remark about the Medical Association of South Africa. This is an association which is not only the mouthpiece of the approximately 12 000 medical practitioners in South Africa, but which also acts as a valuable ambassador for South Africa throughout the world. The Medical Association has just been reaffiliated with the World Medical Association after a vote of 77 to 10.

The American medical journal has just devoted no fewer than four pages to promoting the cause of the Medical Association of South Africa and medical services in South Africa. In the American journal, the chairman of the Federal Council of the Medical Association of South Africa says, among other things—

These happen to be the Black African States—

After four full pages an American, Dr. Sammons, a leader of the American medical association, answers as follows—

I mention this aspect in order to emphasize that the Medical Association of South Africa is at present recognized throughout the world and that we must consider the opinion of that scientific association in discussing these things and in passing legislation.

In all fairness, what do we know today about the other groups, such as the chiropractors, the homeopaths and others? I want to confine myself to the chiropractors, but I include the other professions in my remarks. This matter was last investigated by a commission of inquiry 20 years ago, in 1962. I want to make it clear that that commission did not consist of practising medical practitioners so that it could perhaps be said that they were prejudiced. The commission consisted of physiologists and scientists, such as Dr. Danie Craven. What were the recommendations of the commission?

The commission made four main recommendations, which I now wish to discuss briefly. The first recommendation was that no statutory recognition be given to the chiropractic profession in the Republic of South Africa. Secondly, the commission recommended that these people be given time, as has rightly been said, to put their house in order, and that no one be allowed to start a practice of this nature after 1964. Thirdly, the commission said that the State had a definite interest in the health of the individual, because of the great importance of health as the basis of a person’s happiness and productivity and because of the fact that the illness of one person affects not only himself, but also his family, his dependants, other people in his environment, his employer or employees and often the general public, the taxpayer, as well. The commission believed that the right of an individual to have himself treated by any person of his choice could therefore not be unrestricted, but that the public should be protected from persons who are not qualified to treat diseases. I want to add that the public should be protected from persons who are not qualified to make a proper diagnosis and to treat people.

This brings me to the fourth aspect, and that is that the commission recommended that—

This may be so. I have no information to show whether the medical schools in South Africa did take this aspect to heart. It may be that there is still a shortcoming, but we shall not be able to judge before this matter has been subjected to a proper scientific investigation once again. I am not saying for a moment that these chiropractors do not do good work. I have had patients myself who had received very good treatment and who had been afforded great relief by such treatment. That is so. However, I want to give the persons concerned the opportunity of being recognized as members of a medical profession, not of a quasi-medical profession. They must not be regarded as hangers-on or as members of a kind of second-rate medical profession. I want to put a question in all honesty to my colleagues on the other side who are also medical practitioners, such as the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare and the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs. The hon. member for Parktown quoted the list of conditions which those people profess to be able to treat. I repeat that there are conditions which they treat well—I know they do excellent work—but if those trained medical practitioners on the other side can tell me that bronchial asthma in children or a peptic ulcer can be treated by manipulation, they must get up and say so now. I say this because that is what those people claim to be able to do. [Interjections.]

But which of us has said so?

It is the secretary of the Chiropractic Association who claims to do this. Not very long ago, the chairman of the Federal Council of the Medical Association, Prof. De Klerk, conducted a scientific inquiry into the whole question of chiropractors and then wrote an article about it. In summing up, he comes to the following conclusion, and I quote from his article, which was written in 1979—

He goes on to say—

I am not the one who says this. It is the opinion of the chairman of the Federal Council of the Medical Association. He may be wrong, the facts may be different, but we do not have the evidence before us to confirm or deny this.

In all fairness, and from the point of view of the chiropractor, I want to say that if we accept this legislation, and if, as a result, the profession is placed under the supervision of the Medical Council, as the hon. member for Brits said it could be, this would be a laudable development; but I foresee that with the passing of this legislation, an unbridgeable gulf will be created between the chiropractic profession and the medical profession in South Africa. This is not just my opinion. The American medical practitioners share this view. They have just had a court case lasting four years, a case in which chiropractors laid a charge against the medical association on account of its so-called monopoly in the field of health are in terms of the so-called Sherman Anti-Trust Act of America. After four years, the federal court ruled in favour of the medical association of America. Those people will never be reconciled, for the framework is being created here for irreconcilable differences between the medical practitioners and the chiropractors in South Africa which will endure into the most distant future.

The most important consideration, to my mind, is the person who is ill, the patient, in South Africa. That is the most important consideration of all. If we accept this situation and we remove a part of health care from the supervision of the Medical Council, which should exercise control over it, then we shall be allowing uninformed people to believe that a man in the street is properly trained, and to subject themselves to treatment or diagnosis, while this man is not properly trained or qualified to do this …

Is he doing it at the moment? Then you would have a point!

The man will then be allowed, in ailments of which more than 50% are not caused by problems relating to the dorsal muscles …

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

No, Sir.

Let me ask across the floor of the House: What is he doing about it now?

Order!

We are allowing people suffering from aneurysm of the aorta, metastases of cancer in the dorsal vertebrae and prostate pathology coinciding with backache to be treated by certain people, thereby wasting precious time which could have been used for curing the patient.

Sir, the hon. member for Parktown and I are politically as far apart as the East from the West, but he is a trained medical practitioner and I am a trained medical practitioner—he specialized in cardiac surgery after graduating I specialized in general practice after obtaining my degree—and therefore I have no option but to support his amendment.

Now you have got a formidable Opposition, Alex.

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that we were going to accede to the request of the hon. member for Parktown in this debate, to discuss this matter in a calm and reasoned manner. What astounded me, however, was that he was the first to abuse the privilege of this House by acting as a medical practitioner here and completely demolishing the profession of the chiropractor.

That was not what I intended to do.

If that was not what the hon. member intended to do, he should choose his words more carefully in future. What kind of case did the hon. member put forward here? He maintained that there was no place for chiropractors in South Africa. He cleverly intimated that he was not opposed to this profession, and that he was not in favour of their being written off. That was why he asked for a Select Committee. But what evidence did the hon. member advance against these people? What did he have to say about them?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member said that the medical profession believed “that they are not scientific”. Could the hon. member, as a medical man, tell me whether, if a profession was not in his opinion based on scientific fact he would allow such a profession in this country or not?

I have read what MASA had to say.

Could I then ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the Medical Association? Why does he advance the arguments used by MASA if he does not agree with them? Or is this the kind of debate which he normally conducts? Does the hon. member agree with MASA?

Usually, yes. [Interjections.]

In addition, the hon. member says that chiropractic is not scientific, because he said chiropractic originated “purely by accident”. Harvey had extensibly been examining a patient, quite by chance, and pressed on a joint and suddenly the man could hear again. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes how many scientific discoveries in South Africa, in fact, in the world, are made purely by accident. What about Marconi and his telephone? What about the original use of laughing gas as a means of putting people to sleep when they were being operated on? It was purely by accident that laughing gas was used when a dentist wanted to extract a person’s tooth. That is how laughing gas was discovered. Is it fair to maintain that something which originated “purely by accident” cannot develop into a science?

Further proof that the hon. member was condemning chiropractic in the Republic was his reply to the question whether it constituted a danger. His answer was: “It is a danger in the field of medicine; a definite danger to sick people”.

He did not say that. [Interjections.]

I ask again: When one advances something in this House, does one do so because one does not wish to use it as an argument? Does one advance something because one does not believe that it is relevant to a particular debate in this House?

If one is honest, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Parktown has left no member of this House in any doubt…

Order! What does the hon. member for Parktown mean when he says “If one is honest, yes.”?

Mr. Speaker, I meant that, if one is honest, one may, in fact, make a statement which is aimed at meaning the opposite of what one says. I was honest. I was also being honest when I put it that way.

Order! The hon. member for Swellendam may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown has left no hon. member in this House in any doubt that, as a medical practitioner, he objects to chiropractic in the Republic of South Africa. I have no doubt about this. I do not believe that there is any other member in this House who doubts this. I am now speaking of hon. members who are not in that hon. member’s party. I therefore object to the fact that it was in fact the hon. member for Parktown who asserted: “Do not let us say the doctors are ganging up against chiropractors.” He used words to that effect here. What else was he trying to do?

Personally, I believe that I should repeat what the hon. member for Parktown said. He said that we should debate this matter calmly and quietly so that we could come to a reasonable and logical conclusion, which would be in the best interests of the citizens of South Africa. Then I find it strange that, against the background of an argument that these people could not be competent enough, “not scientific enough”, to serve the indisposed people of South Africa, we oppose a piece of legislation which is in fact aimed at obtaining a measure of order and control over these weak people, as the hon. member for Parktown referred to them. There is also no doubt that these people obtained the legal right to practise in South Africa in 1971.

That is the important point.

Since 1971, these people have been legal practitioners in South Africa. The hon. member for Parktown may sit there scratching his head until the dandruff flies, but he must listen to me now. [Interjections.]

He should go and see a chiropracter. [Interjections.]

Legislation which was introduced in 1971, legalized the practices of chiropractors in South Africa. However, the Act of 1971 does not afford chiropractors an opportunity to establish a body by means of which order can be maintained in their own profession. This is the essence of the legislation now before this House.

Mr. Speaker, I said that I was confused. Can anyone blame me for this confusion? On the one hand, the hon. member for Parktown argued that there should be order in the ranks of the chiropractors because he regarded them as a weak practice in South Africa. On the other hand, he opposes the present legislation, which is in fact aimed at maintaining order in that way.

Let us briefly consider the path which chiropractors have taken in South Africa. The present legislation provides for the establishment of a South African Council for Associated Health Service Professions to exercise control over the profession of chiropractor, as well as other professions which have already been referred to during the course of the debate. Since the early ’seventies, special attention has been given to paramedical staff in South Africa. Because of the increasing importance of their specialized tasks, they are regarded as essential members of a balanced, modern health team, and the principle has been established that in South Africa, health services are performed by a team of professionals who each make their own contribution. In order to control the various health service professions, there should be an institution through which each profession would be capable of being helpful in promoting the health of the population of the Republic of South Africa. Such a body would control the practice of the profession and investigate complaints in connection with the practice of the profession. It should also determine standards of training for members of the profession and supervise and control the registration of members. In addition it should advise the Minister on any matter pertaining to the profession. Provision is being made for this in the Bill which is at present before this House.

I wish to confine myself to the chiropractic profession in South Africa. There is no record of the date on which the first chiropractor started working in South Africa. In 1918 there were approximately eight practitioners in the country. In 1926, when the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill was before this House, the South African Chiropractors’ Association was established to protect the interests of chiropractors, and the representations which were addressed to the association to protect the profession against obliteration, succeeded. This ushered in the long period of struggle in which the chiropractic profession was engaged on various occasions, and during which various associations were established to deal with the interests of the profession. As a result of a Bill introduced by Mr. D. J. Van der Walt, at that time MP for Pretoria West, which made provision for the recognition of chiropractors, the Minister of Health of that time, Dr. Albert Hertzog, announced on 22 March 1960 … [Interjections.] By the way, it is interesting that we are dealing here with the first medical practitioner who walked out of the NP caucus …

Was he a medical practitioner?

Yes …

You should get your facts straight.

Sorry, he was not a medical practitioner. In any case, he was the first doctor who walked out of the caucus. Dr. Hertzog announced that the Government would appoint a commission to investigate the matter. On these grounds, the Bill was then repealed. The findings of the commission were not tabled. I just happened to think of this now. One wonders whether the hon. members of the Opposition did not perhaps seize upon this piece of history as a method of shelving the recognition of chiropractors in South Africa once more. In 1971, after further representation to the then Minister of Health, Dr. Karel de Wet—who was, in fact, a medical doctor— the Chiropractors’ Bill was introduced and was piloted through Parliament. The Act legalized chiropractors who were practising in the country at the time and gave students, who were busy with their studies, the right to settle in South Africa and practise the profession after they had graduated. The challenge which Dr. De Wet issued to the profession, viz. that they should set their house in order, was accepted by the profession. The training and ethical standards of their profession had to be improved and the undesirable elements in the profession had to be eliminated, i.e. those to whom the hon. member for Pietersburg referred, who could allegedly cure tonsilitis, measles and so on by means of manipulation. They are the undesirable elements in the practice. It is these very people who had to be eliminated from the profession in order to purge the profession and to protect the population of South Africa against quackery.