Mr. Speaker,

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday afternoon, I was giving an outline of the existence of the chiropractic profession in South Africa. I tried to indicate that for the past 56 years the profession has been struggling to obtain statutory recognition in South Africa, a struggle which led to the establishment of many societies and even more representations to the Government. It was a struggle which eventually led to the profession attaining statutory status in terms of the 1967 Act, as well as to a goal directly set them by the then hon. Minister of Health, i.e. to get their house in order. This meant that the training and ethical standards of the profession had to be improved and that the undesirables had to be barred from the profession. It was expected that once it had got its house in order the profession could once again state its case, and this it has now done. The Chiropractors Act was amended in 1972 and 1976 to allow practitioners in South West Africa to register, and to provide for the registration as practitioners of persons entitled to do so by virtue of special circumstances, and in addition to make rules to control the ethical and professional standards of the profession. This was a further confirmation of the statutory status accorded the profession as far back as 1971.

It appears that some of the objections being raised against the admission of the chiropractic profession in South Africa, concern inter alia the training of chiropractors. If I have understood the hon. member for Pietersburg, correctly, he also objected because it appears that there is no training for these professional people in South Africa. I see that the hon. member is nodding. I do not believe that this is a very reasonable objection, as I am convinced that the hon. member, as a medical practitioner, has no objection to a colleague who underwent his training in England or America practising in South Africa. I see that the hon. member is again nodding assent. I know that the hon. member would agree with me when I tell him that it was only in the twenties—I am not quite certain of my dates—that it became possible to study medicine in South Africa and obtain a degree here. It would therefore have been equally unfair to argue before that time that as there were no training facilities in South Africa, the medical profession could not be accepted as a profession. A while ago, the chiropractic profession held talks with the hon. the Minister and senior officials of the Department of Health and Welfare. Members of the health group of the NP caucus were present as well. Dr. Kleynhans was present on that occasion too. Dr. Kleynhans is the head of a chiropractic training college in Australia. He happens to be a native of South Africa. Among other things, the training of chiropractors was discussed. I gather that the hon. member for Pietersburg was present as well. At more or less the same time, talks were held with the university authorities of the Rand Afrikaans University concerning the possible establishment of a course for the training of chiropractors in South Africa. Dr. Kleynhans from Australia participated in these talks. A comprehensive curriculum for training was submitted, and in reply to the submission, the vice-rector of RAU, Dr. Hauptfleisch, addressed a letter to Dr. Kleynhans the gist of which was that the proposed academic standards for the course were accepted and that the university would like to initiate the course, but that the profession first had to be under the control of a statutory body. Training cannot be provided before the profession has a permanent establishment in South Africa. I think it is reasonable and logical that this be accepted. One cannot expect a chair to be created at a university for a profession which has no future in this country.

Now the hon. member says that it should be under the guardianship or within the ranks of the Medical Council. I do not think that any of us would object to this, as it is probably the most practical and desirable step in this regard. However, it is not the chiropractors who refuse to be integrated with the Medical Council; it is the Medical Council which refuses to integrate the chiropractors. What point is there in leaving the situation as it is, when we have reached a stalemate? Who are we helping thereby? What are we achieving in the interests of the patients in South Africa? What are we going to achieve if we maintain the status quo? We are achieving nothing.

Stemming from this debate and the various opinions which have been expressed here, the question arises as to whether the issue here is not just one desire on the part of the Medical Council—whether the Medical Council is not trying to side-step the issue in the sense that it is being intimated in speeches in this House that commissions of inquiry are desired and that more reasons must be given why these people should have a right to exist in the medical pattern or the health team of South Africa. Is the Medical Council not merely keen to prevent the chiropractic profession in South Africa from continuing to exist? [Interjections.] I am merely asking. [Interjections.] I am asking whether the Opposition is not trying to conceal the motive on the point of the Medical Council or the Medical Association of not wishing to allow chiropractic to survive as a profession in South Africa.

That is not what they said.

I am asking this question, and I will explain why I am asking it. In this legislation there is no provision which amends the existing Acts. There is nothing which amends the Acts of 1971, 1972 and 1976. All that is being done in terms of this legislation is to add a power which is specifically aimed at helping to rectify the shortcomings in the professions. The register is not disappearing. But chiropractic is still in danger of finding itself in a cul de sac in the future. Why, then is the PFP opposing this Bill? The chiropractors say that there is a crisis in the profession at present. According to them there were 167 registered practising chiropractors in 1976, whereas at present there are only 101. There is therefore a decrease, and they say that their register is closed and no further registrations may take place. Furthermore, they say that they have met the requirements which the Government laid down for them. They have tried to get their house in order. They have purged their members and drawn up rules which are to serve as their code of conduct and ethics. They even submitted their qualifications for qualified South African chiropractors to the HSRC, and the HSRC accepted them. I should like to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg whether he differs with bodies such as the HSRC.

Could you quote from that report?

I do not have the report before me now, but it is a fact that the HSRC has accepted it. Chiropractic as a profession will die out and be obliterated if the register is not opened, and meanwhile time is running out. One of the questions before this House today is whether we should allow this profession to die out in South Africa. I put this question to the hon. member for Parktown as well as to the hon. member for Pietersburg; should this profession die out in South Africa? How do they feel about it? For, if it is not to die out as a profession, the hon. member for Parktown should repeal his amendment and vote in favour of the legislation. If, on the other hand, he wishes the profession to die out, he should adopt delaying tactics and oppose all legislation in this regard, thereby delaying matters until it is too late. Therefore I come to the conclusion that the Opposition is interested in the downfall and the destruction of chiropractic in South Africa.

And the Medical Council as well.

You admit it, then. [Interjections.]

There are a number of you who manipulate …

The Chiropractic Association of South Africa sent a memorandum to the hon. the Minister concerning “the development within the chiropractic profession”. It concerns, inter alia, “Chiropractic education”. They say—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, as we see the Bill before us, the important question is not whether chiropractors, homeopaths, herbalists, etc., should be allowed to operate. Legal provision for them to do that already exists. The Bill before us, however, deals with the question of how and within which parameters they should operate. That is the basis of the whole measure before us, as we see it.

Quite obviously, the hon. member for Parktown is determined to use this Bill, if at all possible, as a means to make life even more difficult for those who practise these professions. I notice that the hon. member for Parktown has left the House. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Medical and Dental Council of South Africa has not seen fit to accommodate the chiropractors under the main umbrella. I believe that if this had been done it would have been better for all concerned. What makes it more surprising to me as a layman, however, is the following, and I quote from a letter received from the Chiropractic Association of South Africa, which I take as authentic—

I believe that this statement cannot be contradicted, not even by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. The Chiropractic Association of South Africa has met repeatedly with the S.A. Medical and Dental Council in order to try to resolve their differences. This goes back over a period of some 12 years.

In 1981 two meetings were held. Further correspondence was entered into, but it appeared to be all in vain. A meeting, even under the auspices of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, was held. Notwithstanding these meetings, however, the upshot was that in November 1981, in a Press release, the S.A. Medical and Dental Council rejected chiropractic on the basis of its being unscientific and not related to, nor part of the practise of medicine. This may well be so as far as the S.A. Medical and Dental Council is concerned, but may I, as the hon. member for Parktown, quote from the memorandum entitled “The attitude of the medical profession to chiropractors”? It is dated May 1979. I should like to quote firstly from page 8, as follows—

This study indicated that approximately 50% of the patients seeking chiropractic care had previously consulted other medical practitioners or chiropractors. This quote from the Australian Committee of Inquiry is a statement of fact based on a scientific investigation by Prof. J. Weston, a professor of sociology at the University of Queensland, Australia, together with his team.

Should other scientific investigations challenge, modify or contradict such findings, it is quite normal, and frequently encountered in the field of science. What is required is not the arbitrary adoption of one or other extreme point of view merely to find support for one’s own standpoint, but rather further better designed investigations in order to bring clarity to the issue.

I should now like to quote from the final paragraph of the summary in the same memorandum, as follows—

First of all, may I say that the words “legitimate medical” are accepted, but one must also accept at this moment in time that chiropractors are also legitimate by law. What is rather amazing, is that the author of this memorandum, in a radio programme in October last year said inter alia—

Later on he stated in the same programme—

It is remarkable that on the one hand he said that they are a bunch of quacks and on the other hand he says that they would be welcomed into the medical field on the terms and conditions under which the Medical Council would accept them. If I say say so, I find this type of argument pretty absurd, not to mention the number of general practitioners who actually refer their patients to chiropractors. This is an accepted fact, and I should like the hon. member for Parktown to deny this.

I do not need to deny it; it is a fact.

So he accepts it, Sir.

Yes, of course.

The fact is that we have recognized chiropractors giving a service, and not only giving a service, but also being patronized by a large section of the community. The Chiropractic Association of South Africa has done all within its power to reach consensus with the S.A. Medical Council, but as I have said previously, to no avail. It could well be that due to the pressure on the general practitioner in so far as the number of patients is concerned, which one must accept, he would not be able to give the best services, because when one has pressures one is not always able to give the best service. With that in mind, may I just quote from the statement made by Professors Kelner, Ball and Coulter in their book Chiropractors: Do they help?, pages 224 and 245. They say there—

They go on to say—

There can be no doubt that because of the general lack of interest by medicine in manipulation as a therapeutic tool, added to the general hostility shown by medicine to chiropractic, I think that the chiropractic profession has understandably experienced anxiety about the perpetuity of therapeutic principle. There can be no gainsaying that.

In so far as the proposal for a Select Committee is concerned, as suggested by the hon. member for Parktown, this in my opinion can be seen as a ploy just to frustrate the position of the chiropractor only further. If this measure were to be referred to a Select Committee it could result in another delay of some 12 to 18 months. And to what purpose? In my opinion, none whatsoever. I wonder if I may ask a question here. Rumour has it that the official Opposition are going to have a free vote in the Committee Stage. I wonder whether they would like to deny that.

The answer is no. Does your party exist on rumours?

For the reasons I give, I cannot support the request that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

I want now to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Pietersburg as far as the American Medical Association and its case with the Chiropractic Association is concerned. I want to say here that I accept and support his argument that the chiropractors and the Medical Council should get together. While they are apart, the animosity between them continues to grow. However, I do want to say that while it is agreed that the American Medical Association and 12 defendants were found innocent of anti-trust charges brought against them by five chiropractors in the U.S. district court of Chicago, an appeal was lodged. I should just like to quote from an article that appeared in the International Chiropractors Association Today dated January 1982, volume 19, as follows—

It goes on further to say—

The report goes on to state—

I want to state once again that this refers to the American situation. I am not implying that it refers to the South African situation.

I believe that the chiropractors have done everything asked of them within the limits of the legislation afforded them. If they are now expected further to improve their standards and service to the public whilst at the same time affording them better protection then they require an expanded legislative base from which to work. I believe that the Bill before us will give them such a base and is a step in the right direction. Therefore, we shall be supporting the Bill.

In conclusion, I should like to enquire from the hon. the Minister whether or not he is in agreement that these practitioners should be allowed to issue certificates to patients to remain away from their normal duties. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would care to comment in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us covers a whole series of associated professions but I should like to confine myself today to that of chiropractor. To begin with, however, I wish to state that there appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of certain hon. members. This Bill is not authorizing the associated professions to begin practising all of a sudden. That has been done, for some time by the various Acts already on our Statute Book. Nor does this legislation open the register. It is merely a combination of all the previous Acts with, in addition, a provision that these professions will in future fall under one board. I really cannot see what those hon. members’ problems are. Surely they agree that it would be far better for control to be exercised over these practitioners than to continue with the present situation, in terms of which there is no overall control. There must be control and if the medical council does not wish to implement it then there must simply be some other form of overall control, and that is what this Bill provides for. The fuss that is being made now reminds me of the little boy who does not want a sucker stick because the stick is missing, but who cries bitterly when it is given to someone else because he did not get it.

Nor can I support the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown. We have been saddled with this problem for the past 10 years now, and we shall be saddled with it for the next 10 years too, unless we do something positive about it now. Perhaps what the hon. member really wants is that we should wait for another 10 to 20 years, by which time there will in any event be no chiropractors left to practise. Actually, I can understand why the hon. member for Pietersburg and his colleagues support the amendment. They are scared to death of anything that smells of co-responsibility or healthy power-sharing. [Interjections.]

About 11 years ago the register for registration as chiropractor was closed, and it was indicated that they as a profession would first have to get their own house in order before any further consideration whatsoever could be given to reopening the register. In my opinion, the chiropractors acted very courageously when they as a profession accepted that legislation since they could in fact have been digging their own grave by doing so. Since that time, the rift which occurred between the medical profession and the chiropractors has widened to the extent that one wonders what has taken place and it has led to the present feeling of what one could in fact call open hostility.

Allow me to illustrate this briefly. I have before me a circular from the Medical Association of South Africa in which it is stated that the Bill is a matter of the utmost importance to the medical profession and for the future of medicine and health services in the RSA. Together with the circular there is an extract from the S.A. Medical Journal of 21 October 1978 in which the policy of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council is clearly outlined—

Their standpoint follows—

It is very important that we should note this, because I shall come back to it later—

And the poor patient is in the midst of this situation. Tens of thousands of Whites have made use of this service over the years and are still making use of it. What is somewhat insulting, however, is the message of the medical profession to these tens of thousands of people who consult chiropractors. The medical profession states that a large percentage of those people should either consult a psychologist or forget about their aches and pains, and that they will then disappear. I quote further from the circular—

I think it is somewhat insulting for the Medical Council to put it in this way, because many hon. members of this House also consult chiropractors. Be that as it may, however, I have no intention of slighting the medical profession. On the contrary, I am sincerely grateful to them for what they do. Personally I have never consulted a chiropractor, and that side of the House will probably say that I should be grateful for that. However, thousands of people consult chiropractors, and I cannot believe that they can all be wrong. These people are prepared to pay thousands of rands for treatment by chiropractors, and I think that those people ought to enjoy that benefit. We must not deprive them of that service in future years by refusing to co-operate with chiropractors or keeping the registers closed. Whether or not pain has a psychological origin or disappears of itself, the fact remains that the patient gains relief after treatment by the chiropractor.

In my opinion, chiropractors and other associated professions have a right to exist in this part of the world, just as they do in several other parts of the world. The chiropractors want to get their own house in order and are therefore in favour of this legislation.

There are one or two clauses of the Bill that should be elucidated for the sake of clarity. The first clause to which I refer is clause 32(1)(a) which reads as follows—

1. (vi) pretend, or by any means whatsoever hold himself out, to be a medical practitioner, or make use of the title of medical practitioner or doctor or any other title or any name, description or symbol indicating, or calculated to lead persons to infer, that he holds the qualification of a medical practitioner.

To me, the issue here is the use of the word “doctor” and the question is whether the practitioner may use the abbreviation “Dr.” on his letterheads or signboard. The title “Dr.” is not reserved for the medical profession. On the contrary, several of our colleagues in this House are fully entitled to lay claim to the title of doctor, even though they are not medical practitioners. The training of the majority of chiropractors—and, I believe, of the other associated professions as well—is such that it is equal to matric plus several years of further training. The doctor’s degree in chiropractice is awarded to persons after they have completed their studies and sat successfully for examinations. Therefore they, too, are entitled to lay claim to the title of “Dr.” just as is anyone else who has studied for five or six years at an overseas university in whatever field. Persons who have studied at overseas universities in physical education, psychology or any other field, use that title. In my opinion the chiropractor is equally entitled to use the title of “Dr.” as long as he indicates that he is a doctor in the profession of chiropractice.

The second paragraph which may require elucidation is that providing that an intravenal blood sample may not be taken and that human blood may not be analysed. A subdivision of the training of chiropractors specifically involves laboratory diagnosis and this is specifically concerned with the fundamental interpretation and correlation of laboratory tests. The chiropractors are wholly in favour of such a restriction in the legislation, but rightly argue that it is often in their patient’s interest that such tests be done. They would welcome co-operation with the medical profession, except that the South African Medical and Dental Council prohibits this in terms of rule 92. I think it is in the interest of the patient, too, that we seek a solution in this regard.

If something tangible is not done about the lot of the chiropractor, I fear the profession will die out. There is no doubt that they perform a service. The number of their patients alone attests to that. This legislation which now seeks to regulate and standardize that profession on an orderly basis could not have come at a more appropriate time. We look forward to further proposals from the envisaged board. We hope they may at some time in the future come forward with proposals which will once again pump the lifeblood back into this profession, so that members who have undergone the highest level of training may once again be afforded the opportunity to practise in the Republic.

The major argument that chiropractors supposedly diagnose wrongly could perhaps still have been accepted if hundreds of complaints had been received from medical practitioners about this group of practitioners. But this has never been adduced by the council as evidence to prove their contention of incorrect diagnosis. Perhaps there have been a few exceptions in this profession, certain practitioners who have indeed acted wrongfully. However, this also occurs among other medical practitioners. We need only recall the medical practitioner who was fined or goaled recently—I cannot quite remember which—due to the bleeding to death of a woman in labour. There are such cases. However, why should we try to make a rule on the basis of one exception? Just as the Medical Council disciplines and penalizes the medical practitioners who break the rules, the envisaged board will also deal with its practitioners if there are rules that are infringed.

We all know that there are still medical practitioners who, notwithstanding the prohibition, continue to maintain close links with chiropractors and others. Accordingly I wish to make an urgent appeal to the S.A. Medical and Dental Council to recognize the existence of this profession, as is done in several other parts of the world, and by so doing co-operate in the interests of all patients in this country. We can all only benefit if medical practitioners are allowed to liaise openly and on a professional basis with these practitioners in the future.

In my opinion the rift is so wide at the moment that the group of chiropractors will not in my opinion be interested—they would in the past have been prepared to do so—to link up with the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. In view of the animosity which has prevailed among the two and which still exists on the part of the Medical and Dental Council, they can only recognize at this stage that if they link up, they will be slowly strangled to death.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal firstly with the hon. member for South Coast. He had a complete failure of comprehension. [Interjections.] He asked what he obviously thought was $64 000 question of the Opposition: Do doctors send people to chiropractors? That is what he wanted answered by the official Opposition. Of course doctors send people to chiropractors. In fact, they say that as far as therapy is concerned, chiropractors can do very useful work. As far as therapy is concerned, however, masseurs can also do very useful work, but I do not think that anybody would suggest that a masseur was a professional person with professional training. A person with an infra-red lamp can probably do some therapeutic work, but he is not a professional with professional training.

What is a masseur? A physiotherapist.

The point is that chiropractics and other related activities must not be elevated to the status of professions in South Africa. It appears that the hon. the Minister thinks they should.

May I just deal with what the hon. member for Stilfontein said. He advocates control over chiropractic and other related activities. So do we. Even now there is control under the law. He also advocates that chiropractors should be allowed to use the title of “doctor” if they have a number of years of training at one of the overseas universities where training is provided in chiropractics. I wonder whether any hon. member on that side of the House can tell us of one, just one, reputable university, say in the USA, where such courses are given. I do not know of one and I doubt whether any hon. member on that side of the House knows of any.

You know very little.

The real question is what we must do about this Bill. In his introduction the hon. the Minister said that the Medical Association’s opinion, after the draft Bill was published in the Government Gazette, was that these activities should be controlled by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. Then he pointed out that the Medical Council, having considered this matter, reached a strong and clear consensus that the practices of these people were not based on scientific grounds. The hon. member for Stilfontein says that the diagnoses of these people have the same value as that of doctors. He says sometimes doctors may be wrong and sometimes chiropractors may be wrong. I could hardly believe what I heard from the hon. member for Stilfontein. Do we in South Africa say that our doctors have scientific training, or not? Clearly, we believe that our doctors have scientific training. Clearly, that is what we propound and what we want. If our doctors say that these people have no scientific training, what are we to say? Must we say the doctors are lying, or that they do not know what they are talking about? Are we then to say that the chiropractors do have scientific training? I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the debate, whether he says that chiropractors, herbalists, osteopaths and homeopaths have scientific training.

What has that got to do with the Bill? It has nothing to do with it.

I am asking the hon. the Minister a question. I shall tell him just now what it has to do with the Bill. I shall tell him what it has to do with the Bill but I should like an answer to that question. The name of the Bill, for a start, is “Associated Health Service Professions Bill”. I understand a profession to be something that at least has a basis in real learning. A profession in this sphere of activity, a profession in medicine, must at least be based on some scientific learning. That is implied in the very name of the Bill before we even get to the contents.

I should now like to address myself specifically to the hon. the Minister. When it considered the matter, the Medical Council said that these activities were not related to medical and other professions covered by the Act, largely because they were unscientific, and that it did not want to be associated—the hon. the Minister said that in his speech—or co-operate with these activities, “with the so-called associated health professions”, to quote the hon. the Minister and the Medical Council. As I say, it is clear that the Medical Council does not regard these practices as health professions. Hon. members on that side of the House have suggested that the Medical Council has some kind of mercenary interest in preventing these people from practising.

Let us, however, put the Medical Council and the Medical Association to one side and let us look at the commission of inquiry instituted by the Government into these activities. That commission of inquiry, finally instituted by the State President, on 19 October 1962 found in regard to chiropractics, firstly, that chiropractics was not a useful or necessary complement to the ordinary medical services.

That was 20 years ago.

That is the point I want to deal with later, and I am very glad the hon. member raised it. The commission of inquiry did, however, say that in the case where chiropractics was used for manipulated therapy, it was useful, but that it should be confined to that activity. Secondly, it pointed out that chiropractic held dangers to health, for two reasons. I am not propounding my theory now but that of the commission of inquiry. The first reason was that chiropractics lacked diagnostic knowledge or expertise in the field of diagnosis.

Just leave the chiropractors to the doctors, and confine yourself rather to things you know something about.

I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg probably should go to a chiropractor or probably it would be better for him to go to a herbalist. [Interjections.]

The second reason given by the commission of inquiry for saying that the chiropractic profession held dangers to health was the general belief that all illness originated in the spinal factor. That is what chiropractors believe. They believe that bubonic plague, for instance, originates in the spinal factor.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I am telling the House what the commission of inquiry found. These are not my views.

Did the commission refer to bubonic plague?

Perhaps I ought to enlighten the hon. member by telling him that the commission found that according to chiropractors all ills arose out of the spinal factor.

So you choose bubonic plague?

Precisely, to illustrate the unscientific nature of the practice.

Thirdly, the commission of inquiry found that no statutory recognition ought to be given to chiropractics as a profession. It actually considered whether a conditional recognition ought not to be given to chiropractics, but eventually it came to the conclusion that such recognition should not be given because chiropractors had unequivocally expressed their opposition to any kind of limitation on their activities. That is how matters stood.

I now come to the point the hon. member for Stilfontein raised a few moments ago when he said “That was 20 years ago.” He is correct. That is how matters stood for 20 years, and now suddenly the hon. the Minister comes with this Bill. According to the S.A. Medical Association, in a letter that I have here, the hon. the Minister published this Bill without consulting or even giving notice to the S.A. Medical Council. I quote—

So why does the hon. the Minister do this now?

He is being manipulated.

The Medical Association says that they find his behaviour strange and worrying, and they actually directed a letter in very strong terms to the Director-General of the Department of Health and Welfare, setting out their opposition to the Bill in detail. But the hon. the Minister simply went ahead in spite of this letter. Why? In that letter the Medical Association said that the description “associated health service professions” was unacceptable as it would be interpreted by people and by the other health professions as an indication that chiropractic, homeopathics, etc., were health professions, while in the association’s opinion they are not. The association indicated that it was unacceptable to refer to them as professions. Why then does the hon. the Minister fly in the face of the medical profession? Does he have contempt for them like the hon. the Minister of Justice has for judges? The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he had to control the conduct of practitioners. That was the reason he gave.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say: “The hon. the Minister of Justice has contempt for judges”?

Of course, he can say that.

Order! No, the hon. member for Pinetown is not allowed to say that. He must withdraw it at once.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] The reason given by the hon. the Minister is that he has to control these people in their professions. I want to state that we have no objection to the hon. the Minister exercising control over them. We do indeed welcome that control. We support that control. The S.A. Medical and Dental Council also supports that control of these people. The question is, however, why they should be called health professions. The criticism of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council in this regard is completely and contemptuously disregarded.

By a doctor of all people, you know.

Yes, that is done by the hon. the Minister who is himself a medical doctor. This Bill is a vote of no confidence in the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. This Bill is a vote of no confidence in the S.A. Medical Association. As has been said in this debate there is no scientific training for these people in South Africa. There is also no professional training for them in South Africa. Why then give them the legal power in terms of this Bill to administer subcutaneous and intramuscular injections? Why should a herbalist have such power? That is trifling with South Africa’s health services.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that we on this side of the House have no objections to people who have skill in spinal manipulation to practise such skill. We also have no objection to making a practice of it as a therapy, provided that those who do practise these skills refrain from claiming diagnostic expertise. We also welcome control over people who practise these skills. We have no objection to herbalists, osteopaths, homeopaths, etc., practising their skills. We welcome that and we welcome the control over them as well. We do not even object to people reading other people’s palms in order to tell them what their health condition is. We do not even object to witch-doctors throwing their bones. They may practise their arts and they may be controlled. To make some of these people, however, part of South Africa’s health department’s professions is laughable.

Finally, we should like to know what has happened since the time of the commission of inquiry. What has happened since the S.A. Medical and Dental Council brought out their report? What has happened since the Medical Association of South Africa wrote their letter? What has happened to change the position? What new evidence has the hon. the Minister received? What new evidence has he obtained? What new facts has he obtained which caused him to put this Bill before the House? Why has he not told us what new facts he has and what new evidence he has obtained? He should have told us all these things in his Second Reading speech. The hon. the Minister owes a duty to the people of South Africa. It is his duty to play open cards with them. So far, however, he has not done so. Therefore we maintain that this Bill must go to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support the Second Reading of this Bill. Like hon. members who have spoken before me, I too want to confine myself chiefly to remarks about chiropractic.

However, first of all I should like to react briefly to the hon. member for Pinetown. He challenged us to give the names of colleges where chiropractors are trained. I want to give him a good few names. In the first place there is the Los Angeles College of Chiropractors, in California. Then there is also the National College of Chiropractors, in Illinois, as well as the North Western College of Chiropractors, in St. Paul, the Texas Chiropractors College, in Pasadena, Texas. There are many more too. I have a very long list of names of such colleges.

As far as the scientific nature of the training is concerned, I just want to point out that in the USA—and most of our people have been trained there—two years of training at an approved university institution is required before entrance to a college for chiropractic is possible. The two years of training consists of two phases. Anatomy is studied in the first year, and 640 hours are devoted to this. A total of 320 hours are devoted to a study of physiology. 320 hours are also devoted to the study of chemistry, whilst pathology and bacteriology require 480 hours. Hygiene, sanitation and public health account for 80 hours of study. I just want to ask whether these are not scientific subjects. In phase two subjects like physical, clinical, laboratory and differential diagnosis are studied and gynaecology, paediatrics, etc. I just want to know whether these are not scientific subjects as well. According to my information they are. In any event the hon. member for Pinetown’s argument was so weak that if I ever required legal aid, I would know who not to consult.

I want to say a few things about the history of chiropractic. The earliest references to manipulative therapy are to be found in rock art unearthed in the south of France, and that dates back to approximately the 17500 B.C. Chinese references to manipulation from about 2700 years B.C. are also on record. Greek papyrus that deals with this therapy, dates back to approximately 1500 years B.C. It is true that references to spinal manipulation disappeared during the Middle Ages, but during the Renaissance period this practice apparently began to flourish again.

Earlier in this debate mention was made of the fact that a certain Daniel David Palmer laid doen the foundation for modern chiropractic in 1895. Today there is a very general acceptance amongst the general public of the therapeutic value of this manipulative therapy.

For many years chiropractors have been attempting to be recognized and accepted as members of the established team rendering medical services. However, it is equally true that the organized medical profession in the Republic of South Africa is opposing this striving on grounds that at first sight appear to be logical and responsible. I repeat: On grounds that at first sight appear to be logical and responsible. The debate between the chiropractors and the organized medical profession is unfortunately accompanied by a great deal of emotion.

To begin with I want to express my very high respect and appreciation towards the medical profession, and nothing that I may raise further on in my speech, is aimed at detracting in any event from my respect for this profession.

Over a long period I have read a great deal about chiropractic. I have also obtained a newspaper cutting from a morning newspaper of 26 October 1981 which I feel briefly summarizes the essence of this debate. I quote from it—

I now quote what was said by Dr. A. G. Till, the secretary of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa, according to this report, viz.—

That was in October last year—

Now it is true that I am a scientist myself and I should like to ask for hon. members’ attention in connection with certain ideas regarding the term “scientific nature” or “unscientific nature”. In the first instance I want to say with all due respect that no science or profession may claim the monopoly of trying to pass judgment on what is in fact scientific and what is not. If one delves into the history of any of our modern professions one will in fact find mistakes in the actions of the profession. One will also encounter faulty practices that were implemented in those professions over a number of years. It is true that a highly respected profession such as the medical profession has also undergone its development. I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the work of William Harvey. He published his famous textbook in 1628 and in it he revealed for the first time the true nature of the circulation of the blood and of the function of the heart as a pump. This had not been known previously. Should we then say that everyone who had been involved in the medical profession from the earliest time to that stage, had been unscientific? After all, they did as best as they possibly could. I also want to tell you that Louis Pasteur who lived from 1822 to 1895 proved for the first time that micro-organisms caused fermentation and disease. Before Louis Pasteur’s time—and this is known from writings—it was the custom of doctors—it was not forbidden—to work on cadavers and immediately after that, without even disinfecting their hands because they did not know anything about disinfectants then, to attend women in labour and of course the mortality rate was extremely high. Can one hold this against the medical practice of today? Surely not.

In my opinion the scientific nature of a profession can be measured according to the profession’s reaction and adjustments when new scientific facts come to light.

It is definitely true that in recent years incorrect practices were still carried out by chiropractors but I feel that modern chiropractic has been purged of those practices. Today it deals only with the manipulation of the spinal column.

I should like to quote certain things from a report that was submitted to Parliament in New Zealand in 1979 by a commission of inquiry into chiropractic in New Zealand. This commission was appointed by His Excellency the Governor-General of New Zealand. I want to say at once that one must be careful not to quote selectively from reports. However, hon. members will concede that I will not be able to quote the entire report, but I want to try in all fairness—because I am not involved, I am not a medical practitioner—to make a contribution in this regard in the interest of the voters outside. In all fairness I want to say that I read through this report quickly, that I deliberated upon it at length and that I chose certain sections to give hon. members an indication of the findings of this specific commission.

I want to quote from “Part I—Introductory: Introduction and general conclusion”. This is the first chapter. The first point that is made, is the following—

[Interjections.] This was in 1979. I also want to quote the tenth point of the introduction. It reads as follows—

Surely that proves that the hon. members opposite are wrong.

I read further—

I also want to quote a few of the most important findings of the commission. The first general finding under the heading “General” to which I want to draw attention, is—

I quote one more of these—

Furthermore, I also want to quote a few things from findings regarding the relationship between chiropractic and the medical profession. I quote from the section entitled “Chiropractic and the Medical Profession”—

We all accept this, I hope. Then—

I think this finding is in agreement with the particular provision in the Bill.

Then, under the heading “Professional Organization”, the first finding that I want to quote is—

This is an Act in New Zealand—

I read on—

Therefore the commission says that the disciplinary machinery must be improved, but they do not find fault with the scientific basis of chiropractic. The Bill is in fact aimed as improving the disciplinary machinery. In this respect we are in line with the findings of this important commission in New Zealand.

The Bill contains no new principles. It is largely a consolidating measure, because five Acts are being replaced by means of the Bill, as well as a certain section of a sixth Act. Provision is being made in the Bill for a council with disciplinary powers. This is heading towards the improvement of the discipline, as I say, of this profession.

In this respect I find it a pity that we are still at the point where opening the register is not possible. I want to express the hope that it will soon be possible to open the register for these very useful people in society.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Pretoria East. Before discussing a few matters regarding the Bill in general, I want to dwell on a few minor matters touched on by the hon. member for Pinetown. Apparently the hon. member does not understand what the Bill is about. Surely the issue here is not the training or method of diagnosis and all that this entails in respect of chiropractors and the other people we are now discussing. Surely what is at issue is the existence of a group of people pursuing a certain profession, and we must do something about them. This is all that is at issue, and nothing more. About this we must have absolute clarity. The hon. member feels that this is all very well “but why call them health professions?” He referred inter alia to masseurs and argued as if masseurs formed part of the group he did not consider very important and that he wanted to associate with chiropractors. I think if the hon. member goes into this matter he will find that masseurs are also included in “health professions” and are classed as a health profession under the auspices of the Medical Council. We must not overlook this point.

It is not unusual for new legislation or amending legislation to be in the pipeline for many years before being discussed in Parliament. The legislation at present before this House is a very good example of a thorny issue that is now receiving the attention of this House after the pros and cons have been very carefully weighed up. This legislation has received the attention of four different Ministers over the years, and on several occasions this matter has been discussed at length. At times one even had the feeling that there was an unwillingness to handle this hot patato. However, the point has been reached where the hon. the Minister felt that something had to be done about the affairs of these people who are pursuing a specific profession. Accordingly, in this legislation only the continued existence of these people as a profession is at issue and nothing more.

On the one hand we have the medical profession which, through its representative bodies, has a very clear standpoint regarding the professions under discussion. We have heard the standpoint of the medical profession repeatedly since the investigations undertaken in the sixties and again two years ago. The medical profession and its representative bodies have been building up the image of their profession over the years, and we in this House would be the last to seek to detract from it. We are proud of the way in which our medical practitioners carry out a demanding task and of the standard maintained by the medical profession in this country. If the standard of practice of the medical profession and the recognized associated professions is so high—and this is in fact the case—then it is understandable that they will jealously guard against anything being done to upset the status quo. This is the standpoint of the medical practitioners.

On the other hand there is Parliament that must pass laws to regulate matters; in this case, to regulate certain matters relating to these professions. Parliament must look after the interests of the interested parties, and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister, as executive officer, seeks to and in fact does look after the interests of everyone affected by his actions extremely well. The hon. the Minister frequently has to act in difficult and trying situations and he very often has an unenviable task.

Between the medical practitioners on the one hand and the lawmakers on the other we have a group of people who belong to a health profession. The hon. member for Pinetown would prefer the term health profession to be in quotes.

I now want to refer more specifically to the chiropractors, about whom I know more and with whom, what is more, I frequently had dealings when I was still in private practice. When we speak of this group of people, we are not speaking about thousands of people. We are speaking about a small group of people who, as has already been pointed out, have an important and very definite place in the health set-up. These people are visited every year by almost one million patients—this is the most recent figure. We cannot therefore merely disregard these people. They do exist and every year they see almost one million patients. Accordingly, by means of this legislation we want to regulate those aspects of their profession that are not yet regulated. They have treated patients who can testify that they have been helped, and there is no doubt about this either. Probably there are failures—in fact there may be many failures— and we could probably say a great deal regarding their methods of examination and treatment and the success they achieve, etc., but the fact remains that there are people who are visited by an increasing number of patients who are afforded help and relief as a result of the treatment they receive. This is not, therefore, a group of people who have suddenly appeared on the scene as a result of legislation. These people have already gained a place among the medical professions through legislation passed by this Parliament prior to the seventies. We even speak of associated health professions. We therefore acknowledge that they participate, that their profession is an associated profession and that they therefore have a share in the duties carried out by the medical profession.

Are you serious?

I prefer the term “supplementary health profession” to “associated health profession”, because I think this says more, but I shall not pursue this matter.

For many years we have been able to testify to the fact that these people made a very honest effort to gain statutory recognition, and whatever one’s opinion of the profession may be, we can nevertheless say with conviction that we have a high regard for the way in which they have stated their case, where necessary, and the numbers of the profession can certainly be proud of their spokesmen. This we can confirm. The finding of the commission of enquiry in the days of a former Minister of Health, Dr. Hertzog, is history to which reference has repeatedly been made here. We also know that these findings of the commission were evaluated two years ago and that the Medical Association adopted a negative standpoint.

It is also history that in the ’seventies, representations were again made by the chiropractors in an effort to gain statutory recognition, and the direction issued to them by the then Minister was: Put your own house in order and then we shall discuss matters further. This House cannot therefore, hold it against those people, who were in that position, if they inferred from that that if they did what was expected of them, they could consider the freezing of the register to be a temporary measure only. After all, they then did what was expected of them. They only entered “qualified” members on their register. They also drew up a code of conduct to which members were to be subject and what is more, in the process the names of 70 so-called quacks were removed from their register. Now we have eventually summoned up enough courage to introduce this legislation. It is therefore necessary that we should state categorically, for each one of these professions to hear, that the only point at issue is the establishment of a statutory body, a board, that will control the practice of various professions as mentioned in the Bill. Nothing more is at issue. If, then, the next step is to compel the members of the disciplines under discussion to adopt, inter alia, medico-ethical acceptable basic training and practice, surely we cannot oppose this. With reference to what the hon. member for Pretoria East said, it is then also important that we see this as a process of development, similar to the process of development that the medical profession went through. We must therefore compel them, in this orderly fashion, to adopt medico-ethical, acceptable basic training and practise. Surely we shall then be achieving what we set out do do. This is in line with the generally acceptable policy of the Department of Health and Welfare and the Government that every possible acceptable health services profession must be incorporated in an all-encompassing service for the sake of the health of the people of this country.

I do not want to cross swords with my colleagues in the medical profession. It must be quite clear to the South African Medical Association that what is at issue here is the establishment of a statutory body that can only exercise control and impose disciplinary measures, and that what evolves from this as regards training, diagnosis and everything this entails, can still be discussed. In view of that I just want to ask, with all due respect, whether the standpoint of the S.A. Medical Association in respect of this Bill is not biased. I want to repeat that we in fact want to establish a statutory body to exercise control and regulate matters. In fact, we want to create a board which can take disciplinary action when regulations are infringed. We specifically want to ensure that a board will be established that will compel members to act within the specific parameters of their profession. Surely this is what we want and this is what we will get by means of this board. The board will eventually have to draw up training requirements. I believe that the board will be able to play a very important role and that it will look after the interests of its people whose position, rightly or wrongly, is being questioned in our health services set-up. We must also point out that requirements and regulations drawn up by such a board, will be considered by the hon. the Minister as they come to hand, in the interests of good service. The hon. the Minister can, at his discretion, go further and subject the rules and regulations and everything they entail, to further evaluation by having them tested by the HSRC or the Medical Research Council. I want to appeal to the medical profession and their representative bodies to reconsider this matter.

In conclusion, I just want to say that I feel that the aforementioned health professions should eventually all be administered by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, together with a lengthy list of health professions, including, inter alia, chiropodists—if the hon. member for Pinetown has in-growing toenails he can consult them—opticians, masseurs, optometrists, blood transfusion technicians, etc. I feel that in the interests of medical services in this country all these professions must be regulated and must eventually all fall under a single body. The board which is to be established must also realize that it will have to see to it that members of the professions it represents will only achieve a fully-fledged place in the ranks of the medical health professions if they meet the high requirements that will be set. I believe that this will be the case. Some of these people were trained as chiropractors, but as a result of the legal provision of 1971 they are still not part of the service and may not practise. I believe that pressure exerted by them will probably increase and that their position may have to be reconsidered. The board that is to be established may possibly also be able to recommend that in exceptionally deserving cases such chiropractors be allowed to practise. We shall probably have to take this into account in the future, because these people are justified in saying that they considered the 1971 measure to be temporary.

I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a very long and interesting debate. Very interesting aspects emerged, although some of them were completely irrelevant and had nothing to do with the legislation before us. On the hand there were contributions which were very well argued and properly prepared. It is very clear to me that some of the hon. members who participated in the debate, did not have the foggiest notion of what this legislation was all about. I am referring specifically to the hon. member for Pinetown now. I wish to caution this hon. member to be very careful. He is an advocate, and a cobbler should stick to his last. I think that he was fed with certain information, on the basis of which he made a speech here, a speech which clearly showed that he had not done any homework. Perhaps he did do a little work on it this morning, but he had certainly done none for yesterday evening; if he had, he would have faired better. He realizes this himself; that is why he is laughing so furtively in his bench over there. [Interjections.] The hon. member referred to a report which had been published in 1962, and wanted to know what had happened since then. Nothing, he said, until I suddenly introduced the legislation here. However, the hon. member is not even aware that the Chiropractors Act was passed in 1971 and the Homeopaths Act in 1974. Surely the hon. member must know about them, or is he hearing about them for the first time now? [Interjections.] He said that 20 years had elapsed, and wanted to know what had happened in the meantime. However, I shall return to the hon. member, because he put a few specific questions to me, to which I wish to reply.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Rustenburg for his contribution. He debated in a calm and peaceful (rustige) manner, probably because he is the hon. member for Rustenburg! As a doctor he approached the matter from a professional point of view, and did not allow himself to be stampeded by hon. members on the Opposition side. He was prepared to live and let live. He summed up the purpose of this legislation very aptly by saying that it was concerned with the establishment of a statutory body. The legislation does not deal with the question of whether or not a chiropractor has been well-trained. It does not prescribe whether or not he may administer an injection. Provisions of this nature are already contained in existing laws, and in terms of such laws a chiropractor may administer an injection. I was not responsible for those laws, but it is my task to administer them.

The hon. member for Rustenburg raised a point to which other hon. members also referred. It is my endeavour to bring everything concerned with the weal and woe of a person, including his psyche, under one council, which has to ensure that the conduct towards the patient is at all times correct. After all, the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Pietersburg were not appointed to act as the Don Quixotes of the patient. All medical practitioners are involved with their patients, and that is what this legislation is concerned with. At present there are no measures in terms of which proper discipline may be exercised in respect of chiropractors, and these matters are constantly being referred to the department. Surely the department cannot be constantly involved in disciplinary measures, in the composition of boards and the appointment of people to do certain things. Surely people must regulate their own affairs. Initially I was completely astounded at the reaction of the hon. member for Parktown. He is a very well-known medical man, who is probably at the top of his profession. But what did he do? He quoted here what someone had said about chiropractors in 1885. These he then considered to be unscientific. Not many years ago people had completely different ideas about the heart than they have today. They thought that the heart was the seat of love. They thought that heartache was caused by the heart being hurt when a person went through a shocking experience. But what happened? Prof. Chris Barnard removed the heart from one person and transplanted it to another, after which he told the world that there was nothing situated in the heart, that it was merely a pump. The heart is merely a pump. Who would at that time, then, long before the Anglo Boer War, have thought that a person would ever operate on an open heart, while it was still beating? Or even more incredible, who would have thought at the time that the heart could even be stopped while an operation was performed on it? Or does the hon. member for Parktown now wish to suggest that at that time people were not scientifically minded enough? Does he wish to suggest that people should at that time, by way of legislation, have prohibited anyone from ever touching the human heart? Surely one cannot argue in that way. Every day brings new things.

The hon. member for Pretoria East pointed out how far back the roots of our medical science are situated. In every generation new things emerged. Just think of all the things that are being done today. Think of all the injections which are being used today. Even radio-active scanners are being used. Surely these are things we had not even dreamed about five years ago. In this way things keep on improving. So how can one fall back on certain things which people said 20 years ago, in 1962.

I am not here to make a plea for chiropractors. However, we must tell nothing but the truth in this House. The hon. member for Pinetown wanted to know from me what recognized colleges or universities were providing these people with training. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of this, but chiropractors are accredited with the Department of Education in America. Chiropractors are being trained at 14 colleges in America. They undergo a six year course. Some of those courses are so widely recognized that chiropractors may even switch over and continue with medical training. Did the hon. member for Pinetown know that?

Can you name one reputable college?

Name them! You cannot name even one!

The hon. member for Bezuidenhou can stop shouting “name one!” now. I shall furnish the names of those colleges during the Committee Stage, or during the Third Reading.

†I can tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout there are 14 such accredited colleges in USA. Some of them are attached to universities. Their students can even, at a certain stage of their training career, switch over and qualify as medical doctors.

*It is not wise to go through life wearing blinkers.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown puts up a much better performance on the platform, or even when he is handling court cases in Natal; those cases in which he specializes. Surely he cannot venture into the domain of medicine. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinetown proposed that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. What is the sense of a Select Committee? The hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Pinetown, as well as the hon. member for Pietersburg of course, decried me for allegedly walking all over the Medical Association of South Africa and the S.A. Medical and Dental Council with hobnailed boots. I have the greatest respect for the S.A. Medical and Dental Council and for the Medical Association of South Africa. Each, however, in its own place, while each does its work as it sees fit.

Each in its place?

Yes, each in its place, and each on its own dung-heap. [Interjections.] Yes, if he likes the hon. member for Pinetown can indicate to the people on the Press gallery what they must write down. I am not afraid of the Press. I am not a member of the Opposition who has to run to the Press all day and try to make front-page news. Perhaps the truth does not make as much of an impression on the hon. members of the Opposition as it sometimes does on the Press.

In any event, you never make the front page.

I do make the front page.

Old Sive is a fossil. That is why he is sitting so quietly there. [Interjections.]

Sometimes the hon. member for Pinetown also makes the front page, but for other reasons. [Interjections.]

Let us see what these two bodies are doing. The one is a statutory body, i.e. the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. I have every confidence in that council, but surely it is not my task to consult the S.A. Medical and Dental Council every time I wish to act administratively in my department. The same applies to the Medical Association of South Africa. Allow me to explain to hon. members the procedure I adopt when I wish to introduce legislation here. When legislation has to be introduced after I have received representations, and if it is legislation which affects doctors, I consult the Medical Association of South Africa for a long time before matters are ultimately disposed of. However, when it affects other bodies, for example these bodies which approach me, bodies which have their own associations, extensive talks take place with them before we proceed to take further action. In the present case the matter was at one stage discussed over and over again. After that we published a draft Bill. That draft Bill was published 15 months ago. When the draft Bill was published, we asked for comments on it, which we received. I went even further. The hon. member for Parktown quoted from a letter written to the Director-General by the Medical Association. But that letter is ancient history. Subsequently there was considerable further exchange of letters. There were interviews too, one after another. I am not going to quote again what they said in the letter. The hon. member has already quoted it. In it they express their misgivings at the legislation, and at that stage they asked for an interview. On 2 June 1981 I had an interview with the executive committee of the Federal Council, during which we discussed the matter. They had the idea that this legislation now opened the list for the chiropractors to get on to the register. But that is not true, and I pointed this out to them. Since we are quoting letters to one another, let us see what really happened. I conducted a long interview with these people and we had an in-depth discussion of the whole matter. When I received this letter on 26 June, I thought that the matter had been resolved. Would hon. members not also have thought the same if they had received this letter? The chairman of the Federal Council wrote to me saying—

I gave him a précis of what we discussed there and what I told them. The letter continued—

My interview with them had removed any uneasiness which may have prevailed, they said. The letter went on to say—

Here the Federal Council is in agreement with what I said, viz. with my view that there should be a law. Now, at the last minute, the hon. member quoted a letter which had been written previously. I even went further. After that interview I had a meeting with the executive of the Medical Council. With Prof. Geldenhuys in attendance. I spoke to them and asked them to take these groups under the protection of the Medical Council. I did this because it is my view that everyone who has anything to do with the health of the individual, whether one likes him or not, whether he employs manipulative techniques or whether he dispenses pills—whatever he does—ought to fall under one council. That council may then impose discipline and draw up curricula for their training. Surely it is not my task as Minister, nor the task of the department, to do so. I had a very satisfactory conversation with the council, so much so that we arranged a meeting afterwards at which the council members, the Medical Association, the hon. member for Pietersburg, the chiropractors and the homeopaths were present. There was half an auditorium full of people. There they stated their case to one another. I specifically asked the president of the Medical Council to be present. He, and the chairman of the Federal Council, were there. They stated their case and I listened to it, but did not offer any comment. It was not for me to comment on whether they could influence one another or not. From that, however, sprang my decision that we would have to proceed with legislation, but only after the Medical Council had decided what they wanted to do. I suggested that they should take these people under their protection, protection in this sense that they can impose discipline and lay down what their qualifications should be. Obviously the Medical Council considered this matter for a long time and then decided against it, but by only one vote. If one person had been ill that day, the vote would have gone the other way. Then they would in fact have taken these people under their protection. Consequently the voting was not unanimous. I wish to add that the chairman of the Federal Council of the Medical Association was in favour of this legislation. So how unscientific can this business be if the chairman of the Federal Council of the Medical Association voted in favour of this matter falling under a scientific body such as the Medical Council? Is the hon. member able to make out what is happening now? How is it that he maintains that these people should be left precisely where they are? Should we simply pull the blankets over our heads and hope that they will not hurt, poison or cripple anyone. Surely that is not how it works. How can the hon. member for Pietersburg now say that the patient comes first? The hon. member for Pietersburg made a few other very nasty remarks and I wanted to get back at him immediately for doing so. He referred to the hon. member for Brits and he said that the hon. member for Brits—

I wish to say that the speech made by the hon. member for Brits had far more to do with the legislation than the one made by the hon. member for Pietersburg. The hon. member for Pietersburg tried to indicate to us how well the practitioners ought to be trained, what they ought to do and how competent they ought to be. That has nothing to do with this legislation. However, the hon. member for Pietersburg went further and he said something which I cannot allow to go unanswered because it now stands in Hansard.

The hon. member for Pietersburg said the following—

That is correct. The hon. member stated it in the group. But then the hon. member for Pietersburg went further and had this to say—

Who deprived the hon. member of that right?

You people did.

The hon. member for Pietersburg refused to swear loyalty to his Prime Minister in the caucus and then he left the caucus of his own accord. [Interjections.] Who deprived him of that right? The week after that, when we discussed the matter, he did not turn up.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte is known on this side of the House as a joker, and he is still one, even though he is sitting on that side. [Interjections.] That hon. member should concern himself with his own affairs and with the party he wants to establish. He should not come here and bandy words with me across the floor of this House. He threw down the gauntlet, and he must stay on his side of the House. [Interjections.] Don’t go away. I am now talking to the hon. member for Pietersburg. [Interjections.] I now want to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg: If he had stayed on this side of the House and had discussed the matter with us in the caucus and had been in the minority, would he also have left that caucus? [Interjections.]

I want to come now to a few other points. The hon. member came to light with the allegation that this could be regarded as being nothing else but a motion of no-confidence in the functions of the Medical Council. Surely that is not correct. How can it be a motion of no-confidence in the functions of the Medical Council, while the Medical Council refused to exercise that supervision and I was for that reason compelled to take steps to regulate these people, to exercise discipline and to ensure that there is protection for the patient? We heard from the hon. member for Rustenburg that more than a million people had consulted chiropractors. That is without counting those people who had consulted homeopaths. Surely one cannot say that that has nothing to do with a person’s health. Seated over there are the hon. members for Parktown and Pietersburg. Are they qualified in manipulative techniques? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parktown …

Of course not. I do not use such techniques. [Interjections.]

That is the answer I wanted to hear. However, the hon. member is entitled to do so. Because he is a registered medical practitioner, he can use manipulative techniques.

Because I have the best interest of my patients at heart, I refrain from using them. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is correct. [Interjections.] I like an honest man. However, since the hon. member is a registered medical practitioner and for good reasons does not employ these manipulative techniques—and I agree with him—he ought to weigh his words in this particular connection. Nor should the hon. member for Pietersburg imply, with reference to my hon. colleague the Minister of Environmental Affairs and myself, that we are of the opinion that a chiropractor can cure asthma and ulcers. That is what he said in his speech. [Interjections.] The hon. member asked us whether we thought this was the case. Why should we? Who would be such a fool as to think that a chiropractor could cure ulcers or asthma? Can the hon. members for Pietersburg and Parktown give me a written guarantee that they can cure ulcers and asthma? [Interjections.] Can they give me that written guarantee? When we argue, we should not only which to advance our own profession and try to disparage other professions. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietersburg quoted in detail what the American medical association had had to say. In October last year I paid these people a visit. Not only did I hold talks lasting two or three hours with the same Dr. Sammons who was quoted by the hon. member, but we also had lunch that afternoon with their executive committee. Does the hon. member know what Dr. Sammons told me? He said that the American medical council had allowed a great opportunity to slip through their fingers, because he had urged them to take the chiropractors under their protection. Why did the hon. member quote the American medical association as supposedly having had some difficulty with the chiropractors as well, or as supposedly thinking that they were not scientific? I do not wish to say whether they are scientific or not. That is not my argument this afternoon, nor is it the task of legislation to state whether they are scientific or not.

If one quotes such people, one should also be consistent. The hon. member for Pinetown said they were not a profession. In the legislation on homeopaths it is provided—

This is followed by provisions relating to their conduct. The point, however, is that the Act refers to a “profession”. I did not say that, nor did I frame the Act. Why did the hon. member suddenly feel now that “it should not be an associated profession”? If we want to score verbal points off one another, I must point out that what is really at issue here is not the name. What is at issue is the question of what the legislation contains.

The hon. member for Pietersburg made a great issue of the need for us to protect the public. Of course that is what we are doing. Cannot the hon. member perceive that when we wish to protect the public, we must in fact have legislation which makes provision for disciplinary measures? There must also be provision for rules.

The hon. member for Stilfontein, and possibly the hon. member for Swellendam as well, asked us to consider re-opening these peoples’ register. Such a request was made to me, but I told the group that I did not feel that we should incorporate this in the legislation. The board must first prove itself. I shall not do the evaluation; it is not for me to evaluate how scientific they are or what the prescribed educational qualifications should be. The board will have to refer it to us and we shall probably refer it to the Department of National Education or the HSRC, for in the USA their Department of Education deals with the matter and they do the accreditation. They will have to see whether the profession can be trained and whether they should be afforded an opportunity to expand. They will also have to say whether the register can be reopened.

I want to put a question to my medical colleague, the hon. member for Pietersburg, as well as to the hon. member for Pinetown. If the board makes a recommendation to the effect that such a person should be trained for six years as a physician before he tackles the two-year course on the manipulative techniques of chiropractic, would they advocate that such a person could be allowed to practice as a chiropractor?

I would.

But then we are moving closer to one another—but not too dose. [Interjections.]

†I should like to thank the hon. member for South Coast for his very positive contribution. At a certain stage the hon. member very definitely brought the debate back. At that stage it needed to be brought back to ground level, and with this I mean that it was re-emphasized that we are dealing with a certain problem when we discuss the legislation. The problem which we are trying to solve is how to form a board that will be empowered to take certain steps if people do not practise as they are supposed to practise. There is also the point that their fees are to be controlled. This is virtually all this legislation is about.

*I wish to make it very clear once again that the Bill has nothing to do with the question of whether a chiropractor has been accepted or not. Nor is it concerned with the question of whether a homeopath or other similar groups have been accepted or not. I find it very easy to see through the campaign of the official Opposition. Yes, the hon. member for Pinetown points to the gallery when I talk about the Medical Association, because he thinks I may be going to say something bad about the Medical Association. I have every confidence in them. Moreover I have the greatest admiration for the medical practice; it is my own practice and why should I not admire it? But it is my task as Minister to decide, together with the House, whether it it not time that justice was done. One cannot simply leave these people as they are. Surely it is not in the interests of the patient that they are simply able to apply any practices.

There were other very good contributions as well; not that I wish to imply that the first two contributions to which I referred were not good ones.

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Brits tried to bring the standard of the debate to where it ought to have been, viz. that it was merely concerned with those specific two aspects. The hon. member made it very clear that the patient should be seen as a person and not merely as someone who was going to receive manipulation. After all, many people consult chiropractors. The hon. member for Rustenburg was right when he said that chiropodists do fall under the Medical Council. Do hon. members now wish to tell me that a chiropodist, with all his training, falls into the same category as a doctor? I want to ask the hon. member for Pinetown whether a chiropodist falls into the same category as a doctor.

You must rather continue with your speech.

Yes, I shall, but the hon. member does not want to answer my question. The fact remains, however, that chiropodists also fall under the Medical Council, but that does not mean to say that they have had the same level of training as that of medical practitioners.

The hon. member for Brits said it was important that one discipline these disciplines from an early stage and ensure that discipline is exercised. All the speakers on this side of the House agree with that. The hon. member for Swellendam made a very clear plea and also said that this profession should not be stifled now, but should in fact be reinstated. I do not wish to comment on it today, nor is that the purpose of the legislation. I explained to the Medical Association and other interested parties that if the board were to come forward with requests and state that they were satisfied with the qualifications, that would be something which would have to be considered at that stage, after which this House would first have to pass the necessary legislation. This cannot merely be done by the Minister. I was asked to include a provision in the legislation empowering the Minister to do so by way of regulation, but I refused.

The hon. member for Swellendam also referred to the possibility of RAU being prepared to establish a chair in this discipline if they could receive the assurance that these people would be re-instated on a register. This is a matter which they will have to thrash out themselves. However, it is interesting that one of the top people in the chiropractic profession, a person who trains chiropractors in Australia, is a certain Dr. Kleynhans. He received his training at the University of Potchefstroom in physical culture—I am not quite certain of the correct name of the subject—and after going through an experience which caused him to believe in chiropractors, he qualified as one. At present he is training chiropractors in Australia, where they enjoy recognition in most of the federal States. We cannot say at this stage that the profession of chiropractor will not come to an end. These people will now have to regulate their own affairs and make proposals to the department, which will then take them further if they have any merit.

†The hon. member for South Coast again made a very interesting point, which seems to be difficult to get across to the hon. member for Pietersburg, the hon. member for Parktown and to the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member said that these people are already in legitimate practice and that they are controlled by an Act. They are allowed to practice. They can call themselves “doctors” as long as, according to the Act, they do not do it in such a way that they can be confused with a medical doctor.

*That is what the Act states. I did not write it into the Act. It was done by my predecessors as long ago as 1971. The hon. member for Parktown asked why we did not define a chiropractor. How is a doctor defined in any of our Acts? No definition of a doctor exists. What definition is there of a dentist?

How lucky can you get!

What definition is there of a physiotherapist? There are definitions of things which fall under the Department of Nature Conservation which would fit the hon. member for Bryanston. [Interjections.] All that is stated in this legislation is that if one complies with the requirements for registration, one is a doctor. [Interjections.] However, there is no definition of what a doctor may do. There is no Act which even defines a “nurse”. Perhaps the hon. member for Parktown should define a “nurse” for us. One cannot incorporate definitions in legislation. Why should I therefore rack my brains to define a “chiropractor” and a “homeopath” while no other practitioner is defined in our health legislation.

The hon. member for Stilfontein stated his case in a very calm and reasoned way. He referred to the taking of blood samples and asked whether or not those people should be allowed to take blood samples. I think this is something which we shall eventually have to sort out, after we have received submissions from the board. However, I do not wish to comment on these matters now, otherwise I might fall into the trap I am trying to avoid, for I do not want to do the work of the board. The board itself will have to state its position to us. In all the time I have been Minister, I have not received one complaint from the patient of a chiropractor. All the complaints I have had about chiropractors have come from doctors. I have not had one complaint from the patient of a chiropractor. Consequently there cannot be any major problems in connection with what those people are doing.

I have already replied to the hon. member’s question on the doctor. This is something which they can do. The hon. member for Pretoria East also made it very clear. He spoke in a very calm and scientific way. He did clarify his position immediately by saying that he was not a medical practitioner.

So if you remain calm, you are all right.

He might not be a medical practitioner, but there is not another member in this House with two doctors’ degrees which were hardly-won and not merely acquired. He has two doctors’ degrees, and I think a scientist of that calibre may certainly speak in defence of people who are not regarded as scientists, but who surely deserve a place in the sun.

Such as plumbers who now become engineers.

The hon. member’s plea was that we should give the board a chance, and that is precisely what I am asking this House to do today. I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—there he sits—to give his members a free vote. Let them vote freely on this very important matter. I am asking them not simply to run after the hon. member for Parktown. He has led them into trouble before. Give them a chance. Surely the hon. members who agree with the member for Pietersburg—some of them do agree with him and indicated as members of the group that they agree with him—are people who would like to see reasonableness and fairness triumph. [Interjections.]

Just keep calm.

I should like to conclude by conveying my very sincere thanks to hon. members who participated. I also wish to reiterate for the last time—one can never repeat this too often—that I have the greatest respect for the Medical Council and for the Medical Association, that I had repeated talks with them, that I listened to their representations and that I also received representations from the chiropractors, homeopaths and other groups. When the Medical Council did not want to take these groups under their protection. I decided that we should make provision for them, although it is not really the task of my department to do so. I also wish to indicate that this legislation has nothing to do with the question of whether chiropractic is a science or not. It is actually concerned with the need for us to introduce proper regulation of these professions.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill under discussion primarily contains two separate but related proposals which are not contentious.

In the first place it is concerned with control over the development and production of armaments. In view of the arms embargo instituted against the Republic in 1977 by the United Nations, it is of the utmost importance that the armaments industry should be stimulated as much as possible in order to achieve the highest possible degree of self-sufficiency.

In order to ensure that a high quality and proper standards are maintained, as well as to prevent inefficient utilization of the country’s financial and manpower resources, it is essential that the establishment of undertakings for the development and production of armaments should take place in orderly manner. The unregulated manufacture of armaments may also create the risk of items which may be of strategic importance falling into the wrong hands, or of manufacturers incurring great expenses and then having to face a situation where they are unable to find a market for their products.

†In terms of the Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968, Armscor is authorized, inter alia, to control the manufacture, acquisition and supply of armaments. However, the Act is silent in regard to the manner in which control over manufacture may be exercised, and it is now regarded as imperative that this deficiency be rectified by the creation of machinery by which such control can be exercised.

Under the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1969 (Act 75 of 1969), authority is vested in the Minister of Law and Order to issue permits for the production of arms and ammunition, as defined in that Act. The arms under discussion are the so-called commercial firearms used for hunting, self-defence, farming activities etc. and exclude military firearms. Since there is a clear difference between commercial firearms and armaments, and Armscor have therefore no material interest in the manufacture of the former type of firearms, it was decided that the South African Police should continue to exercise control over such manufacture, while Armscor should control the development and manufacture of armaments.

In practice the proposed control over the development and production of armaments will be effected by the identification by the Minister of Defence, by means of a notice in the Government Gazette of certain types of armaments which may not be developed or produced unless a permit has been received from Armscor authorizing such action. In addition, an employee of Armscor or any other person authorized thereto by the Minister of Defence, may enter any armaments factory at any time for doing any inspection which he may deem fit in order to establish whether the conditions stipulated in a permit are being complied with.

A period of six months’ extension of time within which to make application for the necessary permit will be granted to concerns which, on the effective date of the notice referred to previously, are already busy developing or producing the type of armament mentioned in such notice.

*The second aspect is the import and conveyance of armaments. As has already been mentioned, Armscor is at present empowered to exercise control over the manufacture, acquisition and supply of armaments. In connection with the acquisition and supply of armaments, too, the Act is silent about the way in which this control may be exercised. Apart from local manufacture, armaments may also be obtained by importing them from other countries. It is obvious that the unco-ordinated import and conveyance of armaments through the country not only create a security risk for the Republic, but may also harm the country’s political ties. Armscor is always fully acquainted with the stated and projected armaments requirements of the South African Defence Force, and is consequently in an excellent position to determine whether the import of specific types of armaments is necessary. For these reasons Armscor is regarded as being excellently qualified to co-ordinate and control the import and conveyance of armaments.

The Arms and Ammunition Act, 1969, at present contains a prohibition on the import or conveyance of arms and ammunition without a permit. An agreement was entered into with the South African Police that they would agree to exercise such control over the import and conveyance of commercial firearms and ammunition, while Armscor will exercise such control over armaments.

In practice the proposed control over the import and conveyance of armaments will also be effected by way of a notice in the Gazette, in which the Minister identifies certain types of armaments which may not be imported or conveyed through the Republic unless a permit has been received from Armscor authorizing such action. Armaments on board any vessel entering a South African harbour, or on board an aircraft landing on a South African airport, are also covered by such prohibition, irrespective of whether or not the armaments are intended to be offloaded in the Republic.

The Import and Export Control Act is also being suitably amended.

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition will support this measure. I wish, however, to deal very briefly with a few aspects of this Bill, because in some respects we believe the measure does not go far enough.

Firstly, there is the question of the arms boycott, to which the hon. the Minister also referred. I think that those of us who have had the opportunity of looking at the arms which are being manufactured in South Africa will realize that the country has indeed responded in a very substantial manner and also in a very effective manner, to the existing arms boycott. I think that some of those who are responsible for the arms boycott against us should bear in mind that the expenditure that we have to incur in respect of the manufacture of arms is expenditure which, I believe, most of us here should prefer to see spent on social purposes and on the uplifting of people in this country. The very people who have imposed the arms boycott and who profess to do so for the sake of other people in South Africa, however, are the people who do not take into account that by our having to spend this money the very people they profess to help are in fact harmed because that money has to be spent on armaments in order to defend our country and to overcome the arms boycott. To some extent therefore there is a degree of disadvantage to the people that they profess they are seeking to assist. I think all of us here would prefer to spend this money for social purposes rather than on arms, but we have to spend it on arms and we have no choice in the circumstances. Therefore, looking at the arms boycott in that context, we can say that the country has responded as it had to respond in the circumstances in order to defend itself.

Dealing specifically with the merits of this particular measure, the one matter on which we do differ with the hon. the Minister is that we do not believe that there should be a distinction between the control of the manufacture of so-called commercial firearms and the control of other armaments which obviously include firearms. Let me give a simple example. There is, for example, the manufacture of certain weapons such as pistols, shotguns or certain rifles that can be used for sporting purposes, if hunting can be classed as sport. Pistols can be used for self-defence, but they are also weapons that can be used for defence purposes. Very often it is very difficult to distinguish, if not impossible to distinguish, between a particular weapon that is used for a self-defence purpose by an individual and a weapon that is used for a defence purpose by the S.A. Defence Force. The same pistol can be used for the same purposes. The same shotgun can be used for the same purposes and the same rifle can be used for the same purposes. We believe that all armaments as such, in the broad definition, should be under the same control. I say this because when we talk about armaments we are not just talking about cannons, armoured cars and things of that sort: we are talking about small arms as well. In exactly the same way, when it comes to the question of the movement of arms, one obviously has to give certain functions to the police. However, there is no doubt that all of this should be under one particular control. We think that experience has shown that that control can best be exercised by Armscor in co-operation with the S.A. Police, but that the actual final decision in respect of the manufacture in South Africa should be a decision which is centralized and which should be co-ordinated. I want to make a forecast that this will be done in exactly the same way as we indicated. When we knew there was going to be control, which we supported, we said then that the hon. the Minister had not yet dealt with the method of that control, and he is coming back now to deal with the method of control. Therefore I want to forecast that he will come back in exactly the same way in order to centralize control of the manufacture of all armaments in the broadest definition under one entity, and when it comes we shall again support it. We hope it will come relatively soon.

The further question that arises is the question of the notice that must be given in the Government Gazette. I have great difficulty in relation to that because to my mind by advertising in the Government Gazette one is almost telling the people outside South Africa, people who are not one’s friends, what one is going to be manufacturing. To my mind what really is required is that we should impose a blanket prohibition in regard to the manufacture of all armaments and firearms and that anybody who wants to manufacture them should first of all apply for a permit. To my mind it is quite ludicrous to advertise to the world what one is going to be manufacturing. I ask therefore that this matter be considered because I think we would actually be helping the opponents of this country if we were to advertise this in the Government Gazette.

There is another matter to which I should just like to draw attention. I propose to move an amendment in this regard in the Committee Stage. We have had lots of legislation which has been passed in regard to inspections. In this particular Bill there is a provision in clause 4 which provides for people to be authorized by the Minister, both employees and other persons, to inspect premises.

We think it is necessary that this be done but there is the requirement of identification. Only last week we passed legislation in which the powers of inspection were dealt with and the standard procedure that has now, I think, been accepted by this House is that when inspections are carried out, an inspector must have written authority and he must produce that written authority before he seeks to inspect. I propose moving an amendment in accordance with that standard procedure which I think should be accepted and I hope will be accepted by the hon. the Minister because one cannot have a situation, particularly in regard to armaments, where people enter premises without there being any safeguards in regard to the question of inspections. If, for example, we can have such a provision in the Estate Agents Bill, how much more important is it not to have such a provision in regard to the inspection of premises concerning armaments so as to make sure that such person is in fact the person who does have the authority of the Minister to enter such premises?

The Lawrence Wood amendment!

I am prepared to give credit to anybody who makes this suggestion. I do not mind giving him or anybody else the credit. All I am saying is that we want that provision included in this Bill and I hope that the hon. member for Durban Point will support me in this. I am sure he will.

I wish to raise one final matter and that is the question of firearms generally. We believe that in the circumstances in which we are living in South Africa today the need to control firearms is far greater than it has ever been before. I think that there are too many people in South Africa who are walking around with firearms or keeping firearms without adequate knowledge of those weapons and without adequate safeguards that those weapons will not be stolen and so fall into the wrong hands.

A Select Committee is investigating that matter.

Yes, there is an investigation going on. However, I want to say that whether it is a question of the manufacture of arms, the control of the movement of arms or a question of the possession of arms, as far as we are concerned we feel that the control measures in this regard in South Africa should be extremely strict. We believe that this control must be exercised to ensure that none of these firearms falls into wrong hands and also that the hands in which they are at present moment are safe hands and capable of using those particular weapons in the correct way. It is for that reason that as a control measure in respect of armaments, this Bill will have our support and we will vote for it at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has expressed certain views in connection with this legislation at present before this House. One could almost call it a gift of prophecy concerning what may happen in the future. I think that the hon. member for Roodeplaat will deal with him on that score.

It is not often that we on this side of the House agree with those hon. members, but the hon. member for Yeoville has often made positive contributions in this House and particularly as far as this kind of legislation is concerned. I think that he has again broached certain matters today which could be positively considered. As he will know, the question of the necessity for control over firearms has already been referred to a Select Committee, and the possibility of better control over weapons and ammunition is at present being investigated. As far as the remarks of the hon. member in regard to the question of the inspections in terms of clause 4 are concerned, I think that the provisions of this clause are very clear and that such persons will be appointed by the Minister. I also think that in the regulations which will be promulgated in terms of this legislation, sufficient provision will be made to ensure that if the Minister should appoint such a person, he would be provided with a certificate of appointment or other proof in this regard. An aspect which worries me, however, and which was raised by the hon. member for Pretoria West, is the question of the identification of such inspectors if a person should pretend to be an inspector as defined in terms of clause 4. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could consider the question of protection with regard to this matter.

A further aspect of the recommendation of the hon. member for Yeoville, is, of course, that it would result in a tremendous amount of administrative work for the Police. With all due respect, I do not think provision has at present been made in that department for work in that regard.

As the hon. the Minister indicated, the Bill seeks mainly to ensure control over the manufacture, acquisition and supply of armaments and the creation of machinery through which such control may be exercised. As has already been indicated, the Arms and Ammunition Act of 1969, as administered by the Minister of Law and Order, controls the manufacturing of, and other circumstances in connection with, commercial weapons by means of a permit and the Act specifically excludes military weapons. In terms of clause 2 of the Bill, section 4C of the Act is being amended to empower the Minister to exercise control over the development, manufacture, import and conveyance of armament items which are specifically identified by way of notice in the Gazette. The control of such armaments takes place by means of a permit system, and such permits will be issued by Armscor.

As has already been mentioned, manufacture is being controlled. In clause 1, the definition of the word “manufacture” is being extended to remove all doubt as to whether the mere assembly of armament parts shall also be regarded as manufacture. As has already been mentioned, Armscor will issue permits to interested parties who will be affected by the legislation.

In order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the legislation, inspectors are being appointed in terms of clause 4, as the hon. member for Yeoville has already remarked. However, a new section 4F is being inserted in the Act to provide for the inspection of armaments factories. This provision is essential to enable Armscor to ensure proper compliance with the provisions of the Act. The proposed clause 2(6) gives the interested armaments manufacturers a period of six months’ grace to obtain a permit as already defined from Armscor. However, in order to ensure proper control on armaments over a larger area, it is necessary not only to control the manufacture of armaments, but all other aspects such as development, import, conveyance and export of armaments as well. Provision is being made for this in clause 2 of the Bill.

In addition, however, the meaning of the term “import”, is being extended in the definitions as contained in clause 1, in amplification of sections 8 and 9 of the Marine Traffic Act, 1981.

The security of the Republic, as well as the public interest and good order, necessitates that armaments ought to be properly controlled over a very wide area and under all possible circumstances. I should like to refer to section 8 of the Marine Traffic Act, 1981, which provides for the protection of the control of armaments as soon as the territorial waters of South Africa are entered. When the cargo, or any appliance or apparatus the use of which or person on such ship who in the opinion of the Minister may constitute a threat against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the Republic, shall be deemed to be not innocent, and then the Minister may deal with the ship and cargo and those persons as set out in section 9 of the Act. Such a ship may then be stopped or anchored. There are many steps which the Minister may take in terms of sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Act. The powers which are referred to in the Act, are not, however, exercised per se by the inspectors of Armscor, but in terms of section 12 of the Marine Traffic Act the Minister may delegate his powers to persons in the service of the State, and in my opinion, this would include inspectors of Armscor, officials of the Department of Law and Order and other persons, as the minister sees fit. With regard to control within harbours, the provisions of section 8 of Act 91 of 1964, as amended, apply. According to these provisions the Controller of Customs and Excise may send a person to carry out an inspection on a ship in the harbour, and he may take appropriate steps in this regard. In other words, there are at least three Acts which supplement one another in exercising effective control over the manufacture, import and export of armaments.

Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 5A of the Import and Export Control Act, Act 45 of 1963, to prevent any duplication of the provisions of this Act and the Armaments Development and Production Act. The Director of Imports and Exports is at present in possession of a list and, in terms of the Bill before this House, if certain armaments in respect of which permits are needed, should be listed in the Gazette, such items would be dropped from the list of the Director of Imports and Exports.

The permissible penalties prescribed in clause 3 of the Bill to replace section 4E of the Act, are being increased from a fine of R5 000 to R10 000, or of imprisonment for two to ten years. In the first place, these new penalties indicate the seriousness of the violation and the serious light in which the legislature regards such violations, as well as bringing it into line with the penalties which apply to the Army and Ammunition Act, Act 75 of 1969.

As far as confiscation is concerned, the Armaments Development and Production Act is also being amended and certain cumbersome provisions fall away. In future it will be dealt with in terms of chapter II of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977.

I wish to say with all due respect, that this Bill will bring about a great improvement and will result in far better control over armaments in general. I therefore have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the hon. member for Roodepoort has made a very thorough study of the amendments in this Bill. I wish to congratulate the hon. member on the very sound contribution which he has made in this regard.

The armaments manufacturing industry in South Africa should very definitely be conducted in the best possible way. We are very proud of the fact that the armaments manufacturing industry is rendering such a fine service to the country that we are today almost self-sufficient in the sphere of armaments manufacture. However, it is also very clear to us why it has been necessary to introduce this legislation. There are certain deficiencies which have to be ironed out. This applies particularly in regard to the import and conveyance of armaments. The proposed legislation defines more precisely how this should be controlled. It is essential that, for strategic reasons, there should be more thorough control, expecially with regard to the strategic aspect of the conveyance of armaments.

I wish to refer to clause 5 of the Bill in particular. The amendment reads as follows—

In other words, the Minister should have the power to exercise complete control over these matters. We on this side of the House will support all legislation concerning the security of South Africa, and I therefore pledge our support to this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Government I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for the support of the independent National group for this legislation. I think all of us in this House were considerably shocked when we learned about the incredibly large quantities of weapons that were found on certain estates in the old Rhodesia—Zimbabwe today. I think we must accept that we are living in a time when there is an excess of certain types of armaments throughout the world and that this excess is being despatched, chiefly from behind the Iron Curtain, to places like Africa and South America. We in South Africa would be foolish if we were not to take note of the fact that South Africa is also a target area for the dumping of these types of armaments. However, I believe that the hon. the Minister is amending this legislation in good time. After all, in terms of the existing legislation he is already empowered to restrict or curtail the export of weapons from South Africa by subjecting it to a permit system. However, he does not have the same degree of control when it comes to the production of arms in South Africa.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that we have now reached the stage where we can really restrict this type of thing. I do not think that the hon. the Minister wants to take over the functions or tasks of the police, in the words of the hon. member for Yeoville. Armscor is simply not geared to do so. I think the police are acquainted with all 700 points of sale for small arms or hand arms, i.e. hunting pistols, shotguns, pistols and revolvers. However, Armscor wants to regulate the production of armaments in south Africa and to ensure that the quality of these arms, that have given it such a good name, be maintained. However, this can be done only if the hon. the Minister can act through Armscor as the monitor when it comes to the manufacture and export of arms. I believe that even the British Press is now encouraging the hon. the Minister to become an exporter of armaments.

Therefore I am very pleased to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will support this measure. We have no serious problems with it, but I do have one administrative problem that is closely related to that raised by the hon. member for Yeoville who dealt with the question of sporting and commercial weapons vis-à-vis armaments. In terms of the definition of “armaments” in the Armscor legislation, all types of weapons are covered. The definition covers every type of weapon or vehicle or any other thing that can be used in warfare. The definition is so wide-ranging that one could almost say that a pea-shooter or a catty would be covered by it, because virtually anything that can be used in a hostile act is covered by the definition. That being so, I think the hon. the Minister might find some difficulty in identifying, or let me rather say differentiating, in the notice he gives in the Government Gazette, between let us say a side-arm that is issued for military purposes, or even to the police, and a revolver that is bought by a householder for his own protection.

And a shotgun?

A shotgun is a very valuable riot weapon. It is often far more valuable than a rifle in combat at close quarters and is being used more and more in certain circumstances these days. I therefore wonder whether it would not be better to take over control of all arms and then, perhaps by arrangement, exclude some from control. Otherwise I think one is going to have a problem. In fact, I am not sure—the hon. the Minister did not make it clear— whether he had difficulties with the present divided police and military control and, if so, what the specific difficulties were. If there was close co-operation, as one would assume there would be, there should not have been a problem, nor should there have been any difficulty with the department of his colleague the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism in controlling the imports that fell under that department, because the controls were there. What this Bill is doing is that it is simply transferring those controls, for their administration, to the Armaments Board or Armscor. There has only been a change in the sort of control that will exist.

I can see some problems. I remember when a change was made with regard to the control of weapons at airports. At the time I foresaw difficulties there with people bringing in weapons for perfectly legitimate purposes. If a definition is published in the Government Gazette, it might lead to a clash and difficulties being created in those circumstances. I think the hon. the Minister will have to give a little more thought to the question of identification and the question of split control. Have there been examples of undesirable practices? We have heard allegations with regard to the export of arms, which I shall not refer to in this debate because the matter is being dealt with elsewhere, but has the hon. the Minister had problems or is it merely a question of his tidying up the position rather than eliminating a problem?

Finally—I do not want to delay the debate and am happy to give all the co-operation we can in getting this measure passed—I want to associate myself with what I have always called the “Lawrence Wood” clause, the “father-and-son” clause, about inspectors identifying themselves before entering any premises. With those few remarks we support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members from the various parties that have participated in the debate, for their fine contributions and the pleasant attitude that prevailed. It is very clear that all the hon. members who contributed, have a good understanding of what the legislation is about and why it is essential.

I propose to deal with the suggestions made by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point during the Committee Stage. I just want to refer very briefly to one of the facets which the hon. member for Yeoville raised. It has a bearing on the publication of certain matters in the Gazette. Perhaps I should explain it a little further. He made the very valid point that what we publish in the Gazette, should not clearly state our abilities or requirements because in doing so we would be giving away our total pattern. I want to assure him that it will not be published in the Gazette in that spirit.

I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that the reason for this legislation is to bring about better control for the sake of the security of the country. We are faced with the two aspects of commercial arms and armaments. The one aspect affects the Police and the other Armscor. However, when the various clauses are discussed, I shall explain this aspect further.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is now before the House provides, in the first place, that the Small Business Development Corporation, as well as companies wherein a controlling interest is held by that corporation, shall not be disqualified companies for the purposes of the Group Areas Act. In terms of the Small Business Development Act, 1981, the Small Business Development Corporation took over the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Development and Financing Corporation, as well as the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, and therefore the statutory amendment which is now being made is actually of a consequential nature.

†Secondly it is now proposed to amend the Group Areas Act to the effect that the provisions of this Act, or any proclamation issued there under, shall not apply in relation to any person attending a bona fide sports meeting or visiting a bona fide sports club or a club in respect of which a club liquor licence has been granted. In terms of existing policy multi-racial sport meetings are not subject to Government sanction, and the proposed amendment merely removes the statutory restrictions imposed by the Group Areas Act.

Mr. Speaker, a long history has preceded the introduction of this Bill. Apart from Government statements and restrictive action taken over the years, it has in fact, been legislation and its implementation that has played a decisive role in isolating South African sport and sportsmen from the rest of the world. It all started in earnest some years ago with the D’Oliveira incident and the then Prime Minister’s statement on Basil D’Oliveira’s inclusion in an English cricket team.

No, it started before that.

It started at Loskop.

I said it started in earnest with the D’Oliveira incident.

They do not know what “earnest” means.

The tour was cancelled and the world, Peter Hain and many of South Africa’s enemies sat up and took note, having at last found an effective weapon or stick with which to beat us.

Leave the past. [Interjections.]

Are you ashamed of your past? If I were you, I would also be ashamed. [Interjections.]

It is ironic that that statement made years ago, had another very positive consequence. [Interjections.] The Loskop statement and the D’Oliveira incident heralded a perceptible and permanent change of heart and direction by South African sportsmen. While therefore the Government tried to enforce rigid separation and thus assisted the enemies of South Africa in their efforts to isolate us further, our sportsmen did everything in their power, within the framework of the law, to broaden the base for support of sport across racial barriers. I wonder whether hon. members remember the Aurora Cricket Club. When the Aurora Cricket Club of Natal opened its doors to all races, it precipitated a minor sensation in the South African sporting world. The National Government’s response at that time was one of indignation, of reprimand, and also one of threatened action. The threatened action came in the form of Proclamation 228, framed in terms of the Group Areas Act, that specifically prohibited the occupation of fields, premises and facilities that were situated in one group area by members of a race group occupying another group area. Incredibly, this proclamation that has been considered by many learned people, including Government thinkers, as being ultra vires the law, has never been tested in the courts. It has nonetheless served as an all-embracing damper on non-racial sport in South Africa, and has been quoted—and I ask the hon. the Minister to admit this—time and time again with success in world forums by people who have sought to punish this country.

This Proclamation No. 228 has aided and abetted the sport war conducted against our country. It is a proclamation formulated and executed by this Government. I do have to point out that there has been, very little that sportsmen or even the official Opposition have been able to do about it for, in the end, the laws on the Statute Book, the laws that are there and by which people have to live and conduct their lives, bear stark witness, indisputable witness, to the stranglehold apartheid has always held on sport.

Times, however, were changing under both internal and external pressure. Permits authorizing multi-racial sport were issued. The term “multi-national” came into vogue, and although today that anachronistic concept has already descended into obsolescence, and has been discarded it remains, strangely enough—that is multi-national sport—the policy of the NP as accepted by its congresses. The joke of course is that this policy has for several years been ignored by every sportsman in the country, and is today observed only in its breach.

If that is so, what are you complaining about?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Van Staden asks what I am complaining about. I think it is very important that we learn something about the history of this matter. [Interjections.]

†Time continues to move on. Multi-national sport—the concept thereof—soon gave way to the acceptance of a new policy. That new policy was called “autonomy in sport”, in terms of which individual permits were replaced by blanket permits. Existing laws were circumnavigated administratively, although, if I may say so, with dubious legality. Regrettably, this new policy did almost as much damage as it did good. The tide of opinion and the action to be taken sport wise finally turned with the publication, in 1980, of the report of the Human Sciences Research Council on legislation affecting sport. I should like to quote one or two passages from the Human Sciences Research Council’s document—

It goes on to say, and I quote again—

Next quote—

Paragraph 1.12 reads as follows—

Paragraph 1.13 states—

Finally—

At last, like a ponderous tortoise, the Government has moved to legislative action. A few months ago—and I must say that I welcomed what happened then—the Liquor Act was amended, releasing sport clubs and sport gatherings from the racial provisions of that Act. Today it is the turn of the Group Areas Act to jettison apartheid. Let us make no mistake, with the passing of this Bill separate development in sport is being thrown overboard.

Hear, hear!

It is accepted.

Hear, hear!

Now that the Government has thrown it overboard, separate development will never again appear in sport, and certainly not on the Statute Book. It is the thin end of the wedge, for I believe that the scrapping of what is left of discriminatory legislation affecting sport is not far off, just as the days of grand apartheid are now numbered. How then should we view this Bill? How should we as the official Opposition react to this measure? Some will say it is no more than a smokescreen, an unimportant change to an obnoxious law. They will say that…

Order! The hon. member may not say that a law passed by this Parliament is obnoxious.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. I said: “Some people will say it is obnoxious.”

Order! The hon. member referred to a law as obnoxious.

With respect, I did not, Mr. Speaker.

What did the hon. member then say?

Mr. Speaker, I said: “Some will say that it is an obnoxious law.”

Order! The hon. member cannot say that.

All right, Sir, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, some people will argue that the guts of the law still remains. And they do have a valid argument, for the Group Areas Act covers far more than sport fields. Others will argue that normal sport cannot be played in an abnormal society. They will, with justification, point out that it is a personal insult to an individual to be classified a first-class citizen while watching or playing sport, only to be rendered inferior and to be discriminated against as soon as the sports gathering is at an end. [Interjections.] This is the approach that I call the all or nothing approach. Other people again will argue that a continued boycott against South Africa must be maintained until such time as the Separate Amenities Act and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act have been repealed. Then of course there are those outside our country who want to see no change or improvements taking place.

And inside the country too.

To them apartheid legislation is the very meat which they use to attack this country.

But I hold none of those views at all, firstly, because I know—and I say this with all the seriousness that I can bring to bear— that the scrapping of these laws is just the beginning. The other laws will follow soon because the Government has promised to change those other laws. The already ragged flag of apartheid in sport will soon be in total tatters and will be lying in the dust. I welcome it. The inexorable movement towards non-racial sport is now unstoppable and sport, more than people realize, will be one of the major factors in leading our society out of the desert of separate development. I believe therefore that this measure must be supported. It is not broad enough, it is curiously worded, it is restrictively timid, but it signals the opening of a door, a door which can never again be closed.

The second reason for supporting this measure does not relate to the Government but to hundreds of thousands of young South African sportsmen and women, Black and White, and entire generation of people. I believe that it is a tragedy that these people have been denied, through no fault of their own, the competition and stimulation of participation in international sport. Any step taken by this Government which might aid them in their quest to regain the friends of the past must be supported.

Thirdly, any move, no matter how hesitant, no matter how small, which will allow Black, Brown and White South Africans to meet and to get to know each other on a normal footing can only lead to better understanding and to a lessening of the conflict situation in our country. We must support such moves and we must continue to press for more. It is for these reasons, knowing full well that sportsmen still have a long to go, that we shall vote with the Government on this legislation.

I have three questions that I should like to put briefly to the hon. the Minister. What does the hon. the Minister mean by the words “in some or other capacity” contained in clause 1 (b)? Can the hon. the Minister explain that to us? Also, in the same paragraph, what does he mean when he uses the term “bona fide sports meeting,”? What does he regard as a bona fide sports meeting and what does he regard as a mala fide sports meeting? I think the hon. the Minister should tell us what he means by the terms “in some or other capacity” and a “bona fide sports meeting”.

My last question to the hon. the Minister is the following. The hon. the Minister is for all purposes effectively nullifying Proclamation 228 in relation to sport by the passing of this legislation. The provisions of that proclamation have been hurled back at our country to the detriment of our sportsmen for years. Why does the hon. the Minister not have the guts to repeal that proclamation in itself, on its own and as it stands? This proclamation only affects sport. It has been used only as a weapon against sportsmen. It has been used for virtually no other purpose at all. I say that if the hon. the Minister has the courage of his convictions he will not use only this sort of backdoor method of nullifying the proclamation. I say that he must repeal the proclamation and let the world know that South Africa is moving away from apartheid, is moving away from discrimination and is moving towards non-racial sport, which is where we all want to be.