Mr. Speaker, basically this Bill on the financial affairs of the S.A. Transport Services is a Committee Stage Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville dealt with this Bill in such an expert manner, that even the hon. the Minister learnt a great deal about the finances of his department.

It is interesting to note that in the budget submitted earlier this afternoon, the hon. the Minister budgeted for a loss. This is a sign of the times as far as change in the financial affairs of the SATS is concerned. We shall watch with interest what happens in the future, and the hon. members of this party who serve on the Select Committee on the finances of the SATS will continue to monitor the position. Next year in particular we shall monitor the financial state of the SATS with interest, not only as far as the financial position of the SATS is concerned, but also as regards the control exercised over the expenditure of that money.

We shall support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House appreciate the support of this Bill expressed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North on behalf of his party. Of course, this legislation is nothing new. For the most part it has been on the Statute Book for a considerable length of time. Firstly, one could describe it as enabling legislation. It empowers the SATS to regulate its finances properly as a financial institution. The hon. member also told us that the members of the official Opposition serving on the Select Committee on the accounts of the SATS will regularly review the way in which the finances of the SATS are regulated.

Because this is enabling legislation, one must also examine it to ascertain whether there are, in fact, other principles involved. The most important principle involved here is that there will be proper parliamentary control. Therefore no expenditures may be incurred by the SATS without proper parliamentary control. This House has to appropriate all the money which the SATS spends. Of importance, too, is that there be due Ministerial responsibility with regard to the finances of the SATS. For example, we find this in clause 6. After money has been appropriated by this Parliament, the hon. the Minister may, if he sees fit, effect certain savings. Those savings may be transferred to a service in respect of which a loss is shown. Therefore, the old principle that the hon. the Minister may apply cross-subsidization is once again being incorporated in this legislation.

The Bill also provides that the SATS may negotiate loans. They may borrow and lend money. Through this legislation, the SATS is becoming a body which can act autonomously. This is not a new principle. It has been on the Statute Book for a long time, and this legislation merely makes provision for certain provisions to be deleted or altered.

We on this side of the House have no objection to this legislation and we are pleased that the official Opposition is supporting it, despite the fact that they kicked up a fuss about absolutely nothing in the Committee Stage. [Interjections.] Of course, they did this in the Committee Stage when the hon. member for Yeoville raised the most important points of this legislation here. [Interjections.] This was simply a case of the party on that side of the House employing delaying tactics and, in my opinion, it is a pity that this hon. member adopted that attitude when there should be no difference in principle concerning this matter.

Mr. Speaker, as we indicated during the course of the Second Reading debate, we in these benches support this Bill. However, during the Second Reading debate a number of questions relating to the Bill were put, and we have not yet received replies to them. The Third Reading debate is concerned with what the effect of the Bill will be after it has been placed on the Statute Book. Particularly important is the question of what is going to happen in the future.

Before I continue, I should like to avail myself of the offer made earlier by the hon. the Minister. Therefore I ask him whether I may have an interview of about two hours with him during the forthcoming week, so that I may speak to him privately. I hope that this will be possible. Will he be able to make an appointment with me so that I may reprimand him in private? [Interjections.]

I now turn to clause 2 of the Bill. Everything is in order, but the final sentence reads—

Most probably, legislation in which the new guidelines will be contained, will be submitted during the course of this session, or perhaps next year. I do not know precisely when this will take place—perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell me when. On the basis of those guidelines, drastic changes will be effected, and this is where the “changed circumstances” to which I referred in clause 2 come into the picture.

Recommendations concerning the budget are contained in the relevant President’s Council report. We want to know how the budget is going to be dealt with in future. According to the proposals of the President’s Council—the Government has not yet indicated what is going to happen—there will be a permanent parliamentary budget committee. Is this also going to apply to the SATS? The hon. the Minister must tell us what the position is going to be. Surely that permanent parliamentary budget committee is not only going to be concerned with the budget of the Minister of Finance, and not the budget of the SATS as well. The same applies to the Post Office budget.

The hon. the Minister must tell us now what is going to happen. Is what is suggested in the proposals of the President’s Council in fact going to happen? The permanent parliamentary budget committee, if it is composed as suggested by the President’s Council, will be composed of four Whites, two Coloureds and one Indian, and together they will decide on the budget.

The Bill has not yet been placed on the Statute Book, nor has the legislation in which the guidelines are contained. These two pieces of legislation run parallel to one another, and they will merge in the future. We wish to inform the voters clearly about this, and that is why the hon. the Minister should enlighten us. Clause 2 concerns “changed circumstances”, and there is no doubt about the fact that circumstances are going to change. Is a joint budget going to be dealt with by the three chambers as recommended by the President’s Council? Is the budget going to be dealt with in camera as the President’s Council also recommends? We cannot allow this Bill to be placed on the Statute Book if we do not know how the budget is going to be dealt with and what the consequences of the Bill are going to be. I should therefore be very pleased if the hon. the Minister could enlighten us in this respect. If he is of the opinion that this will not occur in this way, he must tell us, so that we can know that he rejects the guidelines of the NP. We cannot agree to this legislation if the hon. the Minister fails to give us positive replies. I assume the hon. the Minister will enlighten us about this in detail.

As far as the rest of the Bill is concerned—i.e. with the exception of the “changed circumstances” which are outside the control of the top-level management and the officials of the SATS—we might say that this is perfect legislation. I am extremely grateful for it. There is going to be sound parliamentary control, as the hon. member for De Kuilen has said. Moreover this Bill will work in practice.

Since the political aspect is also being dragged in now, the laws of the economy and of financial accounting systems will no longer apply as they should; the political aspect will upset this completely. With the exception of these few questions I put to the hon. the Minister, we in the Conservative Party have no objections to this Bill as it has been drawn up. In our opinion, this is sound legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think the best way for this House to react to the argument of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Sunnyside, would be to ignore it completely. It is clear that the hon. member and his party have certain things on the brain since, regardless of what the discussion happens to be about, they always come up with the same theme. In this particular case it is so hackneyed that they are only discrediting themselves by repeating it.

In reality, we are dealing here with nothing more than a consolidating measure. Usually, as is the case here, a consolidating measure is aimed primarily at improving the administration of existing statutory provisions and at facilitating their implemention. I think we should certainly be justified in claiming that this particular measure will succeed remarkably well in that particular aim. I am sure that by way of this measure, we shall facilitate and streamline the functioning of the existing statutory provisions.

Where new provisions are being introduced, they relate to technical aspects rather than to matters of principle. However, the technical aspects are calculated to improve the operation of the legislation and to effect improvements for administrative purposes. I am sure that it will succeed in that aim as well.

The hon. member for De Kuilen has already pointed out that the opposition and resistance we experienced during the Committee Stage, certainly have very little to do with the merits of this legislation as such. It is true that certain principles were questioned, but it was clear that this was for motives, or reasons other than that of advancing real objections to the proposed measures as such.

One of the two principles opposed in the Committee Stage, is that contained in clause 10. It is obvious that the hon. member for Yeoville dragged in a measure here which really has very little to do with this legislation. He claimed that the Minister was introducing a new principle, and to try and prove this, he moved completely outside the sphere of SATS legislation. He claimed that the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act were different from the provisions of this legislation. He conveniently lost sight of, or perhaps was unwilling to see or admit, that no new principle whatsoever was being introduced in clause 10. This same provision is already contained in Act 48 of 1977. Therefore there is no new principle at stake here, since the principle embodied herein has already been accepted in existing legislation.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville also tried to make a case, about which he made a fuss, in respect of clause 12. Apart from uttering platitudes in this regard, he tried to raise the question of consultation with, as opposed to approval by, the Minister. The hon. member’s point was simply that instead of consultation with the Minister, he wishes to make it obligatory for the General Manager to obtain the formal approval of the Minister. Surely it is unthinkable that the General Manager, after consultation with the Minister, would do anything which the Minister would not approve of. Therefore what this amounts to is that for practical purposes, in effect, there is no difference between the provisions contained herein, viz. that there will be consultation with the Minister, and that which he pleaded for, viz. actual formal approval by the Minister.

That is why, as the hon. member for De Kuilen said, it was definitely for reasons other than the merits of these provisions that we encountered resistance and superficial objections to this measure during the Committee Stage. I think that if one takes everything into account, this remains an extremely praiseworthy measure, one which will, to a large extent, facilitate the implementation of the Act as well as streamlining its administration. That is why the entire House has every reason to support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for De Kuilen says this Bill is essentially an empowering measure which lays down the ground rules under which the financial affairs of the SATS should operate and should be administered. The hon. member for Sundays River has gone into a little more detail on one or two of the provisions of the Bill, and we thank him for drawing that to our attention. Clearly what is contained herein is an improvement on what exists at the present time. It is being brought up to date, such things as the accounting system of the SATS, and we believe that these improvements are good for the financial interests of the SATS. We sincerely hope that it will make the task of the hon. the Minister and his staff a lot easier in the future and as such we are going to support the Third Reading.

The hon. member for De Kuilen points out that a very important aspect of this Bill is that lays down the ground rule as to how Parliament should control the expenditure of the SATS. And so this should be when we consider that the taxpayer is now subsidizing passenger services to a very large extent, to the extent of something like R350 million, and it is likely to rise in the future. Therefore it is very, very important indeed that Parliament should be able to act as a watchdog over this expenditure and that the budget should be approved by Parliament. The hon. member also says that this clearly lays down the Minister’s responsibilities in this regard. They are very heavy responsibilities, and in that regard we sympathize with him. However, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that his responsibilities are not only to Parliament per se, but also to the entire economy of South Africa. Economic prosperity in South Africa is heavily dependent upon a very efficient and, I stress this, a very economical transportation system. I think this is the task of the hon. the Minister. As I say, it is a heavy task and we wish him well in this task. Wherever we can help, we shall try to do so. Having said that, we shall support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North supports the Bill, for which I thank him most sincerely. The hon. member for De Kuilen is quite right. This is an enabling Act to regulate the financial statements of the SATS. I want to thank the hon. member for De Kuilen for his contributions throughout the discussion.

The hon. member for Sunnyside is a recognized accountant. Accountants have a recognized accounting system. This legislation is merely introducing a recognized accounting system. It has nothing to do with the proposed new constitutional dispensation. I said repeatedly during the discussion of the Second Reading and the Committee Stage that this had nothing to do with the new dispensation. For the new dispensation we shall introduce a new Act in this Parliament that will have to be agreed to here. It can be thrashed out here and the hon. member can air his views then. However, this Bill has nothing to do with the new dispensation. According to recognized accounting experts in the department all we are doing here is applying a recognized accounting system.

The hon. member for Sunday’s River stated quite clearly that in the main this legislation contains technical changes aimed at ensuring effective management. I thank the hon. member for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that he wished me and the department well and that he supports us. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

*Sir, we have been dealing with Transport Affairs Bills here for three weeks now. From the NP side, to the left of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, we have really had “smart” speeches. But from the members to the right of the hon. member, i.e. from the PFP, we only had stupid speeches!

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, there is something bothering me and I want to deal with that first before I resume my speech where I left off yesterday evening. It concerns hon. members of the CP. I consider it disgraceful that the sort of questions that were put here today are being asked across the floor of this House. I want to make it quite clear that they are engaged in character assassination, and they had better take care that this does not backfire on them. I said here last year, and I want to repeat it now, that if those people think that …

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

No, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that members of this party are engaged in character assassination?

Order! The hon. member for Umhlatuzana may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, when this House adjourned yesterday afternoon I was discussing the statement that roadblocks have a great deal to do with the security of our country. We then heard a chorus of voices from the official Opposition to the effect that they had no objection to roadblocks. They are opposed to searches. The question I ask myself now, since they have no objection to roadblocks is: what must the police do when they have stopped a vehicle? Must the policeman walk over to the driver, take a look at his motor car and then say to him: “What a fine young fellow you are? Drive on.” That would seem to be what members of the official Opposition want. Under those circumstances we may just as well erect stop signs in the streets, because then everyone would have to stop.

Sir, I repeat that roadblocks are a crime prevention measure. Over the years we have achieved very good results with roadblocks.

Thousands of crimes have been solved as a result of roadblocks. Stolen motor vehicles have been recovered as have stolen firearms, and hundreds of arrests have been made in connection with alcohol abuse. Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote you a few statistics. In the course of 1982 a total of 28 000 roadblocks were erected. Were there any objections from that side of the House to the erection of those roadblocks? Of course there were none. But now that this legislation has been submitted they are objecting. I also want to point out that more than 800 000 vehicles were inspected at those roadblocks without any objections worth mentioning being made.

During the past year to 18 months a great many terrorist weapons have been brought into the country. This could have been prevented if we had introduced this legislation earlier. I maintain that all of us, including the PFP, will be more secure in this country if this amending Bill is passed. For this reason we want to assure the hon. the Minister of our wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly we in this party cannot understand what all the fuss is about. We see the legislation before us simply as a measure to enable the loopholes in the present legislation to be closed. Roadblocks have been the order of the day in this country for many years, and it is our understanding that roadblocks are the only effective way of discouraging movement of illegal traffic of any nature. It may not be that the panacea for all ills but it certainly is an effective way of discouraging the movement of arms or drugs.

Much has been said by the official Opposition about the rights of the individual. But I ask myself this question: What impinges more on the right of an individual, a roadblock during which I am asked to open the boot of my car or a roadblock during which somebody sticks his head through the window of my car and smells my breath in order to determine whether I have been taking intoxicating liquor? What is more distasteful to the individual? I believe the second. But nevertheless this is as necessary as the first because when a man who is driving under the influence of liquor is stopped at a roadblock, as much as it may be embarrassing for him, the police is stopping a potential killer. Similarly, when the Police stops a man who might be carrying arms or drugs in his motorcar, they stop a potential killer. But hon. members of the PFP cannot comprehed this. As a matter of fact a member of that party years ago pleaded for dagga to be legalized.

Is that not terrible!

Yes, indeed. Apparently the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North disagrees with me. I believe that only people with something to hide will be reluctant to allow their vehicles to be searched.

Like whom? Like the Chief Justice? Has he something to hide?

Anybody. I do not care whom. Only somebody who has got something to hide in his vehicle will object to it being searched. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Pinetown and I believe he gave us some good courtroom stuff, some sound courtroom logic one might call it. I agree with him that an absolute right is here given to a policeman. But why do we give this absolute right to the policeman? We are giving him the absolute right to search a vehicle. However, from the presentation he made here yesterday—and I have looked at his Hansard—one could draw the inference that he was referring to the search of an individual. I submit that the Bill does not contain that at all. The Bill merely refers to the searching of a vehicle. We think there should be an absolute right to search a vehicle in order to prevent crime; not only crime, but in the times in which we live, also in order to combat terrorism. We believe that this right must be granted for the wellbeing and for the safety of all South African citizens. Maybe the people in the cities do not feel as strongly about this but ask those who live in our country areas; ask those who live in isolated parts of this great land of ours.

Mr. Speaker, Newton’s third law of motion says that action and reaction are equal and opposite. Here we have a classic incidence of where we can apply a law of physics to what, I believe, should be reason in this House. We have a situation here in which the action could be the smuggling of arms; it could be the illegal transportation within our borders of drugs, not to mention game that could be poached from our game reserves. The only possible reaction to that is to stop, to search and to seize. That is the only reaction, and that is the only way in which it has been combated over the years. It has been done by parks board officials in the province of Natal, where they have tried to combat poaching. It has been done by the S.A. Police. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana gave us the figures in respect of the number of roadblocks set up during one year recently. It has also been done effectively but—and let us face facts—it has possibly been done ultra vires. That is precisely the situation which we seek to rectify here today.

It is done internationally.

Yes, that is true. We have heard much, and the hon. member for Pinetown has made much of the fact that in terms of the present Act we have the ability to institute a search without a warrant of any description within a distance of 10 km of our international borders. The PFP have indicated that that situation is acceptable. I should like to remind that party, however, that dagga is grown within the borders of South Africa. One has to go no further than this morning’s newspaper. One has to look no further than page 2 of The Cape Times of this morning, where one finds a report under the heading “R2 million haul in dagga swoops”. Here we are told that—

It goes on to tell us—

Not within 10 km of the Transkei border but, as we can see here, in and around Port Elizabeth. I quote further—

Then the PFP still wants to suggest that the Police must have cause to believe that something of this nature is taking place. [Interjections.] They say the Police must have reason to believe that something like this is going to happen. How are they to have reason to believe? How do they expect a policeman to have reasonable grounds for believing that a vehicle is carrying a certain substance? Are we to assume that if it is a red car it could probably be carrying arms from Russia, or that if it is a yellow car it could probably be carrying Chinese-made arms … [Interjections.] … or that if it is a green car it could be carrying green dagga …

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

No, no, let him sit down quietly and learn, get a few facts into his head! [Interjections.] If it is a beige or brown car, perhaps it could be carrying dry dagga. Of course, if it is Mandrax we are looking for, we stop all white cars. I cannot understand their logic. Legalistic arguments, I am afraid—as one Minister of Justice once said—leave me cold. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinetown spoke about stopping cars going to the polling station at Waterberg—I think he said—and later, when challenged, he said that the same applied to Waterkloof. He suggested that a policeman could put up a roadblock, stop a whole stream of traffic and interfere with people going to the polls to record their votes at Waterberg or—as he agreed later— at Waterkloof. With a view to his tortuous reasoning, what I would like to know is how a policeman is supposed to differentiate between an NP supporter who is going to “bump off" the PFP candidate and a PFP supporter who is going to “bump off" the NP candidate.

There are ways and means.

I suppose, of course, that in the eyes of the PFP the former is acceptable. An individual contemplating the latter, however, should be apprehended, should be hanged, drawn and quartered in Church Square the following day. [Interjections.] In the eyes of South Africa the PFP is regarded as soft on security. [Interjections.] They are soft on security.

You are soft in the head.

I would welcome them coming to my constituency, which is a rural constituency, and telling my constituents that they do not think that the police should have the right to search vehicles on the roads on that constituency. Let them come, by all means, and talk about not searching vehicles on the road that leads down from the north, through Zululand, all the way to Durban. I would be happy for them to do it. I want to say furthermore—and it grieves me to say this because I am saying it about South Africans who are not, I believe, all that far from me—that those people seem to object to every piece of legislation coming to this House which, in any way, does anything to combat terrorism. [Interjections.] I simply cannot understand it. [Interjections.] I want to know where the hon. member for Yeoville stands on this issue. I would also like to know where the hon. member for Wynberg stands. I know, however, where the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens stand. I also know where the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands stand. I know where they stand, let us make no mistake about that. I would like to know, however, what the hon. member for Yeoville has to say. I hope that when the division is called by that party this afternoon, in order to record their vote against this Bill, I will see those hon. members in their benches recording their vote against it.

Do you also want to see my absentee book?

We in these benches will certainly not. The NRP is not soft on security, certainly not the security of our country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Umhlanga. I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks he passed about the PFP in this regard. [Interjections.] When one looks at this piece of legislation it is quite clear that there is no objection—even by that party—to roadblocks. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central made that quite clear. [Interjections.]

Order!

He said there was no objection in this regard. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Durban Central made that quite clear. I am merely repeating the fact that that party is in no way opposed to roadblocks. It is at least heartening to hear that. However, there is something I want to make quite clear here this afternoon. The hon. member for Pinetown advanced arguments in this hon. House which he, as a lawyer, would never dare advance in a court of law. I do not think his integrity in a court of law would permit him to raise the sort of argument there that he raised in this hon. House. I want to make it quite clear that that hon. member knows very well what the legal position is and is fully aware of the fact that this piece of legislation has to do only with the searching of vehicles and not the searching of persons. He devoted two-thirds of his speech to the fact that this legislation infringes on the inalienable right of the individual, in that persons can now be searched. In this connection he quoted some of our Chief Justices, to the profound shame and detriment—and I am saying this with all due respect—of that party.

That is absolute rubbish.

At the outset the hon. member said that this was an absolute right that was now being created and given to policemen, namely the right to undertake a search. Surely that is an untruth, to put it very mildly. In the proposed subsection (4A)(a) it is clearly stated that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, any member of the Force may, in the performance of the functions referred to in section 5, search without warrant any person, premises, other place, vehicles, vessels or aircraft. This principle is therefore quite clearly stated. Whether it is within one mile, three miles or ten kilometres, the principle is clearly stated in this legislation. The hon. member was well aware that he was not in a court of law and he therefore thought that he could get away with the things he said. If a vehicle is searched and anything illegal is found in the vehicle, section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act comes into effect and only then, on the basis of the reasonable grounds that have arisen, can that person be searched for the first time. A policeman cannot merely stop a vehicle and search the occupant without further reasonable grounds. I therefore want to point out, with all due respect, that in their approach to this legislation the hon. member and his party have yet again clearly demonstrated their lack of loyalty.

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that 28 000 roadblocks were set up in 1982 during which 800 000 vehicles were searched. We also heard that there were no problems with the public and that the police were satisfied with the way in which these roadblocks were conducted. If that is the case, what on earth are we doing with a Bill to change the situation if no problems were experienced at 28 000 roadblocks? Legislation in the rest of the civilized world—in England, America and Western Europe— contain only those measures at present in our legislation. I simply cannot understand why it is now necessary to extend these measures by affording the police carte blanche powers.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp tried to explain to us that in terms of section 5 of the Police Act, protection is in fact afforded the public and that the police have to operate in terms of that section. The hon. the Minister also relies on section 5 of the Police Act. That section does no more, however, than merely to give a broad indication of the functions of the police in terms of that Act. It can be recorded on the basis of various court cases, even appeal court cases, that the function of that section is no more than merely to serve as a broad guide to the functions of the police in terms of this legislation. Section 5 does not protect the public against excessive or unlawful behaviour by the police.

†When we are asked to support a measure like this we obviously ask ourselves what is the motivation behind it and for what reason we have to support it. We have heard from the hon. the Minister that there have been no problems with the public so far. In fact, he recorded his appreciation for the courtesy shown by the public and for the positive way in which the roadblocks have been run. We on this side of the House made this point very clear yesterday. Obviously we are not opposed to roadblocks. It is stupid to suggest that we would be opposed to the question of roadblocks. [Interjections.] We have heard nonsensical arguments from the hon. member for Umhlanga. One really cannot take that sort of reasoning seriously. What we query and what we have not had an answer to is: Why take the right away from individuals to be protected by the courts in the event of an abuse of power by the police? Why should that be taken away when in practice it is working properly? At the moment the law is wide enough for the police to stop a car if it is suspected of carrying dagga. They can set up a roadblock if it is felt that weapons are being brought into the country. Cars can be stopped if they are suspected of carrying mandrax. [Interjections.] Those provisions exist and they are operating successfully. What is the motivation of the hon. the Minister in this? It is not State security. All we have to do is look at his speech. He does not suggest in his speech that the police are not properly equipped to handle the security of the State. He makes a very vague reference to this matter but that is merely to create an atmosphere. He does not say that the present regulations are inadequate to deal with the stopping of cars. However, the argument that he does rely on is a most interesting and a very shrewd one. Let me quote it to you from his speech. The hon. the Minister is trying to bluff us and everyone else with a very clinical and neat argument.

*He spoke of a “firmer legal foundation”. This is what he says (Hansard, 23 Feb., 1983, col. 1692)—

[Interjections.] That is his reason. Now he is trying, by means of this Bill, to place the whole question of the searching of vehicles on a firmer legal foundation. In actual fact he is violating that legal foundation. [Interjections.] He is violating it. He is now establishing the situation on a warped legal foundation whereas his whole argument in his motivation of this Bill is that he wants to make it firmer. Of course, we all like a firm legal foundation. So we have to support it! This is a pathetic motivation and we shall not fall for it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister did not give us one reason why under the present system it is impossible for the police to perform their duties properly at roadblocks. And then we hear from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen and the hon. member for Umhlanga that if a person has nothing to hide he would not mind having his car or himself searched. [Interjections.] I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: Why does he not abolish all measures which prescribe the procedure to be followed when the police want to search a person?

†Why not remove all those regulations which require the police to go through a certain procedure before a person can be searched? [Interjections.] Why does the hon. member not allow the police to have carte blanche to move into his house. He has nothing to hide.

Stick to the Bill.

The hon. member for Umhlanga has nothing to hide. [Interjections.] If the hon. member has nothing to hide, let the police do what they want. [Interjections.]

Order! Only one hon. member may speak at a time. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, from 1910 up to the present we have managed and are still managing—with a system in regard to which there have at least to be reasonable grounds for the police to act in this way. The hon. the Minister must please give us a sound reason why this ought to be changed. This “firmer legal foundation” reasoning of the hon. the Minister cuts no ice.

May I ask a question? The hon. member has now referred several times to the legal position in other Western countries. Can the hon. member quote me one authority on the position in another Western country which he consulted for the purposes of this debate?

I have acquainted myself with the position in Western Europe in order to determine whether the police there have the power to search any vehicle on any road without any warrant. [Interjections.] I made sure of that, and according to my information there is no police force in Western Europe which can arrogate to themselves this kind of power. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Krugersdorp is fond of talking about philosophy and philosophical concepts and about our proposed national convention, but then he makes this ridiculous allegation that we foresee a political Utopia in this country after our national convention: We foresee that after that, everything will be peaceful in this country without their being any subversive activities. We are said to be of the type who oppose this Bill because we believe that a national convention will solve all problems. He should rather keep those philosophical arguments to himself, because they are so far removed from reality.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he would agree with me that if his party were to come to power, they would repeal this measure in order to create, on the basis of their political documents, an atmosphere of freedom of movement? Would they abolish the measure if they were to come to power, yes or no?

If I understand the question correctly, the hon. member wants to know whether we would abolish this measure.

Yes, that is the question.

Of course we would abolish it if there were no sound reasons why it should be retained.

Just yes or no.

In normal times this sort of measure …

What are normal times?

When the NP is not in power. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must afford the hon. member for Durban Central the opportunity to make his speech.

We are starting on a course, how ever small we may think it is, to give the police powers which normally are only granted during times of war or state of emergency. The hon. members opposite cannot show me any country where the police have carte blanche power as far as search is concerned in times of peace and without accountability to the courts. We may soon find ourselves in the position …

You are completely off the rails now. [Interjections.]

… where the power to search an individual will be the next power that is going to be given to the police without any limitation. They will then also have the absolute power to search one’s house. In principle the hon. member for Krugersdorp cannot point out any difference between those powers. In principle there is no difference between searching a car and the individual or his house. That can quite easily be the next power to be given to police. We cannot support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central has confirmed something we have long suspected, namely that hon. members on that side of the House are expected to adhere to certain standpoints, irrespective of whether these are based on any principles and irrespective of whether they even understand them. He began by saying that the police had the right to put up road blocks, of course, but then he went on to say that the hon. the Minister was violating the legal basis of this because he wanted to embody it in legislation. Surely those two statements cannot be reconciled.

Not if one is stupid.

It is interesting that when it comes to the national security in particular, the apparent schizophrenia of the official Opposition is most apparent. On the one side one has that group including the hon. members for Houghton, Pinetown, Pinelands, Pietermaritzburg North, and, of course, Cape Town Gardens and Constantia, who are so blinded by their hatred of the NP that they regard the NP and the State as one entity and they want to bring about the downfall of that entity at any cost, whatever the consequences may be. For that reason, as has been clear from this debate again, they do not hesitate to try to discredit authorities such as the S.A. Police and the Security Forces, with a reckless disregard for the result, i.e. that by doing this, they may harm the structure and order of the State by which they are also protected. The examples of this are legion. We have only to look at this debate and to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Pinetown, namely that this amendment is now giving the S.A. Police the unrestricted right to stop and search motorcars for any reason whatsoever.

That is right. That is quite right.

Then he went on and suggested that it could also be used, for example, for the intimidation of voters on their way to the polls during the forthcoming by-elections.

Then the hon. member for Houghton said by way of interjection yesterday that the S.A. Police had acted illegally in setting up roadblocks in the past. According to her, the people who have to maintain law and order have acted illegally in the normal performance of their duties.

But your own colleague said that. Did you not hear it?

The objectives are quite clear, namely to present the S.A. Police as bullies and pawns in the hands of the Government, and as people who would not hesitate to take even illegal action to promote the aims of their political masters. What an outrageous and disgraceful reflection this is on the integrity of every policeman serving our country! When it comes to internal security, there is not another group of men and women to whom we all owe such a debt of gratitude as the S.A. Police. In view of the magnitude of the violent onslaught on South Africa and the unscrupulousness of the persons involved, the mere fact that our society is able to carry on normally and peacefully, as it is doing at the moment, must be the most convincing and conclusive proof of the competence, dedication and efficiency of our Police Force.

The Progs share in it too.

Instead of showing understanding and gratitude for this, however, the PFP is opposing this measure, too, one which will help the police in the performance of their duties.

It is unnecessary to argue at length about whether or not this measure introduces a new principle. This has already been done by several members. The point is that this side of the House attaches just as much importance to the personal freedom of the individual as anyone on that side of the House.

Rubbish! You do not care.

At least, when a member of this side of the House speaks out in support of national security, he is not kicked out as chairman of the defence group. [Interjections.] We are satisfied that this legislation does not introduce any new principle and does not contain any principle which, when individual freedom is measured against the interest of the community, constitutes an unjustified interference with that individual freedom. The power of the police to put up roadblocks in the performance of their duties has long been an established power which is recognized under common law, as the hon. member for Durban Central conceded. It certainly forms an integral part of the powers of the police in terms of section 5 of the Police Act. Furthermore, it is specifically contained in section 6(4) which is being amended here. Only the restriction of 10 km from a national border is being abolished here, and in addition, specific measures aimed at promoting the functioning of roadblocks are being introduced by this legislation.

An interesting aspect is that until this legislation came up for discussion, not one of the hon. members of the PFP ever questioned the power of the police to set up roadblocks. When the principal act was passed in 1958 none of them or of their predecessors objected to it. When the scope was increased from 1 mile to 10 km in 1979, they did not object either. I want to quote what the hon. member for Houghton said at the time (Hansard, 23 March 1979, col. 2307)—

which concerns something else—

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, before he became a Prog, actually supported it. In Hansard of the same date, column 3223, he said—

To be sure, he does proceed to grumble, as we have come to expect of him, saying that the Government is creating too many borders. Only yesterday the hon. member for Pinetown said by way of interjection that the police had every right to erect roadblocks around Bloemfontein, which is many kilometres from any national border, after the bomb explosion in Bloemfontein. Can one come to any other conclusion than that in its desperate flights from party to party and from principle to principle, this wing of the PFP will do anything, no matter what the consequences for South Africa may be, just as long as they can possibly make a little political capital out of it? In the other wing, there seems to be—“seems” is the operative word—a small group, including the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bryanston, which, it would appear to me, is a silent and shrinking minority in this sphere, consisting of members who although they are also on the wrong tack politically, are at least prepared to take a stand when it comes to the security of the State. The question arises: How long can these people remain in the same party with members such as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and the hon. member for Greytown, if they are really serious about national security? Or does all this simply amount to political expediency which has been carefully planned in an attempt to hide the real disloyal heart of the entire PFP? This is a question which each of those hon. members of that party will soon have to answer, and that answer will then have to be reflected in their attitude towards the S.A. Police.

This side of the House has the fullest confidence in the S.A. Police, in their integrity and judgment which will enable them, in the performance of their duties, to exercise the powers that are confirmed and extended in terms of this legislation in a judicious manner and in the interests of South Africa. Therefore we gladly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think the essence of the Bill is to a large extent concerned with the point raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, namely the underlying philosophy. The essence of this Bill is the philosophy which is being applied. I am one of those people living in a rural area to whom the hon. member for Umhlanga referred, and I do not know much about the law, but I am interested in the philosophy on which it is based. I wish to quote from what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech last year, when he was introducing the Internal Security Act. The hon. the Minister said—

And this is the condition—

Then he went on to say in connection with this kind of legislation—

Those are the words of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order.

If we accept that an onslaught is in fact being made on South Africa, and if we accept, furthermore, that there is a bona fida interest on the part of the Government and of the hon. the Minister in bringing about reform in South Africa, well and good. However, what actually underlies the philosophy which worries us, the philosophy which concerns us as the official Opposition, and which is given effect to in the hon. the Minister’s legislation?

Order! I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member. However, this Bill is not concerned with a philosophy; it is concerned with the question of the erection of roadblocks by the Police further than 10 km from the border. I know that other hon. members have digressed rather widely up to now, but I do want to ask the hon. member not to stray too far from the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your request. However, when we examine the speech made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp—to mention only one example—we notice that it was actually devoted entirely to the philosophy. Therefore I should like to reply to that. The hon. member for East London City wanted to know why the PFP was so interested in the freedom of the individual. What is actually at issue here is not the freedom of the individual: it is the sinfulness of man. That is what is really at issue here. [Interjections.] The sinfulness of man is manifested in me as well. It is also manifested in every policeman, as well as the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and the hon. member for Krugersdorp. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Krugersdorp talks about human rights. [Interjections.] What is the reason for the existence of this Parliament, Mr. Speaker? It is to protect the individual subject of the State, because the possibility always exists that any human being—whether he be a policeman or a member of the House of Assembly—may fall into sin. That is precisely why we have laws. [Interjections.] That is why we are interested in defending people against other people who have absolute rights. [Interjections.] That is why we in this party are opposed, for example, to the approach of doing things in secret. As soon as things are done in secret, problems arise. It is because we are all sinners. When we know that we can do things in secret …

Order!

And what is more, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

When we know that we can do things in secret … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill now. Sin, reformed principles, and all kinds of other things which the hon. member is discussing now have nothing to do with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when a policeman knows that he has an absolute right over someone else—someone who is being detained without trial, for example, or someone who is stopped at a roadblock—the temptation always exists to exploit that situation. It is not only the policeman who would be tempted; anyone would be tempted. If I had been a policeman myself, I might have been tempted too. [Interjections.]

Now you are talking absolute nonsense!

It is our responsibility as members of this House to prevent a temptation of this nature from arising, a temptation which could be acted upon. That is precisely why we are opposed to this legislation. That is precisely why we believe, too, that the legislation which has been working quite well for the last 70 or 80 years should not be changed now. Why should the legislation be changed now in order to give certain people an absolute right to act in a certain way? I believe this is absolutely contrary to all legal principles. It is also incompatible with our legal traditions in this country. It is also irreconcilable with reformed principles. [Interjections.] What is more, it is incompatible with Roman Dutch law. [Interjections.] That is what is at issue here. That anyone should now have the absolute …

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North tell us whether he believes in the concept of discipline?

Mr. Speaker, of course I believe in the concept of discipline. However, we already have discipline. When the police suspect that an offence is being committed, they already have the power to do all these things at any time. We learnt from the hon. member from Umhlatuzana earlier how many cars had been searched at roadblocks during the past year. He mentioned that 800 000 cars had been searched. This was done without any problem. In the light of this, why does the hon. the Minister have to give those people an absolute right? I do not believe it is necessary. What does the hon. member for Krugersdorp say?

Leave me alone now!

He says it is necessary to stop all these arms that are being brought in. However, if any policeman suspects that weapons, dagga or anything else may be hidden in a car …

How does he suspect that?

… he is fully entitled to stop the car and to say to the driver: I want to search your car because we suspect that arms, dagga, or whatever is being smuggled.

How does he suspect that?

The policeman can then search the car. [Interjections.] To give a man an absolute right is absolutely wrong, because no man is a god. Any person may be tempted to do things which are wrong. [Interjections.] So if we do not, by means of this legislation …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not wish to interrupt the course of the debate, but the hon. member keeps talking about the “principle” of the legislation, while the principle is not being amended in any way in the Bill. I just want to bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, by way of a point of order, that the principle is not being amended in the Bill.

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North may proceed.

I believe that if we do in fact find ourselves in a situation where such powers are necessary, it is important that the important principles of a civilized society and of a legal system which we have to a large extent inherited and which this Government has to a certain extent destroyed …

Order! What the hon. member is discussing now is not relevant to this measure at all. Accordingly I now ask the hon. member for the last time to confine himself to the Bill.

With all due respect, Sir, we are now discussing the Second Reading, and the Second Reading debate is a debate in which principles are discussed. We are dealing here with legislation which confers an absolute right upon a policeman. It is a very important principle, and it certainly constitutes a departure from the principle in the present Act. [Interjections.] With all due respect. Sir, I think we have to discuss this principle of conferring an absolute right. The hon. the Minister used the word “absolute” in referring to the power which is being conferred upon a policeman under this measure. It is unheard of. This is the first time in the history of our country that we are doing such a thing.

Order! The hon. member has said so repeatedly now. This House has taken cognizance of it, and if the hon. member does not advance new argument, I must ask him, in terms of Standing Order No. 110 of this House, to resume his seat.

A policeman already has the right to search a car at a roadblock, and the hon. the Minister admits—he said so himself in his Second Reading speech—that they already have this right, not an absolute right, but on the basis of a suspicion or strong grounds for suspecting that a crime has in fact been committed. [Interjections.] I cannot see any need for the hon. the Minister to come to this House with this amendment. I think it is a pity that this kind of amendment should have been introduced by him in particular, as a Minister who comes from a region which is as close to heaven as Die Bult and those places.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to refer to that place as a place which is close to heaven?

What did the hon. member mean by that remark?

When one consults the Verklarende Afrikaanse Woordeboek, one sees what Die Bult is. Living at Die Bult is the closest one can come to heaven, because Die Bult is … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must allow the hon. member to furnish the explanation I have asked him to furnish.

What I am saying is that the hon. the Minister represents a seat which is the cradle of reformed thinking … [Interjections.] …and I believe that such …

That is not what you said.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot take a joke, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] I did not mean to give offence. [Interjections.]

Order!

It was not a joke.

Order!

Mr. Speaker on a point of order: This matter affects my constituency. [Interjections.] The hon. member is now trying to be funny, in the first place, by referring in a derogatory way to a part of my constituency. In the second place, he tells a lie, because he says it comes from a dictionary of definitions. I challenge the hon. member to show me in the dictionary where it says that Die Bult in Potchefstroom is so close to heaven. That is why I say the hon. member is deliberately telling a lie.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Which words must I withdraw, Sir?

The hon. member must withdraw the words that Die Bult is close to heaven.

But it is the Dopper heaven …

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I do not understand what I have to withdraw.

The hon. member must withdraw the reference to Die Bult as being close to heaven.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to refer again to the hon. the Minister’s standpoint. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said yesterday—

What was he referring to? He also said—

i.e. human rights and an inflexible constitution—

Where was the hon. member schooled? He was schooled at Potchefstroom, and Potchefstroom, the town represented by the hon. the Minister, is the cradle of reformed thinking.

Order! The hon. member must please resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In the course of the hon. member’s speech, the hon. the Minister said that the hon. member had told a lie by quoting something from a dictionary. I believe that the hon. the Minister was guilty of using unparliamentary language and he should withdraw it.

I did not hear it and I am afraid it is too late now— the hon. member has already resumed his seat—to raise that as a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I heard it.

Order! Then why did the hon. member not object to it at the time?

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, we want to be absolutely clear about this matter. Is it your ruling that you did not hear the word used and also that the point was taken too late? Have you ruled in both those respects?

I did not hear the hon. the Minister use the word and, secondly, the point of order was taken too late.

Mr. Speaker, would you allow us to look at Hansard, and if we discover that the hon. the Minister did in fact use the word to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity? Before you give your ruling, may I suggest you inquire from the hon. the Minister whether he did use the word?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to assist you. The hon. member does not have to ask me. I have risen and indicated that I wish to address the Chair. I have been trying for quite some time to attract the attention of the Chair in an attempt to be of assistance. I want to assist you. Mr. Speaker, by telling you that I did say that. What I said was that the hon. member had deliberately told a lie in this House by saying that a dictionary of definitions contained a certain description of Die Bult at Potchefstroom. Those were my words. They can be looked up in Hansard. The hon. member said that, Sir, while knowing that he was not telling the truth.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the words “deliberate lie”.

I gladly withdraw them, Mr. Speaker, but may I draw your attention—as I have tried to do—to the fact that an hon. member of this House misinformed you and did so deliberately? I have been trying to bring this to your attention, and it is as close to a lie as an untruth can be.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the words “deliberate” and “lie”, in his supplementary explanation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to co-operate with the Chair, and therefore I do so with pleasure.

I now call upon the Minister of Law and Order to speak.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. [Interjections.] I find this a strange debate. I am used to the official Opposition being strange on occasion, but it is a long time since I have experienced it to this extent in this House. [Interjections.] Yes, from certain members. Can hon. members credit it that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and other hon. members object so strenuously to a principle that is at issue, when this entails no amendment of the principle that is already contained in the Statute Book? I shall demonstrate this to hon. members. There is no amendment of the principle. What is happening here is that a limitation of 10 kilometres is being suspended and extended to the rest of South Africa.

Exactly! [Interjections.]

Those hon. members can laugh if they like; I am not finished yet. They can laugh if they like; it does not matter. Those hon. members, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North in particular, talk about the encroachment on the rights of the individual as far as searching is concerned, and they want there to be reasonable grounds. The hon. members for Durban Central and Pinetown who, if I remember correctly, are lawyers, oppose the point. And they do so despite the fact that no alteration in the terminology of the existing Act is being proposed in this amending Bill with regard to this point.

The hon. members of the official Opposition are now objecting so strenuously to this amendment before the House. The situation is exactly the same as it has been in practice for many years, and they have never objected to it. But now, when we come to this House and tell the hon. members that we want to put sound and clear legislation on the Statute Book, something that they are always very concerned about, they oppose us. Now that we come forward with legislation in which we tell the official Opposition that we want to place a sound Act on the Statute Book, they oppose us. Now that we come and tell them that we do not think we have a good Act and that we want to make it a good Act by amending it, they oppose us. And we are always being attacked by the official Opposition—that is their task—on the basis that there are deficiencies in certain legislation. Now, however, when we come to this House with an honest effort and say that we must look at legislation which, in our opinion, is not entirely clear and which should be more clearly framed, the official Opposition opposes us. I therefore say that I found this an interesting day. It has been very interesting since yesterday.

I should like to thank all hon. members on this side of the House, the NRP and the CP, for the contributions and the co-operation they have afforded. I should just like to reply to one or two minor matters before dealing with the spokesmen of the official Opposition. I should like to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for his exceptionally effective speech this afternoon in which he pointed out to the official Opposition what their standpoint was in regard to security matters. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen asked me what the position of members of the Defence Force was when they assisted at roadblocks in support of the police. The position is that members of the Defence Force form an exclusively supportive function. They have no policing function at such a roadblock. Nor may they exercise any policing functions; in other words, if it is necessary to use a firearm, it will be a police function and not a supporting function. All those who assist at such a roadblock, except members of the S.A. Police, are therefore performing a supporting function. I do not wish to deal any further with the legal position. I just wanted to state that in general terms for hon. members.

Certain hon. members referred to the need for roadblocks, and certain hon. members also referred to certain events at roadblocks. In my reply I shall reply to certain aspects of this matter and perhaps give a little more detail than did hon. members on this side of the House, specifically the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the hon. member for Roodepoort and the hon. member for East London City.

I should like to deal in greater detail with the hon. member for Pinetown and other hon. members.

†You know, Sir, I found some of the aspects of the hon. member for Pinetown’s speech last night very interesting indeed. The hon. member made certain interesting statements in his introductory remarks, one of which reads as follows—

I should like to know from the hon. member for Pinetown whether these laws do not also apply to the other population groups in South Africa. Do they not also apply to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians?

Cannot the hon. the Minister understand what I am saying?

No. Why does the hon. member only refer to Whites?

Because the laws are passed by White people.

Why does the hon. member only refer to Whites, Sir? The hon. member knows very well that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act apply to all population groups in South Africa.

That is really a pathetic argument.

No, no. I ask again: Why only Whites? I also want to point out to the hon. member that nowhere in his speech was he prepared to refer to security matters.

Do you know that is not true?

No, the hon. member can point it out to me if he can find it in his speech.

I did so at least twice.

If the hon. member can find it in his speech, perhaps he will point it out to me. Nowhere in his speech did the hon. member refer to the problem of crime in South Africa in respect of this particular matter.

I talked about security matters under section 25.

Later on in his speech the hon. member referred to the question of the very long borders of South Africa and the fact that people can be searched in a hurry on our borders. However, in regard to security matters, he was very quiet as well as in regard to the question of the combating of crime.

There is another matter that I wish to point out in regard to the speech of the hon. member. The hon. member made a particular point of the fact that our legal provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act and other legislation provide that a policeman cannot do this kind of thing without having reasonable grounds for suspecting that a crime is being committed and that under that circumstances he is entitled to search a person, a vehicle, a building or what have you. However, later on in his speech the hon. member admits that this very principle is part of the law as it stands today. Let me refer the hon. member to what he said. He said, inter alia—

The hon. member says nothing about security matters or crime prevention. All he does is refer to very long borders. He goes on to say—

The roadblock does not necessarily have to be 10 km from the border, Sir. The hon. member went on to say—

The hon member admits it. He refers to “an absolute right to search vehicles”. Has the hon. member told the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg-North that he admits this? He goes on to say—

What is the argument about? The hon. member spent about 20 minutes last night to argue against the very fact which he admits and that is that the Police have an absolute right to search within 10 km from the border.

[Inaudible.]

Wait a bit. What was the argument about? The hon. member also referred to certain other legal aspects and then he said—

At that stage he was interrupted.

I want to ask the hon. member that particular question again. Were the S.A. Police entitled, after the bomb blast recently at Bloemfontein, to put up roadblocks around Bloemfontein and to search every vehicle which was stopped at such a roadblock?

Did you not hear …

I am just asking for an answer.

Did you not hear an hon. member reading my comment in which I said yes?

That is what I am asking.

One of the hon. members on your side read it.

On what reasonable grounds must the police stop them? The police stop a thousand vehicles at those roadblocks; what reasonable grounds must they now have? Where is the hon. members’ argument? What reasonable grounds must they now have to stop those motor vehicles. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have had occasions where the police have put up to 500 roadblocks during a particular night all over South Africa, and we have not had one single complaint from the official Opposition; why not? We have hundreds of roadblocks all over South Africa on any given evening or during any given night, and we have not had a single complaint about the police stopping vehicles without having reasonable grounds. Why have the hon. members of the official Opposition never complained about the position?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister: Where he says that in the past there have been massive roadblocks on a national basis without any reasonable grounds or suspicion of an offence, will he concede that the police were acting illegally?

I am talking about the police stopping vehicles and searching them without reasonable grounds before stopping them. This has happened in thousands of cases without a single complaint from a hon. member of the official Opposition.

Was it lawful?

If they are so concerned about the matter, why have they not complained about it?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether in fact such conduct by the police in the past was unlawful?

No, I do not say it was unlawful; that is not the point I am arguing.

Why then do you need the Bill?

I do not say it is unlawful. I said at the beginning that because we were concerned on legal advice that we received on the legal issue which we are debating today, we brought the amendment to the House. That does not mean that we acted unlawfully. The point I am making is that the hon. member for Pinetown is arguing that the police must only be able to search a vehicle upon reasonable grounds of a crime having been committed or something like dagga being in the car or arms and ammunition, etc. I say that the hon. member himself knew all these years that that is not required of the police before they become entitled to stop any vehicle at a roadblock.

That is in section 22 of the Act.

Why continue to advance the argument on which the hon. member spent about 20 minutes last night?

Let me also refer to the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. member referred a number of times to the legal position in the civilized world. I want to say to him bluntly that he certainly did not examine the legal position in the civilized world for the purposes of this debate. He cannot quote any authority in this regard. However, it sounds terribly impressive.

Tell me, then, what the position is?

It sounds terribly impressive to come and tell us …

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

Let me just complete my sentence. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me just complete my sentence please.

*It sounds terribly impressive to tell this House that the rest of the civilized world has such legislation on their Statute Books, but the hon. member cannot give us a single example that he has looked up for the purposes of this debate and can quote as an authority. Now the hon. member may ask his question.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give us the name of a single country in Western Europe, including the British Isles, or in North America, where the police in fact can search without having any reasonable grounds for doing so?

I have not taken the trouble to examine the legal position in any country. [Interjections.] I am dealing with South Africa’s needs now. What is also interesting with regard to the hon. member for Durban Central is that he says that the rest of the civilized world has the measures that we have in our legislation at present.

The reasonable grounds.

It is not stated there. The hon. member is a laywer, but I had better read to him what is stated in the Act.

I was referring to sections 20, 22 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

No, that does not appear in the Act. The hon. member would do well to go and read what is stated in the Act. I am now referring to section 6, which is being amended by this Bill. Section 6(4)(a) reads as follows—

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Central: What does it say about “reasonable grounds”? Where is that stated in this section?

May I reply to that? [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon. member cannot make another speech.

Here is the legislation. The hon. member has it at his disposal. I want to tell him that there is not a word about that in it.

Look at sections 20, 22 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must now afford the hon. the Minister an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Sir, you may rest assured: The group of lightweights opposite will not give me any trouble. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that in the existing provisions of the Police Act, that are being amended by the Bill before this House, not a word is said about “reasonable grounds”.

The Criminal Procedure Act is also relevant.

The powers in terms of which a police officer may act at a roadblock are prescribed in this Act and not a word is stated about “reasonable grounds”.

Now you are conveniently saying nothing about the 10 kilometres.

Order!

The hon. member for Durban Central also said that I was playing a trick on the House. He said that I was not coming to the House on a purely legal basis. He said that I was in fact putting forward a provision that violated the law.

It takes away the protection.

I want to tell the hon. member that that principle is already contained in the Act and is not being affected by the amending Bill. Whence, then, the violation? It is not being affected by way of that Bill. I do not know whether the hon. member has read the amending Bill. I doubt whether he has read it. I also wish to address the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He was not even in this House when we discussed this matter. The hon. member asks why we do not rather abolish all measures if we say that they are so deficient. Does the hon. member want us to abolish these protective measures? Must we abolish these statutory provisions that appear in the Statute Book and that enable us to combat crime and fight terrorism if he is of the opinion that they are deficient or if we are of the opinion that they are deficient? Is the element of deficiency the only reason why we should abolish them? Surely that is what the hon. member is saying. And what then? What must we use to combat crime then? Surely not the Progs?

Just shoot.

That is the answer; “Just shoot.” That is the PFP’s answer. The standpoint of the Government is not one of “just shoot”. The standpoint of the Government is to act with all responsibility within the provisions of the law. Now the hon. member states that if the official Opposition were to come to power they would abolish this provision. Are we really to accept that? I cannot see that the hon. Chief Whip agrees with that. [Interjections.] What I find so interesting, and the hon. member for East London City pointed this out, is that the hon. members sitting there agreed with this principle in 1979. They agreed with the amendment, and I shall quote what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said and I shall also quote what the hon. member for Houghton said. She was the official spokesman of the official Opposition. At that time the principle was accepted. At that time the principle was not in dispute. The amendment was not in dispute. Do hon. members know why it was not in dispute? It was not in dispute because the official Opposition said at that time that it was essential from a security point of view, that now it is no longer necessary! Now it is no longer essential! In 1979, however, they supported it on that basis.

Harry was here then. Harry was in the House.

Can hon. members believe that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that? He supported the Bill.

*Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North entered the debate. Let me honestly say I hope that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, when he was still an active lay preacher, did not speak to his congregation as he spoke to me this afternoon. If he had done that, he certainly would not have had an audience. It is no wonder he came to Parliament. He has run clean out of business. When that hon. member and the hon. member for Wynberg began to make interjections I thought that if the farmers and the clergymen were beginning to practise law then we would encounter problems on that side of the House. This afternoon was a good example of that. In his storm and stress, that hon. member said to us: Why amend a statutory provision that has been on the Statute Book for 70 to 80 years and that has given good service for 70 to 80 years? We are not amending a word of it, except the 10 kilometre distance; we are not amending a word relating to the right of a policeman to search. The hon. member almost shouted at me, he was so angry at me. The hon. member objected in the strongest terms to the absolute right a policeman would supposedly have. I do not think the hon. member was in this House yesterday when the hon. member for Pinetown said that a police officer has an absolute right in terms of the Act within those 10 kilometres. That is stated in Hansard. However, this afternoon the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North became so excited that he did not even hear, Mr. Speaker, when you tried to stop him, about the absolute right that his senior colleague said yesterday should remain. [Interjections.] If that hon. member prepares his sermons as he prepared himself for this afternoon’s speeches, then I do not know. He said that we were concerned here with legislation that gave a policeman an absolute right and that this was the first time in history that this had happened. Can hon. members believe that? I do not think I need dwell on that hon. member any further. He has really only wasted our time.

I should now also like to point out what the standpoint of the PFP was in 1979. Before doing so, however, I should first like to put a question to the hon. member for Pinelands. If he does not object to the police exercising these rights within 10 km from our borders, and if he also does not object to the police having the right to search a vehicle at a roadblock with the purpose of combating terrorism, and if he also does not object to the police having these rights to set up roadblocks with a view to combating crime … Do I understand the hon. member correctly that he does not object to this? Let us put this to the hon. member somewhat differently. The hon. member for Pinetown can be very talkative when he feels like it, but unfortunately he has now been struck dumb. I am now going to put the question to the hon. member very slowly, clearly and simply. Does the hon. member for Pinetown object to the police having an absolute right to search a vehicle at a roadblock erected within 10 km from our country’s borders, for any purpose within the limitations of the functions of the police as laid down in section 5 of the Police Act? Has the hon. member any objection to that?

He said he didn’t have any objection to that.

I am not putting the question to the Chief Whip. I did not put the question to the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP, but to the hon. member for Pinetown. [Interjections.] I am putting this question to the hon. member for Pinetown. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am asking the hon. member for Pinetown a simple question. What is so difficult about it? [Interjections.] I did not ask the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP what the hon. member’s answer ought to be. I am putting a simple question to the hon. member for Pinetown.

Dead quiet!

Very well, Mr. Speaker, now the hon. member has lost his tongue. Perhaps I could put the following question to him. I should now like to ask the hon. member for Pinetown whether he is in favour of the S.A. Police fighting terrorism not only within a distance of 10 km from our borders, but in the rest of South Africa as well. Surely that is a simple question, is it not? [Interjections.] It is a simple question, is it not? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Minister take a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must first answer my question. As soon as he answers my question I shall give him the opportunity to ask his question. [Interjections.]

Do you still beat your wife, Louis?

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North must withdraw that interjection.

Mr. Speaker, it was a question I asked.

Yes, but the hon. member must withdraw it nevertheless. It is an insulting and derogatory question. I shall under no circumstances permit anyone in this House to ask other hon. members questions of that nature.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Pinetown is unable to answer my second question either, I should just like to ask him a third and final question. Is the hon. member in favour of the police having an absolute right to combat crime by way of roadblocks within the limited distance of 10 km from our country’s borders? I take it that his reply to this would be in the affirmative. On that basis I now wish to know from the hon. member whether he is also in favour of the S.A. Police having the right to combat crime by way of roadblocks in the rest of South Africa. That is my third question to him. The first concerns the combating of terrorism and the second, crime.

You have changed your question. The first time you spoke about an absolute right and the second time you did not use the word “absolute”. [Interjections.]

All right then, I shall use the word “absolute”. If it will please the hon. member, I shall use the word “absolute”.

*I shall put the question to him again. Is the hon. member in favour of the police having an absolute right to combat crime and/or terrorism throughout South Africa by way of roadblocks?

The whole of my speech answers that question.

No, the hon. member must answer my question now. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I have the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown here. I believe that if the Leader of the Opposition had been here today he would have been ashamed of his party. He would have been ashamed of his party that is not prepared to adopt a standpoint in regard to this simple matter. With regard to this simple matter, hon. members of the official Opposition are not prepared to adopt a standpoint.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Minister now take my question?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown lacks the courage to reply to my question. Accordingly I shall not reply to a question by him. I have put three questions to him; he did not want to reply to one of them. [Interjections.]

What was the standpoint of the official Opposition in 1979? In 1979 the then Minister of Police introduced an amending Bill requesting that the 1 km distance from borders be extended to a distance of 10 km. The chief spokesmen of the official Opposition were the hon. members for Houghton and Port Elizabeth Central.

I think he was still a United Party supporter at that stage.

I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had better say what he in fact was; I am no longer sure. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had better tell us whether he still stands by the standpoint he adopted at the time. After all, it is surely very easy. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton said that apart from clause 9 they agreed with the other clauses of the Bill and clause 2 was one of them. I take it that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central still stands by the standpoint he adopted at the time. I refer him to col. 3223 of Hansard of 23 March 1979. There the hon. member says the following—

He then also refers to Bophuthatswana. Then the hon. member goes on to say—

That is the standpoint of the official Opposition and if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth was a member of the NRP then, then that was still the standpoint of the Opposition in this House. What do we find today? [Interjections.] Let us ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central whether he still agrees with that.

I believe that within 10 kilometres one is entitled to do so, but not throughout South Africa.

Let us then put a simple question to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. If he is in favour of our combating terrorism by way of roadblocks where the police must have an absolute right to search within 10 kilometres from our borders, is the hon. member not, then, also in favour of our having the same powers to combat terrorism in the rest of South Africa.?

That is a silly question.

Will that hon. member please keep out of this. I am not asking him the question. [Interjections.] The hon. Chief Whip might as well answer this question. [Interjections.] I am merely putting a question to the hon. Chief Whip.

I am not prepared to be cross-examined by you.

I have given the hon. Chief Whip three opportunities and I shall give him more, within the rules of this House, to put questions to me. I have not made it difficult for him. [Interjections.] I now put a question to the hon. Chief Whip.

I am not prepared to answer you.

As the senior representative of this party, I want to ask him whether we in this House must take it that the official Opposition states that the police in the rest of South Africa, outside the 10-kilometre border, may only have these rights if in exercising them they have reasonable grounds for their actions?

Now you have got it.

Now the hon. members must just tell us … [Interjections.]

Order!

A moment ago they said that we were entitled to set up roadblocks around Bloemfontein after the bomb explosion. [Interjections.] How on earth are the police to have reasonable grounds in advance for searching those thousands of vehicles which, according to the official Opposition, they are entitled to search? How on earth is that possible? We are engaged in an absolutely futile discussion. If it is the standpoint of the official Opposition that the police can only operate within those parameters, then we understand one another. Therefore I say that we shall continue to implement this legislation.

I should like to give hon. members an indication of the extent of the problem we are faced with. The figures relating to the number of roadblocks set up in a given year—last year—and the number of vehicles searched, have already been given to the House. Last year we devoted 646 000 man-hours to roadblocks in South Africa. At all the various roadblocks set up in South Africa, a total of 71 787 members of the South African Police Force were involved, apart from other forces that provided supporting services. 435 arrests were carried out with regard to motor theft, 101 with regard to housebreaking, 147 with regard to theft, 254 with regard to the posession of stolen property, 35 with regard to robbery, 365 with regard to trade in dagga, 1 115 with regard to the possession of dagga and 902 with regard to driving under the influence of liquor. There were also 218 arrests of people who did not have drivers’ licences, and 149 for the possession of unlicensed weapons. There was one arrest for the possession of explosives, 288 for the possession of stolen vehicles found at roadblocks and 68 for the possession of fire-arms. More than 13 000 kilogrammes of dagga, 450 dozen bottles of illegal liquor and more than 12 000 litres of fuel that were being transported illegally, were also found. Apart from all these arrests, more than 2 000 summonses were issued to people at roadblocks. That is the extent of the matter.

As far as security matters, on which the official Opposition does not want to adopt a standpoint, are concerned, I can also furnish cetain information. Over the past four or five months we have already had nine incidents of sabotage in South Africa. The items I now wish to identify are items that are or can be conveyed in South Africa by terrorists or prospective terrorists and which have in fact been conveyed. However, according to the PFP we must not stop a vehicle outside the 10-kilometre limit without having reasonable grounds to believe that there are three limpet mines, 10 hand grenades or five AKs in the vehicle. We must first have reasonable grounds to believe that before we search the vehicle.

What have we found in South Africa over the past few weeks, let alone months? On one occasion we found 50 kilograms of plastic explosive, and on another occasion still larger amounts of the same material. We have also found detonators, explosive fuses, etc. On one occasion we found 10 kilograms in Kwa Mashu at Durban, and on another occasion, 25 kilograms of plastic explosive. At eight places in Natal and the Eastern Transvaal we have found Makarov pistols and AK rifles. We have also found limpet mines, hand grenades, magazines full of ammunition and bayonets. Terrorist weapons of this nature are transported in South Africa. This traffic is in progress and I am only identifying what has been found in the past few weeks. If I were to identify the data of the past year, the amounts would be far greater than those I have just mentioned.

We are now coming to Parliament with legislation in terms of which we are requesting the power to stop vehicles outside the 10-kilometre border in order to combat this kind of thing, and then the official Opposition objects and they do not want us to have those powers.

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

Will the hon. the Minister answer a question?

I think the hon. member has had enough time, but let him ask his question.

Taking into account that at present the police have unlimited powers within the 10-kilometer stretch to search a car, an individual and premises, on his reasoning will he not concede that he should then also extend the unlimited powers of the police to search an individual and premises to the rest of South Africa in order to combat what he wants to combat?

We are dealing here with roadblocks and a principle that is already contained in the Statute Book. There is no exploitation of it.

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

The hon. member can at least have the decency to wait until I have finished replying to the hon. member for Durban Central. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Durban Central, we are dealing here with a principle which is incorporated in the Statute Book and which is not being amended in this Bill—by no means. All we are asking you here is to cooperate so that the 10-kilometre provision can be abolished with regard to searches carried out at roadblocks. The hon. members of the official Opposition say that they are not prepared to do this, despite being aware of the problems we are faced with and despite being aware that we are approaching them solely in order to place on the Statute Book in clear legal terms, a practice that has been implemented over the years. That they do not want to give us either. Therefore they do not want to give us that assistance, nor do they want to assist us to come to this House with clear statutory provisions. Therefore I say, as I said at the outset, that I had not thought that I would experience the day in this House that the official Opposition could adopt such a standpoint with regard to the important matters we are dealing with.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Before I explain the Bill to this House, I just want to mention that I have some good news to communicate. An hour ago I became a grandfather for the third time.

Hear, hear!

In its report the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation pointed out that in 1981 during the riots which took place on the Witwatersrand, some people made use of petrol bombs to damage the property of others. During the riots the police also discovered caches of petrol bombs which had evidently been prepared for future use.

In its report the commission went on to point out that a petrol bomb is actually an incendiary device and not a bomb. It usually consists of a bottle filled with petrol or petrol mixed with soap, rubber, oil, sand or other chemical substancies and, after it has been corked, it is provided with a fuse, which is usually nothing but a piece of petrol-soaked rag tied around the neck of the bottle. A person wishing to damage an object lights the fuse and then throws the bottle at its target, and when the bottle hits the target and breaks, the petrol ignites and causes a fire.

The commission went on to mention that it had been informed that although it was clear that the petrol bombs found by the police were intended for illegal purposes, the persons involved could not be prosecuted for possession of these petrol bombs because there were no statutory provisions prohibiting such possession and making such possession a punishable offence. The commission considered this to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and in view of expectations that the use of petrol bombs in riot situations would increase, it recommended that consideration be given to measures which would declare the possession of petrol bombs to be illegal. The commission pointed out that such a provision could possibly be included in the Explosives Act, 1956.

The damage to property and injuries to people that petrol bombs can cause are self-evident. The Bill under consideration is aimed at implementing the recommendations of the commission and making the possession of petrol bombs an offence.

At present section 28 of the Explosives Act, 1956 provides that any person who is found to have in his possession or under his control any explosive under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he intended to use such explosive for the purpose of injuring any person or damaging any property, shall, unless he satisfies the court that he had no such intention as aforesaid, be guilty of an offence.

†The aim of the proposed amendment is to amend the definition of “explosive” so that for the purpose of section 28 of the Explosives Act it includes a petrol bomb or any container, apparatus, instrument or article containing any inflammable substance which can be used to cause an explosion or a fire or which was made or adapted to cause an explosion or a fire.

The effect of such an amendment will be that if a person is found to have a petrol bomb in his possession or under his control in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he intended to use it for the purpose of injuring any other person or damaging property, he will be guilty of an offence unless he satisfies the court that he had no such intention as aforesaid.

The prerequisite that the possession of the petrol bomb must be in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he intended to use the petrol bomb for the purpose of injuring persons or damaging property, will prevent persons who have petrol in a container in their possession for use for bona fide purposes, for example a person who keeps petrol in a bottle in his garage for use in his lawnmower, from falling within the ambit of the relevant section.

Mr. Speaker, I should like te begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister on his happy news. Secondly, as regards this short Bill, there has been an Explosives Act in South Africa since the year of Union. Obviously explosives must be controlled. Particularly today we welcome even more the control of explosives because of their wider use in the world by groups causing trouble, terrorism, etc.

As the hon. Minister said, this Bill extends the definition of “explosives” to cover a very wide category, namely any container containing an inflammable substance. I want to say right away that, if the mere possession of explosives were an offence in terms of the main Act, we would not have supported it. However, as the hon. the Minister has correctly pointed out, it is only the possession of explosives in certain circumstances which creates an offence, the circumstances being those that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the explosives are intended for damage or injury. In those circumstances, we agree, it is absolutely correct that an offence should be created. We therefore support the Bill.

Reluctantly!

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to learn that the official Opposition, through the hon. member for Pinetown, did not again make the error of judgement of opposing a good piece of legislation that was being introduced here. As he also indicated, we are not really dealing with a new principle here. The basis of what we have in front of us today was debated in this House in 1956 and then incorporated in legislation. This is that it is an offence to have specific substances in one’s possession or under one’s control under circumstances irrefutably indicating an intention to use them for the purpose of causing someone harm. In the relevant Act, the Explosives Act, the substances are also narrowly defined as explosives.

What we have here is essentially a preventive measure. It is aimed at bringing anyone to book who is, making preparations to injure another person by means of an explosion before he has proceeded to commit the deed or, put another way, before he was able to carry out his intention. Such a measure is necessary in a world in which destabilizing forces are actively planning and working in a subversive way to take demonstratively violent action in order to disrupt and unnerve peaceful people. The immediate aim of such a person is to cause panic up to the point where the resistance of the innocent citizens at whom the actions are aimed, crumbles. The ultimate aim is to disrupt the social system to such an extent that it falls into the hands of the revolutionaries. This mode of operation has now assumed an established pattern throughout the world and the wisdom of the South African legislature of the ’fifties, which was of course an NP legislature, has been abundantly proved.

There is no doubt that if a Government is serious about protecting the inherent right of the citizens to live in peace, that Government must create strong instruments with which to protect their interests. Since 1956 when this legislation was placed on the Statute Book, violent elements in the community have become more sophisticated, and sometimes this sophistication lies in the very simplicity of their methods. The use of simple incendiary devices has increased dramatically throughout the world. In our country these devices have been given the rather misleading name of “petrol bombs.” In the past they were also called “Molotov cocktails,” which of course is an indication of the country of origin of these devices. The ingredients for these devices are easily obtainable. They are easy to manufacture and unfortunately that is why one finds that they are frequently used by young people, or that young people are frequently misled into using them. Sir, you will remember that we were shown, on South African television, scenes of militant young people in Northern Ireland and in certain British cities pelting the police with petrol bombs. Hon. members know what an influence television has, particularly when it comes to negative images which are presented in a spectacular way. Petrol bombs are formidable assault weapons. They can cause a great deal of damage. They can maim people horribly. The damage they can cause is as bad, if not worse, than the damage caused by explosives. That is why the punishment for this offence cannot be less severe.

The Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation, the so-called Rabie Commission, was of the opinion that the use of petrol bombs in this country would increase, as has in fact happened elsewhere in the world. That is why it is highly unsatisfactory that petrol bombs are not included in the legal definition. There have been cases, in the recent past as well, where arsenals of these devices have been found, evidently prepared for using for illegal purposes. But because of a lack of appropriate legal provisions, the people concerned could not be prosecuted.

The aim of this piece of legislation we are now dealing with is simply to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs. In Britain there has, for obvious reasons, been a similar provision in “The Protection of the Person and Property Act, Northern Ireland”, since 1969.

We are dealing here with a Bill which meets a need because it is supplying major and important deficiencies. It therefore gives me pleasure to be able to say that this side of the House wholeheartedly supports the principle of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by congratulating the hon. the Minister most sincerely on the birth of his third grandchild on this particular day.

After having read through this legislation and definition of a petrol bomb and after having listened to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, we just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we understood the purport of his words. Actually it is surprising that this kind of legislation is only now being introduced, after we have had to contend with this problem for many years. I am not saying this as criticism. We understand that the hon. the Minister introduced a comprehensive programme of security legislation last year. And when one looks at this legislation, one sees a jigsaw puzzle of legislation that has to ensure the security of the State. This is a process that must be completed gradually. This amending bill is just another step towards the completion of that jigsaw puzzle.

It is a fact that the threat to our internal security is constantly changing with regard to its origin and emphasis. I think the experience of the S.A. Police over the years has shown us that the use of this method, the manufacture of this kind of assault weapons, has made it essential for this kind of weapon to be defined in legislation as well, and as the hon. the Minister, indicated, this is now being done by means of this legislation at present before this House.

For our part we wish to say that we support this legislation wholeheartedly. This is definitely a very serious use of a very serious weapon, which is in actual fact an incendiary device, and can cause a great deal of damage and disaster in our country, and for that reason we want to thank the hon. the Minister for introducing this legislation now. We support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there should be any doubt whatsoever in our minds that this legislation is absolutely essential. If we take into consideration how readily available petrol bombs and other incendiary devices are as well as the tremendous damage that can be caused by the use of such devices, it goes without saying that a measure of this kind is to be welcomed. In the latest report and the S.A. Centre of Terrorism Research, in Cape Town, an indication is given of the tremendous increase in the number of occurrences of terrorism during 1982. This was also given fairly comprehensive coverage in a report in Die Vaderland of 16 February 1982.

When paging through the report of this research centre I found it significant that a petrol bomb that can be manufactured at a cost of 25 cent can in a fraction of a second cause damage totalling R1,4 million. Members of the public in South Africa have no conception of the extent to which these devices can and are being used and I feel that in order to take the necessary precautions to combat or prevent incidents of this kind, the legislation under discussion is absolutely essential.

In passing I just want to mention that devices of this kind have already caused appalling damage in Italy and the United States, for example. In 1977 there were 1 198 incidents in Italy in which devices of this kind were used. In the USA in 1977 a total of 69 people were killed and 326 injured in incidents in which devices of this kind were used.

If we consider the conclusions the research centre arrived at in regard to terrorism, it would seem that terrorism is probably going to increase in South Africa during 1983. The increase in the number of incidents of this kind, as reflected in statistics—and this also applies to January 1983—makes us realize that every measure the Government can take to safeguard the position of its citizens in this country is absolutely essential. It therefore gives us pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there can be nothing as terrifying as a petrol bomb. It is a device which is easy to make. It is something which anybody can prepare, and it has the most terrible effect when used. I have the misfortune—I believe it is indeed a misfortune—to see the effects of the throwing of one such bomb. It occurred in the City of London when I was there last on a visit. I can assure hon. members that that is something that will live with me for ever. I believe that this measure is necessary, and I must add that I am delighted to note that in this amending Bill provision is being made for the strictest penalties for anybody who is found in possession of a device of this nature. Such person will be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine for a period of not less than three years, and not more than 15 years. It is not often that one finds that provision is made for a minimum as well as a maximum penalty. It is not often that those penalties are prescribed for imprisonment only without the option of a fine. I believe it is fitting that that is the sort of penalty that should be prescribed for any person who is found in possession of a device of this nature.

We support this measure wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support for the Bill. Last year, during the consideration of the security legislation in this House, as well as the consideration of the report of the Rabie Commission, this matter remained in abeyance because I felt that we had to give careful consideration to which legislation this measure could best be incorporated into. That is why I did not try to include it in the existing security legislation at reasonably short notice last year, but asked the law advisers to look into this matter carefully. The law advisers were also of the opinion that this was the correct thing to do. I am also satisfied that we have now included a clause in the Bill with which one cannot find any fault and which will serve us well in the years ahead.

This is indeed a serious matter. I am sure no party in this House would want this sort of thing to happen on our streets or elsewhere. I am therefore grateful for the support of the hon. members, particularly because it is of so much importance to the South African Police to have this kind of protection.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

As hon. members know, the original Bill was referred to a Select Committee after its First Reading during last year’s session, the terms of reference of the Committee being to investigate its subject, and the Committee having power to take evidence and call for papers, and leave to submit an amended Bill.

In my opinion, the Committee did a very good job, and there was a thorough investigation of certain aspects of the Arms and Ammunitions Act. I wish to take this opportunity of conveying my sincere thanks to all the members of the Select Committee for the task they have performed with distinction and for the amended Bill they have produced. It is evident from their report and from the Bill that they approached the need for proper control over fire-arms and the safe-keeping of such arms with great responsibility. Accordingly, I take pleasure in informing the House that I accept the amended Bill prepared by the Select Committee in its entirety. Hon. members will notice, however, that I suggest a further amendment in clause 1, to which I shall come back later.

In essence, the purpose of the Bill is, in the first place, to remove the colour connotation from the Act, as is evident from clauses 1(a)—1(b) in the English text—2(b). 3, 5 and 8.

†The impression that may exist in certain quarters that the omission of the word “White” from the Act implies that the granting of fire-arm licences to non-Whites will now be thrown open is as erroneous as the impression that licences may at present only be granted to White persons. The factual position is that non-Whites were never precluded from obtaining fire-arm licences, not in terms of the present Act, nor in terms of the original Arms and Ammunition Act passed by Parliament in 1937. Since 1937, to date, no less than approximately 30 000 licences to possess arms have been issued to persons other than Whites, but consistently subject to the strict requirements which have, over the years, been accepted as norms. I have no intention whatsoever of lowering these normative standards, but would rather consider making the requirements even more stringent, because there are too many people in South Africa who do not really appreciate the responsibility that the obtaining of a licence to possess an arm carries with it.

Every application is properly considered on its own merits, after extensive investigation by the police, and where any doubt exists, or where the applicant does not meet all the requirements, the application is refused.

*Various factors are taken into account in considering an application, and because the granting or refusal of a licence is a discretionary power, it is obviously not advisable to explain all the requirements in public. It is not always easy to exercise a discretion, but I can assure hon. members that every attempt is made to exercise that power as objectively and equitably as possible. Experience gained over the years has enabled us to implement the Act without any problems arising.

I am in agreement with the standpoint of the Select Committee that the number of arms owned by individuals should be limited, as is now being proposed in clause 2(c). The number of 12 arms may be regarded as arbitrary, but it is my considered opinion that that number can satisfy every need. Nevertheless, provision is being made for the Minister to authorize the issuing of further licences to any person who already possesses 12 or more arms. However, the Minister must be satisfied that exceptional circumstances obtain in such a case. I want to make it quite clear, however, that this provision does not mean that henceforth a person will automatically be able to own up to 12 fire-arm licences. Every application will continue to be judged on merit, as in the past. The provision does not have retrospective effect, and persons who own 12 or more arms before the amending Act comes into operation will only be affected when they submit further applications.

In clause 4(d) and (e), respectively, “gross” is being deleted in order to make the test for negligence less strict, and a further ground is being added for being declared unfit. I share this concern of the Select Committee about the safe-keeping of fire-arms as well as the additional offences contained in clause 7.

Greater discipline with regard to the carrying of a fire-arm by a person in a public place is being introduced by clause 6, and I agree with the standpoint of the Select Committee that the thousands of law-abiding citizens should not be forced to incur extra expenditure where this is not necessary. The proposed provisions of the clause are clear and require no further explanation.

I now wish to come back briefly to clause 1, with regard to the amendment of the definition of “arm”. According to the definition in the present Act, a machine gun is not an arm in terms of the Act, and a person who is suspected, on the basis of a sworn statement, to be a person referred to in section 11 of the Act, cannot for example, be declared unfit to possess arms. For this reason, Part II of the Act is not applicable to such a person or such a machine gun. Similarly, the provisions of sections 37 and 38 relating to the possession of such an automatic arm and the requirement that its loss must be reported are not applicable to a person in that position. Furthermore, a person who unlawfully points a machine gun or any fully automatic weapon capable of continuous fire at any other person cannot be charged with pointing a fire-arm as provided for in section 39(1)(i).

In order to remove these shortcomings, it is being proposed that the definition of “arm” be widened so that a machine gun may also be deemed to be an arm for the purposes Part II of the Act and sections 37, 38 and 39(1) (i).

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has indicated it has passed through a Select Committee where representatives of all the parties have discussed the matter and have come forward with this Bill. Their report has been tabled and the reasoning behind some of the amendments contained in the Bill is set out there.

I want to briefly deal with one aspect which the hon. the Minister mentioned, namely the removal of the racial connotation. He is quite correct in saying that prior to this Bill the general understanding of the public was that only Whites were entitled to fire-arm licences. In practice that was not the case because the Minister had the power in terms of section 3(4), of the Act also to issue licences to people of other racial groups. That is in fact what happened in practice.

Through the amendments in this Bill the procedure for all the different racial groups is being brought into line so that they will all be treated on the basis of the same criteria. That is to be welcomed, particularly as it is put forward with the agreement of everyone concerned on the Select Committee.

The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that two additional grounds have been added on which the Commissioner is entitled to declare a person unfit to possess a fire-arm. These are: Mere negligence in losing a firearm whereas it used to be gross negligence, and failure to take all reasonable steps to safeguard a fire-arm. One may wonder whether sufficient attention has been given to the safekeeping of fire-arms. One may suggest that perhaps the Select Committee ought to have dealt with the possibility of safes for fire-arms. I can merely submit that in practice it would be a very difficult procedure to implement if it was to be required of all fire-arms’ holders, all fire-arms’ licencees, to keep and store their fire-arms in safes. That is a requirement which on the face of it sounds effective but which in practice will cost a lot and will be difficult to implement and to police.

I want to deal with another aspect, namely the safe handling of fire-arms. The suggestion is often made that one ought to insist on training of all applicants for a fire-arm licence, training prescribed and approved of by, for example, the Minister and his department. Numerous articles appeared in the Press and representations have been made in this regard. Again, on the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable suggestion, but when faced with the practical implementation of such a suggestion, one comes up against problems which one cannot surmount without creating a whole new bureaucracy specifically for this purpose. The position is that there are in South Africa a number of clubs and organizations which do provide training for people who wish to acquire fire-arms. They, however, are concentrated in the major metropolitan areas. There is no co-ordinated approach towards training and it would require the full co-operation and involvement of not only the Police Force but also municipal authorities and probably the Treasury if one were to place this on a national basis and if one were to regulate this properly. It, therefore, does not seem that it is possible at this stage to implement the suggestions as regards training for all applicants for fire-arms licences.

The report of the Select Committee deals with other aspects of the amendments and I do not wish to go into those. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central has made a positive contribution on this occasion. I, too, wish to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation on this occasion to the members of the Select Committee representing all the political parties for the very pleasant way in which we were able to work together and for the pleasant spirit which prevailed on the Select Committee at all times. We differed with one another, but I found that hon. members were always prepared to see the other man’s point of view and to listen to him. I want to emphasize here that we were absolutely unanimous in our search for a solution to the problems we were faced with. It was never necessary, for example, to put a single proposal or clause to the vote. We succeeded in reaching consensus on all aspects of the Bill. I found it a pleasure to be the chairman of such a Select Committee.

In the second place, I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the S.A. Police for the very valuable assistance which Brig, van Vuuren gave the Committee. It made matters easier for us and we wish to record our appreciation for it.

After an invitation concerning this matter had appeared in the Gazette of 19 February 1982, and certain Press reports had been published on the matter, we also received useful representations from the public and certain bodies. This also assisted us in our search for a solution to the problems we were faced with. We owe a debt of gratitude to those persons as well.

As regards the Bill itself, the Committee did not consider it its task to try to reduce the number of fire-arms which are already lawfully in the possession of the public of South Africa today. Nor did we want to make it impossible for people to obtain firearm licences in an orderly manner in future. This does not mean that the Select Committee did not also take cognisance with grave concern of the evidence of abuse which seems to occur in South Africa today, especially with regard to the safekeeping of and supervision and control over fire-arms. However, we accepted that there would always— as long as we live in a democratic state in this country—be fire-arms in the possession of private individuals. As a Select Committee we did not wish to interfere with that privilege. Therefore we took account of reality in our recommendations and deliberations, and we interpreted our terms of reference as follows, inter alia, and I quote—

In an attempt to achieve this, we went on to recommend—

As far as this is concerned, the Committee believes that the proposed amendments, which will now enable the police to take much stricter action, should impress upon the public the seriousness of the matter. In this connection, we want to point out that under certain circumstances, a person will henceforth not only lose his licence to possess a fire-arm, but will face prosecution in a court, with the possibility of a fine of R500 or imprisonment for a period of six months or both. In order to assist the public even further, however, I should also like to point out that the S.A. Police made the following statement to the Select Committee in this connection—

We believe—as I have already said—that everything should contribute towards impressing upon the public the fact that a firearm is not a toy and that it must be safeguarded and controlled under all circumstances.

The possession of fire-arms by people of colour has been a highly emotional issue in our country for generations. On the Committee we approached it with the greatest circumspection and balance—on part of all hon. members, I may say—and we should like everyone in this country who is affected by this to adopt the same attitude. To arouse emotions and fears on the part of any population group with regard to such a matter is dangerous and will benefit no one. Therefore I wish to express my strongest disapproval regarding a report which appeared in a defunct Pretoria newspaper on 16 February this year, namely “Swartes mag wapens besit”. This kind of reporting is more than objectionable journalism; it is simply disgraceful and malicious reporting. For what are the facts? The Tswanas of Bophuthatswana, 30 km from Pretoria will be able like the inhabitants of all national States to possess fire-arms today and in future without any of us in this country having any say over the matter. As far as people of colour within South Africa are concerned, the Committee considered the matter very carefully indeed. In order to place it on record, I just want to quote briefly the recommendation of the Select Committee in this connection—

From evidence available to the Select Committee it is clear that a licence is in any case only granted after intensive investigation by the S.A. Police. In the light of these considerations, the Select Committee believes that the proposed amendments will not contribute in any way towards making fire-arm licences more easily obtainable or causing them to be granted to undesirable persons.

In this connection, I also wish to refer to a statement made on 24 February this year by the Vuurwapenkomitee of Die Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. They wrote—

We really trust that everyone in South Africa will approach this matter in the same responsible and balanced frame of mind as the Select Committee and that it will certainly not be turned into a political football in future. We simply cannot afford that kind of thing in South Africa.

With these few words I want to say, therefore, that we believe that the amendments we have proposed constitute an improvement to the existing legislation. Therefore I wholeheartedly support the legislation which is before the House.

Mr. Speaker, since the Bill was referred to a Select Committee which was unanimous in its recommendations, I shall try to be very brief. In our country, possession of a fire-arm is not a right; it is a privilege, one which I think should be granted very sparingly. I think the Select Committee has succeeded in putting this message across. The message is not only being embodied in the practical implementation of the Act, but also in the additional recommendations of the Select Committee.

One sometimes feels concerned about the fact that people who acquire fire-arms for self-protection, as they believe, very often become the victims of those very fire-arms because they have not been properly cared for. Therefore I think it is absolutely essential that we should bring it home to the general public that a fire-arm is not a toy, that it must be handled with care and, in particular, that people who are not familiar with the use of fire-arms should rather not possess such arms, because I think that in the hands of a person who does not know how to use it, a fire-arm is actually a dangerous possession. With these few words we gladly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we also appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Barberton, on behalf of the CP, supported the legislation in its entirety as the hon. member for Jeppe, who was also a member of the Select Committee, in fact supported every amendment proposed.

Sir, permit me, in the first place, to express a word of thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. He was the chairman of the Select Committee. The members of the Select Committee have great appreciation for the way in which he presided over it, for the guidance he gave it, and for the example he set in general. We thank the hon. member for Verwoerdburg for this. [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to a few aspects the Select Committee considered when dealing with this matter. In the first place there is the matter of negligence in the safekeeping of fire-arms. Not only do fire-arms come into the possession of unauthorized persons as a result of the negligence of licence holders but hundreds of people die or are injured every year as a result of accidents with firearms. In the period 1 March 1981 to 28 February 1982 111 people were killed or injured as a result of the negligent handling of firearms. In 43 cases children got hold of a firearm and people were killed or injured. In 2 124 cases people were killed or injured as a result of a deliberate or purposeful action on the part of the person handling the weapon, for example murder, attempted murder, robbery, etc. If we just consider the 43 cases in which children were handling fire-arms this is already an alarming figure. These are the cases where the child finds the fire-arm in the bedside drawer, under the pillow, on top of a cupboard or in a wardrobe. This is negligent safekeeping and inevitably this leads to the negligent handling of the fire-arm.

Representations were made by the Magistrates’ Association for steps to be taken against the negligent handling of fire-arms. It also asked that a severe punishment be linked to this. The Select Committee also gave serious consideration to compelling people to have a safe in which to place their fire-arms when they have more than a certain number of fire-arms. This coincides with what the hon. member for Durban Central said. After all a fire-arm safe can be purchased for far less than the average price of an average fire-arm. If a person has four, six or eight fire-arms, and he can afford them, then he can surely afford a safe as well. The Wapenkomitee of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut also made an appeal, dated 24 February, to which the hon. member for Verwoerdburg referred, for a fire-arm safe, or something in which a fire-arm can be kept, to be obligatory when a person purchases a second fire-arm.

These representations by the Wapenkomitee of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut were considered although, unfortunately, we received them late. However, I do not think there would have been any difference in the decisions of the Select Committee or that it would have influenced us even if we had received these representations in time. It was decided not to make a fire-arm safe compulsory. After all it is not the Government’s intention to place unnecessary financial burdens on the public. I nevertheless want to suggest to people who own a number of firearms to consider purchasing a fire-arm safe to keep their fire-arms in. However, I must emphasize that there is no legal obligation at this stage on owners of fire-arms to purchase safes. It must probably also be emphasized that severe action will be taken against people who are negligent in the safekeeping of their fire-arms.

When one comes to the requirements in connection with the carrying of pistols and revolvers in public places, I want to say that it is the sometimes irresponsible behaviour of some members of the public—and I want to emphasize that these people are by far in the minority—that caused the Committee to give serious attention to this aspect. The habit some owners of fire-arms have of carrying their fire-arm tucked into their belt or their back pocket so that most of the firearm is visible, must be discouraged. This could lead to an undesirable person being able to get hold of the fire-arm easily or the owner could even lose the fire-arm. The Wapenkomitee of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut suggested in its telex that the firearm must in fact be worn in a prominent way to discourage the carrying of fire-arms. If we want to prohibit the carrying of fire-arms we must do so by legislation. Then a person will only have a fire-arm available for self-defence if he is at home or at the place where he keeps the fire-arm. We do not want to deny people the right to carry a fire-arm for their own protection. We just want the firearm to be carried in a safe way. If someone purchases a fire-arm for self-protection, then he must have that fire-arm at his disposal at all times to be able to defend himself if necessary.

During the investigation it was also found that there are many different kinds of holsters for hand guns. It would therefore be unreasonable to say that a holster should be designed for every kind of fire-arm and may only be used for that specific kind of firearm. A holster at present on the market can, for example, be used for more than one kind of hand gun. If the Committee were therefore to recommend that every kind of firearm should have its own holster only the dealers would benefit. This would once again have placed an unnecessary financial burden on the fire-arm owner. We would not then have been acting in the interests of the general public either if we had imposed such a requirement. That is why the Committee unanimously decided that a fire-arm may only be carried in one’s pocket if it is not visible, or else it must be carried in a holster or other container, which has not been specifically defined and which therefore does not place an unnecessary financial burden on the public. However, it is most important that this person or owner must at all times have effective control over the fire-arm.

The Committee also gave very responsible consideration to the training of persons in the handling of fire-arms. In this regard detailed evidence was also given before the Committee by two members of the National Fire-arms Training Association of South Africa. Although it is obviously a good idea for a person to undergo training in the handling of fire-arms, it should be pointed out that many problems could also arise in this connection. According to a report in Beeld of 12 February 1982 a well-known fire-arms expert, Dr. Lucas Potgieter, said that it would be a good thing if people were tested before a fire-arm licence was issued to them. The Wapenkomitee of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut also suggested an examination for people purchasing their first fire-arm. This could create unnecessary confusion amongst applicants applying for fire-arm licences. Who is going to conduct the tests or train the people in the first place if we bear in mind the fact that according to the evidence before this Committee the majority of shooting clubs are in fact pistol clubs. There are only between 50 and 90 such pistol clubs in the country. Other clubs are by far in the minority.

I should just like to give a few examples of what could happen. It would surely be ridiculous to expect the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to submit-a certificate from a club instructor as proof that he, the Minister, has been tested, knows his fire-arm and can handle it. After all, he is a well-known shot and is well-known in shooting circles in general, and I think that as far as fire-arms are concerned, he could probably teach the instructors a thing or two. Or one could demand that the hon. member for Jeppe be tested to prove that he can handle the firearm with which he shoots kudu. This could also apply to other well-known hunters, for example, the hon. member for Walvis Bay or the hon. member for Uitenhage. There could also be problems if a person goes for training, knows his fire-arm and submits a certificate to that effect and he then applies for a fire-arm licence and the department rejects it. That person could approach colleagues in this House and tell them that he was tested by an instructor and was able to handle a fire-arm but that the department rejected his application for a fire-arm licence. If one says that a person should first apply for a licence and that the licence is approved in principle but is only issued after he can prove that he has passed a test, he must find an instructor to train him. It goes without saying that that instructor will be approved by the department, which in turn must appoint people to test and possibly train the instructors and then issue those instructors with instructor’s licences. If we were to expect local authorities to make such instructors available, this would be making unnecessary demands of them too. If we leave it in the hands of private instructors, there will be too few trained instructors in the country and this could lead to unnecessary malpractices and many other problems. The question can also be asked: What about the 1 800 000 fire-arm licences that have already been issued? There are also various other problems. The Committee was agreed that the possibility of requiring a certificate of competence could be considered in the future. Many people will ask how the Committee arrived at the number of 12 fire-arms. Some enthusiastic hunters who also participate in shooting competitions could possibly make out a case for their needing more than 12 fire-arms. If that person can make out a strongly motivated case to the hon. the Minister, statutory provision has been made for the hon. the Minister to give written authorization for him to own more than 12 firearms, as the hon. the Minister in fact mentioned in his Second Reading speech. This must not be seen as an invitation for people merely to apply to the hon. the Minister because this will definitely only be granted in exceptional cases. The number 12 is a strongly representative number. It can accommodate both the hunter and the competition marksman, and they can also have more than one fire-arm for each purpose.

Enthusiastic hunters and competition marksmen will also be encouraged by this to purchase their fire-arms more selectively in the future. It therefore gives us pleasure to support the Second Reading of the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I believe, congratulations are due to the hon. the Minister on the birth of his third grandson. Congratulations to him from this side of the House. I should like to put it to him that he still has a long way to go because my benchmate, the hon. member for Umbilo, is already the grandfather of 16. [Interjections.]

Then I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, who, as chairman of the Select Committee, handled the position there extremely well. There is, however, some doubt in my mind because I do not know which position he handles best. I do not know whether he is better as chairman of the Select Committee or as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. I leave it at that, however. When one is handling a measure such as the one we are discussing now, I believe, one must have respect for the individual’s freedom of choice about whether or not he should possess a fire-arm, subject to the prescribed conditions of course. On the other hand, together with that personal freedom, I believe, there must be responsibility as well. That is the area in which problems arise, the area of the responsibility of owning a fire-arm. Concern and alarm have been expressed at the number of accidents many of them fatal—that have occurred as the result of a lack of responsibility on the part of the fire-arm owner.

What are our options then? We can opt for stricter legislation, which could make the situation almost untenable. The point is, however, that should one opt for stricter legislation the question arises again regarding the position of the law-enforcement agents. I do not believe that should we make our legislation all that strict, we will be in a position in which the police will be unable to enforce such laws.

On the other hand it is true that people should be educated. Education of the firearm owner or of someone who applies for permission to own a fire-arm, I believe, is extremely important. However, how does one enforce that option too? Whichever way one looks at it, the situation of executing either option is extremely difficult. Notwithstanding criticism by certain sections of the Press, I believe, the Select Committee has done a reasonably good job. In this respect I want to refer particularly to clause 4 of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 11 of the principal Act. I believe that this should be drawn to the notice of the public. The public should be informed that if the Commissioner is of the opinion that on the ground of information given under oath, there is reason to believe that “any person” is a person—

By adding the proposed new subsection (1)(e), however, which states that a person who while in lawful possession of a fire-arm, fail to take all reasonable steps for the safekeeping of such arm, the measure is improved even further because I believe that this is where most accidents originate. People evidently do not realize that they have to keep fire-arms in a safe place. Furthermore the deletion of the word “gross” is going to make the application of this legislation a lot easier.

Recently I was given a book which, I believe, sums up the situation quite well. It is a newly published book, titled The gun-owner’s guide. I do not know whether the police are aware of this book. They may very well be. I should just like to quote from the first paragraph of the preface to the book, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, this book is simply packed with information. I think it is something that every fire-arm owner should have a look at.

I should like to bring two points to the hon. the Minister’s attention, two points I consider to be valid points. Firstly, when an application for a fire-arm is made, and that application is granted, I believe that the police should suggest to the licensee that he should join a registered gun-club, because in so doing he would learn how to handle a fire-arm. In that way he will then become educated and become a responsible gun-owner. Secondly, when a licensee is given a licence to own a fire-arm, I believe that he should also be given a copy of the Arms and Ammunition Act. If he were given a copy of that Act, not only would it have a sobering effect on him, but there would also be no doubt in his own mind about what is required of him and, if he does not comply, what the penalties would be.

We shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, now that a Select Committee has thrashed out this matter, and various speakers have already stated their case on this piece of legislation, not mucn remains to be said. Consequently I only want to touch on a few matters very briefly. In the first place, I should like to emphasize what has already been said here, namely that this piece of legislation is now placing a greater onus on the owner of a fire-arm to look after that fire-arm carefully. The term “gross” negligence has been deleted from the legislation and “negligence” is now considered sufficient to constitute an offence. This is also linked to the way in which a fire-arm should be handled and carried. Initially consideration was given to insisting that a firearm be carried in a holster, but for various reasons this was found to be impracticable. It was then decided to recommend that it be stipulated that the person must have the firearm completely under his control at all times. I think it must again be brought to the attention of the public that this control must be exercised at all times.

In conclusion there is one further point— in a far lighter vein which I should like to touch on. This concerns the deletion of the word “White” from this legislation. On the one hand, one could perhaps say that this is probably an extreme example of unnecessary and hurtful discrimination that is being eliminated. As the specification of the word “White” was discriminatory, or was apparently discriminatory, and for that reason was probably hurtful, as I shall also illustrate, it is now being deleted without making one iota of difference to the actual state of affairs.

The incident I want to refer to has a bearing on the wording in the legislation. At this stage the legislation provides that a fire-arm may not be issued to a person other than a natural person or a White. That is the present provision in the Act, and I know that at a certain stage this provision was discussed by a hostile Black group. They said it was stated in an Act drafted by the Whites that White people are not natural persons. [Interjections.] For that reason I am glad that we got around to accepting this legislation with such a great degree of unanimity.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support of all the parties in this House for the Bill which is before us at present.

†The hon. member for Durban Central in his support for this Bill referred to two particular matters. The one is the question of the safekeeping of fire-arms and he explained why the Select Committee did not consider the matter any further. It is not so easy to provide all the answers in that regard. The hon. member also referred to another very important issue, namely the safe handling of arms. He suggested that people ought to be trained in the use of arms at all times, even before licences are issued. Also in that respect there are problems. I will refer to that in my answer to another hon. member. I thank the hon. member for his support of this Bill.

*The hon. member for Barberton also emphasized how important it was for people to be familiar with the fire-arms they want to purchase or already have in their possession. It is of the greatest importance that the public take cognizance of the fact that they must ensure that they are familiar with the operation of a fire-arm. I am very concerned about this because there are thousands of people is possession of fire-arms who do not know how they work. That is one of the reasons why we have so many accidents involving fire-arms in South Africa.

The hon. member for Losberg took a great deal of trouble with his contribution and he mentioned important problems with which the Select Committee had wrestled. He identified them very neatly here this evening. I should like to refer to one point the hon. member emphasized, namely that although the legislation does not make provision for fire-arms to be kept in safes, stringent action will nevertheless be taken under the provisions of the legislation. I shall return to this later.

†The hon. member for South Coast made two points in particular. Firstly, he suggested that when application is made the police should suggest to the licensee that he join a registered gun club. That is a pretty good suggestion but the problem is that we do not have enough gun clubs. We do not even have enough trained people at the present gun clubs who are really qualified to train people in the handling of either hand-guns or rifles or what have you. That is the problem in this regard. The hon. member appreciates this problem.

The second point he made was that a copy of the Arms and Ammunition Act should be given to every licensee so that he may not be left in any doubt as to what is required of him. That is quite a practical suggestion. I think we must follow it up and see whether it can be accommodated in practice.

*The hon. member for Helderkruin also emphasized the importance of the control of fire-arms. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

I now come to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, who was chairman of the Select Committee. I want to express my thanks to the hon. member and the other hon. members of the various parties who served on the Select Committee and who took so much trouble with the Bill referred to them. The Select Committee consisted of hon. members of this House who represent constituencies distributed as widely as possible thoughout South Africa and who also, owing to their special knowledge and positions, were undoubtedly representative of most of the interests or interest groups that have an interest in the ownership handling of weapons, from the point of view of agriculture, sport, self-defence, industries, etc. I am most grateful that the Select Committee undertook and completed their work so enthusiastically under the able guidance of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. I am not surprised that the hon. member was recently promoted to and appointed as Deputy Speaker of this House. I am also very greatful that the hon. members of the Select Committee were unanimous in their recommendations, because there were several sensitive aspects in this Bill which they had to consider. That is one of the reasons for the Government’s decision to refer this Bill to the Select Committee; so that members of all the various parties could calmly consider the sensitive matters contained in this Bill. The hon. members were of great assistance to me in maintaining the necessary balance and submitting balanced recommendations to this House with regard to those matters as well.

Since notice of the Bill was given, I have received representations from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and the S.A. Arms and Ammunition Dealers’ Association. I received the representations of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut on 24 February and the representations of the other organization on 21 February, and I should like to point out that I have given attention to them, and that I considered whether to delay the submission and/or procedure of the Bill in this House, and whether it was necessary for the Select Committee to reconsider it, but I am satisfied, as the hon. member for Losberg has already mentioned—and I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg referred to this too—that the Select Committee would probably have reached the same decision even if they had had those proposals in their possession. I do not want to suggest that the two bodies did not make sound and positive proposals, but I am satisfied that I can proceed with this Bill in spite of the representations received. I shall hold further discussions with those involved concerning the matters that can receive attention later. I should like to say this so that they may know that this House is a responsible body and that serious consideration is being given to their representations.

The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut expressed particular concern about the limit of 12 fire-arms per individual licenceholder. It is true that this number may be regarded as arbitrary. But 10 could also be an arbitrary number, as could 14. However, in several West European countries eight has for many years been the maximum number, and no one may therefore have more than eight firearms in his possession. In our legislation we still provide that in exceptional cases, persons may possess more than 12 fire-arms. I can, however, give you the assurance that these will be exceptional cases. And it will only be by way of extreme exception that a person will be allowed to possess more than 12 fire-arms.

I am satisfied that with 12 fire-arms one can make adequate provision for the defence of one’s family, oneself and one’s possessions. One can make adquate provision for all types of hunting of all types of game and/or birds in South Africa. With 12 firearms one can also make provision for various types of target shooting rifles one may need. I am therefore satisfied that as far as these three fields of interest are concerned 12 fire-arms are easily sufficient to meet any reasonable needs.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to another matter. I am very sorry that this happened because this legislation is of a very sensitive nature. About 10 days ago, on Friday in the second last issue of a Pretoria morning newspaper, Die Oggendblad, a cartoon appeared to which I want to object very strongly in this House. In this cartoon I am depicted as the responsible Minister who has already handed a rifle to a Coloured and is about to hand a rifle to a Black man. The caption amounts to the following: “Behave yourselves now, and do not simply shoot the Whites”. That is more or less what it amounts to. I do not have the cartoon here. I must tell you that, considering the times in which we live and the seriousness with which this legislation was treated by all hon. members of this House, I think that this was a disgraceful cartoon. What it suggests is an infamous lie. This in no way implies the handing out of unlicensed fire-arms to people. In my Second Reading speech I tried to indicate how, over the years since 1937, and even prior to 1937, even in the days of the Old Transvaal Republic, Blacks and Coloureds could under given circumstances lawfully be in possession of fire-arms. I have indicated that to date approximately 30 000 licences for fire-arms have been issued to Blacks or people of colour in South Africa. Essentially, those particulars were in the possession of the editor of this newspaper that published the lie that this Government is now handing out arms to Blacks and Coloureds and telling them: Just behave yourselves with these as far was Whites are concerned. I think this is an extremely dangerous standpoint to adopt and for this reason I want to take this opportunity of objecting to it in the strongest terms.

There is another matter I should like to refer to because I consider a matter of great urgency and because it concerns the handling and use of fire-arms. It also concerns the irresponsible issuing of threats with regard to the use of fire-arms. I notice that the leader of the AWB, Mr. Eugene Terre’Blanche, held a meeting in the Pretoria city hall last night. On a previous occasion I pointed out to and warned the leader of the AWB and all its members in a responsible way in this House that they should count their words and that they should not make such a calculated contribution to disturbing relations in South Africa. According to newspaper reports I note that last night in Pretoria, the leader of the AWB threatened that if this Government were to allow this country to be governed by Coloureds, he and his people would use force to return it to the White man. According to newspaper reports he stated from the platform of the Pretoria city hall last night that if this Government were to allow South Africa to develop into a Mozambique or an Angola he would ensure that this country was returned to the White man by force of arms. These are dangerous things for anyone in South Africa to say, irrespective of whether he is the leader of the AWB or the leader of another similar organization. I want to qualify this. I mean similar in the sense that they are organizations interested in using force. I am not referring to political parties. I want to tell the leader of the AWB and his trigger-happy followers who may be as trigger-happy as he is, as well as any of his trigger-happy friends, that we shall not stand for this sort of language being used in South Africa. This Government will see to it that the country is governed in a democratic way and that in future, within the Government’s capabilities, democratic systems will be maintained. This Government will also see to it that people who make that kind of threat or who make threats about being trigger-happy, will not unnecessarily disturb relations in South Africa to such an extent as to endanger democratic systems.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

These amendments are being effected at the request of the S. A. Pharmacy Board.

The expression “pharmacist intern” is being substituted for the expression “trainee pharmacist” in the Pharmacy Act, 1974. The Pharmacy Board is of the opinion that the use of the expression “intern” will further the professional image of the profession.

At present any person who complies with the requirements may obtain limited registration as a pharmacist from the board. The opinion is held that such applications ought to be screened in a stricter way, and consequently provision is being made for the necessary powers to do so in clause 2.

In order to eliminate red tape, the requirement that a contract for the practical training of an intern shall be submitted to the Registrar, is being omitted. With a view to furthering the recruiting of training staff, it is being provided that interns may also receive practical training from an institution approved by the board. The idea of the board is to accommodate university staff in this connection.

Furthermore, the board intends to introduce specialists in pharmacy and to register specialists. This development has already occurred abroad and in the interests of the profession it is necessary to keep abreast of this development. The necessary powers required by the board for this purpose are being created.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that in an article in Rapport of 11 July 1982, Dr. De Klerk wrote, inter alia, as follows about the important task of Ministers—

He went on to say—

Allow me a few minutes to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment in this, to him, new and also very important portfolio. We can take it that as a medical practitioner, the hon. the Minister is a specialist as far as this portfolio is concerned. I hope he will remain with us for a long time as Minister of Health and Welfare and that, if he does not possess the knowledge already he will acquire it soon.

It is interesting to read in the Parliamentary Registers of 1910 to 1982 that the hon. the Minister has now become the second Minister of Health and Welfare and the eighteenth Minister to be entrusted with the portfolio of which the title begins with the word “Health”. The portfolio was established in 1919 with the title “National Health”. It is very interesting to look at the names of the Ministers who have been entrusted with the portfolio from 1919 to 1944.

There were Sir Thomas Watt, Sir Patrick Duncan, Dr. D. F. Malan, Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr and Mr. Suttaford. Then for a short time the portfolio was called “National Health and Demobilization” and it subsequently became “Health”. In the short period from 1945 to the present we have had 12 Ministers of Health.

One of these days the thirteenth one.

Perhaps we do not remember all the Ministers of Health in this last group of 12. It is interesting, though, to hear the names of Dr. Stals, Dr. Bremer, Dr. Van Rhyn, Mr. Thom Naudé, Mr. Viljoen, Dr. De Wet, Dr. Albert Hertzog, Dr. De Wet, Dr. Van der Merwe and Dr. Munnik. In the short span of less than 40 years there were 12 Ministers of Health and, interestingly enough, of all of them Dr. Hertzog served in that office for the longest period, viz. 10 years, and Dr. S. W. van der Merwe served for the second-longest period, viz. seven years.

In welcoming the hon. the Minister in his new position, I should like to express the hope that in respect of an important post such as Health there will not be constant variation, but rather some continuity, for the country needs it. As far as the Welfare branch is concerned, I can say that the hon. the Minister is the sixth Minister to manage this branch. We now have a Deputy Minister of Welfare, too. We hope that the hon. the Minister and we of the official Opposition will be able to co-operate for the benefit of the country’s health and welfare, because I think that these are matters which, within the next decade or two may become very important.

I should also like to congratulate the new Director-General of Health and Welfare on his appointment. I have known him for a long time. He is an honoured colleague of mine and has the reputation of being a very good administrator of hospital services. I am sure that he will cope with this important position effectively and knowledgeably.

†It is also a great pleasure for me on behalf of the official Opposition to support this Bill, the first health Bill this hon. the Minister has introduced. As the hon. the Minister has said in his Second Reading speech, this Bill basically deals with changes in nomenclature. It concerns registration and training. There are two things that are very important to me in this new amending Bill. The first is the change in name from “trainee” to “intern” in clause 1. The second is the change in name from “chemist” to “pharmacist” in clause 6. The hon. the Minister quite rightly said, in his Second Reading speech, that this Bill was introduced on the advice and with the acceptance of the Pharmacy Board “en dat die Aptekersraad die mening huldig dat die gebruik van die uitdrukking ‘intern’ die beeld van die beroep sal bevorder”. I want to say that the same can be said for the change in name from “chemist” to “pharmacist”. I think that that is quite acceptable.

If the House will bear with me, I want to say that the words “pharmacist” and “pharmacological” appear today in the newspapers basically every day. I think it is perhaps with good reason too. I want to think aloud about the implications of all these accusations. The reports one sees in the newspapers concern matters that have been well-known by the medical profession for many, many years. These matters have been discussed by people and I think it is now a very opportune time for something to be done to stop practices that bring the good name of medicine into disrepute with the public.

The hon. the Minister has been requested—I refer hon. members to the Order Paper—to have a commission of inquiry into these allegations. I want to assure him that this is not a request to get at certain people. As he has said, he will not allow a witch-hunt. I quite agree with that. I do not think it will serve any useful purpose for this House, a commission of inquiry or even the Press to try to get certain people into trouble. What I do want to plead for is that these allegations, based on good reasons, must be investigated. As a result of this something must happen to get this big business arranged in a more orderly and acceptable fashion.

There is no doubt that in the practice of medicine a lot of mistakes are made and a lot of problems arise. I think that first of all we can blame the training of our doctors for this. I believe that in South Africa we train our doctors to practise in America. If one is a doctor with a practice and one sees the prescriptions one gets from colleagues, it is clear that the cost structure as regards pharmaceutical products is such that people can no longer afford them. I have patients coming to me with shopping bags full of pills. They have shopped around for a cure from three, four, five or six different doctors and they come to me with a shopping bag full of different pills. Quite often when one analyses these pills one finds that the one patient is taking the same pills three times a day from three prescriptions. The patient has three bottles of medicine from three different doctors and he is taking that same pill three times a day. First of all, I do not think that that is acceptable and something must be done about it. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that the total target area for the pharmaceutical companies in South Africa does not warrant all the different pharmaceutical companies, both ethical and manufacturing, to supply the medical market in South Africa to such a degree that it creates unbelievable competition. Too many people are trying to take a bite out of a small cherry. I believe that the commission should look into this matter. There is no doubt that the cost of a pharmaceutical product and the abuse of its presentation to the medical market is becoming something which we in South Africa, especially because of escalating costs can no longer afford in the future. I therefore wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can make some statement about this. I say this in the knowledge that there is a commission sitting in order to deal with this problem. We have the Browne Commission that is dealing with this matter. The Browne Commission has four committees, one of which is dealing with pharmacists and pharmacological products. I asked the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion in this House when this commission was going to report. I understand the hon. the Minister’s problem because it is no use the hon. the Minister appointing a commission of inquiry on these matters while he is awaiting a report from a commission that has already been appointed.

I raise these problems because they are real. I raise these problems because at present everybody is talking about them, and for very good reason. We are paying too much for our pharmaceutical products in this country.

Tell us something about the clinics.

I think the hon. member for Roodeplaat has a terrific inferiority complex when he looks at me. I accept the fact that there is a good reason for it because he keeps on trying to talk to me about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the debate. If the hon. member does have this inferiority complex, I think he is absolutely correct and I shall encourage him in it. This is a problem which should be gone into. We on this side of the House support this good Bill. We shall support the hon. the Minister in any attempt he makes to reduce the cost and the presentation of these products to the public of South Africa. First of all, it is good medicine and secondly, it will reduce the cost of a commodity that is becoming almost unaffordable in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Park-town for supporting this Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. I should also like to associate myself with him by congratulating the hon. the Minister and the Director-General. The hon. member for Brits will convey a special word of thanks to the hon. the Minister. Nevertheless just a word of sincere congratulations.

With regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown concerning the possible investigation of irregularities which are supposed to have taken place, I believe that the hon. the Minister, who is pre-eminently a practical man, will find a practical solution to this problem we are faced with. I agree that this matter should probably be investigated.

This statutory amendment is a sign of the times, since provision is being made, inter alia, for the person who wishes to study in a particular direction in the field of pharmacy, with a view to practising. Furthermore, it will mean that such a person will be restricted so that he may only work in the sphere in which he is registered, as a specialist in that sphere. Modern technology which has, inter alia, had incredible results in medical research programmes, has contributed to the rapidity and momentum of the process of fragmentation of every possible subject or field of study one could possibly think of, to the extent that new areas of specialization are being entered at present, spheres which were completely unknown or which were unexplored a decade or two ago.

These newly discovered facets of a field of study are now becoming the sphere of activities of someone who wishes to research and study further. It goes without saying, then, that pharmacy, as part of the exciting field of research in medicine, is also experiencing this renewal. Admittedly, at the moment it is limited to only a few facets of specialist fields, but I nevertheless believe that the need for and possibility of specializing, will be extended to a much wider spectrum in future, in pharmacy as well. An hon. colleague of mine, who will speak at a later stage, will confine himself more specifically to the fields of study in which work has already been done in practice, so that it may establish itself as part of the general health service.

I wish to confine myself in particular to the idea of a partnership between the medical practitioner and the pharmacist or the specialist pharmacist, wherever appropriate. This is a partnership in the sense of co-operation in the health team. I believe that specialization by the pharmacist, with the very clear aim of improving the health service to mankind, will largely be failing in its purpose unless that specific discipline, as co-worker or partner, is incorporated in the machinery for the provision of health services in close co-operation with the medical practitioner. Co-operation between experts in their field could make an enormous contribution to greater effectiveness and success in practice in the interests of man.

The Pharmacy Board will obviously lay down clear guidelines and requirements which holders of degrees and diplomas of this nature will have to comply with in order to be registered. Of course, we are not speaking here of a horde of specialists who are now suddenly going to qualify and enter the practice. Probably their numbers will always be extremely limited. It is true that it is costly to be healed, as well as to remain healthy. The hon. member for Parktown also referred to this. The provision of health services, in which the prescribing of the appropriate medication necessarily plays a significant role, and also constitutes a very large component of the cost pattern, is becoming increasingly more expensive for many reasons. Therefore we must give constant attention to this. I therefore agree that we, too, hope that the commission which is at present investigating health matters will give its opinion in this regard.

If, then, it is so expensive to obtain medical advice and to be treated, it is probably not unreasonable if the patient insists on only the best treatment. In this short speech, I am concerned mainly with the correct use of the most effective medicine available after a correct diagnosis has been made as far as possible. If, then, we make this our aim, viz. that the patient must derive the best advantage from the proposed method of treatment, and at the same time we take into account the high cost of medicine, instruments, hospitalization, maintenance therapy and many other services to which reference has already been made, the question we must ask is how we can keep the cost as low as possible. It is here, inter alia, that the role of the specialist pharmacist is important, viz. in very close co-operation with a smaller or a larger group of medical practitioners, as a consultant, as a co-worker. It is very true that the cost of treatment is directly related to, inter alia, the length of such a process of treatment, as well as with the number of medicines prescribed. When it is a matter of the treatment of acute curable illnesses, the correct dosage and the administering of the most effective medicine available will probably contribute to the patient’s speedier recovery and the suspension of treatment. After all, the vast majority of these cases we observe daily will not need particularly specialized knowledge of a medicine, but from time to time the medical practitioner needs assistance. We must not think that the so-called acute curable or treatable illnesses cannot be accompanied by a high mortality rate. As the hon. member for Parktown pointed out, I am sure that every hon. member is aware of people who carry boxes of pills around with them. We have all been witness to this on numerous occasions. It is only when one investigates the problem that one realizes that incorrect medication may, in fact, be administered in some form or another. What is more important, however, is the fact that pills may be completely counter-indicated. It does not matter whose fault it is when patients have to or want to devour so many pills, and there are people who like to devour them. What I should like to say, is that the assistants of the specialist pharmacist could make a considerable contribution to working out a suitable treatment régime, particularly in problem cases. It goes without saying that the cost of that treatment would then decrease if fewer kinds of medicine could be prescribed over a short period. I wish to state clearly that I am not of the opinion that the medical practitioner issues prescriptions indiscriminately. On the contrary, it is due to the quality of diagnosis and treatment implemented by the avarage South African medical practitioner that we are able to boast of an exceptional health service in this country.

It is not always possible for the master of medicine to be master of his subject. The practitioner cannot always have all the knowledge, for example, in respect of the pharmaceutical characteristics of the many remedies on the medicine shelf. The promotion programmes and the presentation of products of pharmaceutical manufacturers is excellent, and the representatives are people who know their subject and the product that they promote, but the average of seven minutes afforded the representative to visit and inform the medical practitioner in his consulting rooms—this is estimated to be the average time spent on a visit to a doctor by a medical representative in the doctor’s consulting room—together with the concise instructions in pamphlet form which briefly indicate the composition, indications, contraindications and dosage, cannot always be sufficient to convey all the information about the medicine concerned. Therefore my plea is for co-operation between doctor and pharmacist. I believe that this would result in a mutual, extremely satisfactory service, since few indispositions which are diagnosed correctly and in time, will not react quickly to the correct medication.

When a success story is written about medicine or about the medical profession, in every book there will always be a chapter on team work. I see good subject matter for the writing of such a success story in the team effort between pharmacist and doctor.

With these few words I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, allow me the opportunity of adding my congratulations to those of the previous two hon. speakers to the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare on this first piece of legislation he is dealing with in that capacity. I hope that as far as this field is concerned, he will enjoy a pleasant time at the head of that department. I wish to assure him that the CP will always support him wholeheartedly as far as the health and welfare of the population is concerned and we shall never try to make party politics out of this.

Allow me the opportunity, too, of congratulating the new Director-General most sincerely and of wishing him everything of the very best in his task as head of that department.

In his very first sentence, the hon. the Minister made an extremely important statement when he said that the term “intern” would promote the professional image of that profession. I think that this is an extremely important statement in the sense that this Pharmacy Amendment Bill is once again highlighting the position which the pharmacy profession is taking at present in the front line of health care, and the direction in which this profession is moving. We cannot deny that there is, in fact, uncertainty in this profession concerning what its real position is at present and what its position in the front line of health is eventually going to be. That is why, to me, it is an important question whether the pharmacy profession is going to move in the direction of a mere technician who counts pills and pastes labels on bottles and does little dispensing himself, and someone with a general knowledge of the working of medicine and normal dosages and so on, who in addition trades in cosmetics and other products such as patent medicines, gifts, cameras and toys. If this is the case, the modern pharmacist is over-qualified and he does not need the intensive training he undergoes at present. Then he does not need all this knowledge of pharmacy. I think that this is a frustrating factor for many pharmacists today, since they ask themselves where the profession is going or what they should do in order to adapt to the changing circumstances of the modern medical team. For example, are they going to be allowed to move increasingly into the front line of the health team, and if so, to what extent? That is why the amendments to the Pharmacy Act, 1974, tend to open up a possibility that the well-trained pharmacist can play a more important role and can serve as a source of primary medical assistance, and in particular, can play a role in the preventive aspect of health care.

In clause 2 the limited registration of pharmacists by the board is brought into line with that of medical practitioners.

In clauses 4 and 5 the further registration of additional qualifications of pharmacists is provided for. I do not think, as the hon. member for Rustenburg does, that this is going to play a significant role in the practice of pharmacy. In my opinion, this would pertain more to lecturing staff or, for example, the control point of pharmacies at large hospitals. It is the standpoint of this side of the House that the necessary emphasis should be placed on preventive and decentralized community health services. In my opinion, a well-trained pharmacist may fulfil an important function if, for example, he is permitted to undertake certain sifting processes, without entering the field of the general practitioner. However, it is important—and this is our standpoint—that there should not be a complete socialization of these services, since no country can afford this in the long run. This has been proven over and over again in countries with a national health scheme. We must look after the interests of the private pharmacist, the private medical practitioner and every other medical discipline. They should not disappear, but should rather be valuable partners in the State’s overall health care set-up, since in the long run, a relatively small and dwindling number of tax-payers cannot possibly support the growing community demanding free medical services. For this reason there is the problem, on the one hand, of tremendous increases in the price of medicines and medical services. This is indeed true, but on the other hand, there is also the complaint of pharmacists that, because of its virtually free supply of medicine to an extremely large section of the population, particularly in our situation where we are dealing with a Frist and a Third World, and the acquisition of medicine on a tender basis, the State is the cause of the high cost of medicine distributed by the private sector. These people say that at present, 65% of the total volume of medicine is distributed by the State, whereas only 35% of the distribution of medicine is dealt with by the private sector. This means that those pharmaceutical companies which have to tender to the State, some times have to tender at a lower-than-cost price simply to obtain the tender, and then they have to balance the scale in the 35% sector. They then have to recoup this from the private sector. They say that this causes an unnecessary high price for medicine in the private sector in South Africa. These are all factors threatening the existence of the private pharmacist.

I should like to know what the view of the hon. the Minister is in this regard and, like the hon. member for Parktown, when we may expect the extremely important report of the Browne Committee, a report which ought to give us a guiding indication concerning this tremendous problem that is plaguing us in South Africa today. For the rest, the CP will wholeheartedly support all legislation which, like this Bill, has to do with the general health and welfare of the inhabitants of South Africa, and therefore we, too, support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasant to learn that although we can differ vehemently on political ideologies we all agree when it comes to KPP powers. I should like to associate myself with those who congratulated the hon. the Minister today on the introduction of his first health legislation this evening, as well as Dr. Retief, the new Director-General.

The object of this amending measure is to make provision for the registration of specialist pharmacists, a category which will be limited to persons who have undergone further training in a specific direction and who are working in a specific direction. The category of specialization and the qualifications required to be able to register for a specific category will be determined by the Minister in accordance with the recommendations of the Pharmacy Board. The amendment is necessary to make provision in advanced fields of pharmacy and expertise, such as work with radio-active medicines and substances and the controlling of complex medicinal preparations in clinics. The amendment also makes provision for a change in the designation of “trainee pharmacist” as well as for the internship of pharmacy students and the proof of internship prior to the registration of a pharmacist. The legislation creates the impression that it will bring about more favourable conditions for pharmacists and the pharmaceutical industry in the Republic. Provisions which inter alia give rise to the designation “pharmacist intern” being substituted for “trainee pharmacist”, that in future it will be possible for the internship of pharmacists to be done in training centres and that provision be made for the registration of additional qualifications and specialities, will definitely help to give pharmacists a more dignified and more constructive share in the activities of the health team. The traditional skills of pharmacists in the preparation of medicines, ointments, pills, tablets, etc. is in most cases only of historical interest today. Pharmacists in private practice and in hospitals today are dispensing ready-packed medicines and are far more likely to be playing the role of salesman, pill sorter and decipherer of indecipherable handwritings than performing their professional services. Many people think of the pharmacist as a supplier of suntan oil, beach balls and detergents. This was also mentioned by the hon. member for Pietersburg. The aura of secrecy surrounding the pharmacist and the way in which he was able to prepare his medicine from the Latin prescription is gone, and with it the respect which this induced among the public for the pharmacist. Perhaps the way I have depicted this is a little exaggerated, but it is true that changing circumstances have deprived the pharmacist of a great deal if his professional work. In this legislation I see a possibility of restoring the pharmacist to his proper position and of giving him his rightful place in the health team.

It is significant that the change I have been talking about caused an increase in the variety of medicines on the market which are growing in number. At present there are over 12 000 types of medicines on the market. If it is taken into account that no medicine, however simple it may be, is not without its dangers and that the State and the provincial administrations are already purchasing approximately 62% of the medicines manufactured in the Republic and are distributing these through the agency of approximately 500 hospital dispensaries—that means that 10% of all registered pharmacists in the country are distributing to the public approximately 60% of all medicine in the country—we understand what a great and responsible task the hospital pharmacist, the so-called clinical pharmacist is performing in South Africa today.

Medicines have different values for different consumers. Some people use them exclusively to cure their physical ailments. Others use it out of habit, while they are being abused to an ever increasing extent by certain sector of society. One can understand that an important future role of the pharmacist, and particularly the clinical or rather the hospital pharmacist at this juncture in which we find ourselves is therefore clearly depicted. In the first place he must use his academic knowledge and his practical background to act as instructor in the correct use of medicines and the dangers of the abuse of medicines. The health of the public is closely dependent on other factors in and around the home, and on these the clinical pharmacist can provide information. Here one has in mind bad living habits, and so on.

In the out-patient departments of hospitals large numbers of patients are seen by medical practitioners. In most cases the medical practitioner’s time is limited to an examination, a diagnosis and the writing out of a prescription. It seldom happens that a medical practitioner has the time to discuss the various medicines which he may prescribe with his patients. I want to agree with the hon. member for Rustenburg when he says that a medical practitioner today does not have the time to know all the characteristics of the various medicines on the market today so well that he is able to inform each patient about the medicines or the after-effects which the medicines may have. As a result of his training as a specialist in the field of medicine the pharmacist has a thorough knowledge of dosages and so on, and also of the interaction in the use of medicines and ought to have a personal responsibility towards the patient as regards the safety and the quality of the medicines used by the patient. The same applies to the efficacy of the medicines which he makes available.

This implies that all medicines purchased by hospitals should at all times comply with the requirements that have been laid down. This entails that medicines should not only be tested in the medical warehouses, but should also be tested during the ordinary shelf life of the various medicines in the various hospitals. At present this is not being done in most hospitals, and this could be a specialized service of future pharmacists.

The Pharmacy Act, 1974 (Act 35 of 1974) provides in section 29(2)(d) that the furnishing of advice to any person with regard to any medicine supplied to him is the task of the pharmacist. Consequently we see a completely different approach to the services of the clinical pharmacist, one of specialization which will lead to the pharmacist playing an important role in the curing of ailments in South Africa.

One foresees that the hospital pharmacist, or even better, all qualified pharmacists in South Africa, will upon receipt of a prescription, pay a visit to the patient and will through his visit establish whether the patient is perhaps not allergic to certain medical substances which are being prescribed for him; that similar medicines are not already in his possession, as the hon. member for Parktown said; that no incorrect interaction will occur between the prescribed medicines; and that the quantity of prescribed medicine is within the policy of the hospital. One can continue in this vein.

If we read what prof. P. H. Joubert said in a paper “The Remedial Role of the Pharmacist”, we note that he stated inter alia—

He went further—

perhaps receiving the wrong medication. He goes further—

One also learns here the idea of a pharmacist who in a completely different role, after the medical practitioner has issued the prescription, is helping the patient to use that medicine in a way that will have the best effect on his health. Medical practitioners confirm that they do not have the time and frequently do not have the knowledge to be able to do this. Prof. Joubert went on to say—–

Then he refers, inter alia, to a change in the law, with which we are dealing this evening, and also to financial implications.

The question occurs to me whether, apart from the legislation we are now changing, the circumstances, the pattern in which we have developed, is suitable to accommodate the expectations we hold of the pharmacist.

There are a few things which worry me. If the pharmacist is not able to make up the prescription and give it to the patient—I am not referring to clinical pharmacists now, but to private pharmacists—if he does not have that right, he cannot convey the necessary guidance to patients. I can state that in the rural areas it frequently happens that medical practitioners prescribe their own medecines. I have no objection to that. The medical practitioner is trained to diagnose and to prescribe the medicine. I have no objection to that. However, that gives rise to a monopoly if medical practitioners—five or six doctors—work together in a partnership, or even in a company, and prescribe medicines themselves. This is detrimental, not only to the pharmacist, but also to the newly specialized service which is expected of the pharmacist. The question arises whether this aspect should not also be looked into by the Browne Committee, whether an inquiry should not be made into the extent to which this practice, which has become traditional in South Africa, is affecting the cost of medicines and the proper use of medicines.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I congratulate the hon. the Minister on his new portfolio. I have noticed that he has a keen sense of humour and this I think is a tremendous asset. Because of this I look forward to doing battle with him from time to time. I should also like to say that we on this side of the House feel very kindly disposed towards him because this is the first Bill that he is handling in his new portfolio. For that reason we shall be supporting the Bill.

I should also like to congratulate the new Director-General on his appointment. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting him, but I shall do so in due course. I look forward to continued efficiency from his department.

I believe that the pharmacists themselves have no objection to this Bill. However, if I may, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a little more clarity on the specialities that are involved and how he sees it going from there. The reason why I ask that is because I believe that the pharmacist plays an important role in our community and I do not believe that he is getting the recognition that he should. For that reason I ask the hon. the Minister to clarify the position and I also ask him whether or not he visualizes the pharmacists taking a more active role in primary health care. I ask that because I believe that there is and there must be a recognized position for the pharmacists in primary health care.

We shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members sincerely for their support. Before I proceed with the debate, you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, not only to welcome the new Director-General, since he is sitting in the officials’ bench for the first time this evening, but also to express a word of cordial thanks to the former Director-General, whom we lost during the recess when he was called to higher service. Dr. De Beer left his mark on the health administration of South Africa, and it is no more than fit and proper that we in this House convey our sincere gratitude and appreciation to him for the services he rendered. It is my privilege to say this to him tonight. I am convinced that he will continue, on the Commission for Administration of which he is now a member, to look back with special affection at the Department of Health and Welfare, and that he will continue to be of great value to South Africa.

As far as the present Director-General is concerned, no-one could accuse me of racism for having appointed a Malawian as Director-General. Malawi has two exceptional doctors. The one is Dr. Banda, and the other is Dr. Retief, who was also born in that part of the world. I want to welcome Dr. Retief very cordially. He has already rendered exceptional services to South Africa as the first dean of the medical faculty of the University of the Orange Free State, a post which he occupied with great success. After that he was the person who, as rector, built up Medunsa and made a great success of that university. Consequently we are extremely grateful to him, and it is a privilege to welcome him this evening as Director-General of Health and Welfare. Now that we have three Freestaters in charge of the Department of Health and Welfare as well as on the Commission for Administration, you, Mr. Speaker, who live so near to the Free State, will understand what benefits this will hold for you as well. [Interjections.]

Next I should like to convey a word of special thanks to hon. members who pledged their support for this Bill. They all said that this legislation was necessary. The hon. member for Parktown referred to the possibility of the creation of specialization, and also spoke about the enhanced professional status which was being created by the establishment of the office of pharmacist intern.

The hon. member for Rustenburg mentioned the actual and the necessary way in which pharmacists and medical practitioners ought to co-operate. From the hon. member from Pietersburg we heard his views on how the future of the medical profession and the pharmacists’ profession lay in co-operation. The hon. member for Swellendam elaborated on how a pharmacist could explain to patients how they should use their medicines. I am delighted at the little lesson which he read them. After all, it happens quite frequently that one walks into a pharmacy, hands one’s prescription over the counter to a young lady, who in turn hands it to someone behind the scenes, where the prescription is made up. After that the same young woman returns, bringing you the package and an account, whereupon you have to go to the cashier to pay for it. It seems to me this is frequently how it works. I do not want to comment on it, but this is what happens in practice.

This brings me to something which we should really have discussed under my vote. However, the hon. member for Parktown and other hon. members referred to it, and I will probably have to react to it. It concerns a polemic which has been conducted in the Press during the past few days on the high cost of medicines, on pharmacists on the one hand and medical practitioners on the other, and in addition, there were a number of references in the Sunday Express to medical practitioners who allegedly accepted gifts. I want to separate these two things.

What was published in the Sunday Express was in every respect an attempt to involve certain departmental medical practitioners in some kind of problem situation. I can state with the utmost certainty that no medical practitioner in the employ of the Department of Health and Welfare is involved in this matter. Mention was in fact made of professional medical practitioners. Subsequently, however, the Administrator of the Transvaal and the Administrator of Natal appointed a commission of inquiry. I have already heard from the Administrator of Natal that no irregularity was found in Natal, and that departmental action would be taken against the officials concerned.

The name of the chairman of the Medical Research Council, Prof. Brink, was also mentioned. I think I should mention that I regard this matter in a very, very serious fight. Dr. Brink submitted to me proof of the consent of the University Council as well as the Rector of the University of Stellenbosch for all the work he did. Consequently, to hurl accusations of that nature throughout the length and breadth of the country, accusations against honourable people, is something which horrifies me. That is all I wish to say about this matter.

In the second place, a polemic was set in motion from another quarter. Mr. Speaker, you must please allow me to reply to it, since the hon. member for Parktown put qestions to me in this regard. It is concerned with the cost of medicines, with medical practitioners and with pharmacists. The Minister of Health and Welfare has no control—I repeat, “no control”—over the price of medicines. This is a matter for which another Ministry is responsible. The trading in medicines by pharmacists and other bodies—what I mean now is the actual trading, accompanied by exorbitant profits—is not a matter for the Department of Health and Welfare. Control over the practice of medical practitioners, as well as control over the practice of pharmacists or chemists, lies with the Department of Health, as far as legislation is concerned, but for each of those groups an autonomous board has been constituted, each with its own code of ethics and regulations and each exercising its own control.

The Medical Council has control over medical practioners. The regulations of the Medical Council prevent a medical practitioner from trading in medicines. The Medical Council prohibits this, but the Medical Council does not have inspectors or police who can go and investigate this kind of case. How does the Medical Council function? The people who have complaints about that kind of thing should submit their complaints and the Medical Council will investigate them. My appeal this evening is therefore: If any person has any such complaint, and they are substantive complaints, submit them so that the Medical Council can investigate them. The people who know about these practices owe it to the public to do so but not only to the public—they also owe it to the honest doctors who do not do this kind of thing. The best way to protect their reputation is to identify those people who are practising in a way which is no credit to the medical profession. Consequently my appeal to those people is to come forward with the facts, and stop gossiping. [Interjections.]

What does Snyman say?

I am not going to comment on pharmicists this evening. I do not think they are acting in an unethical way. I find it strange, though, that they are coming to see me tomorrow morning, while I had to read the newspapers of the last few days to discover why they were coming to see me. I hope they have something more to say to me, something which I am not yet aware of by this time.

I now want to come to what my medical colleague—not my political colleague—the hon. member for Pietersburg, had to say about pharmacists. In the main I want to agree with him. I think most of my colleagues agree with him. Personally, I think the crux of the matter is the training of pharmacists. I want to state candidly that I think they are receiving excellent training, truly excellent scientific training, but after they have been trained, they are being used in a way which we cannot afford in South Africa. We cannot train our pharmacists, a highly scientific person, for five years simply so that they can count pills. We cannot afford to do that. It seems to me as if the pharmacists vocation of dispensing has changed in recent years owing to the way in which medicines are being manufactured and presented in ready-made doses. It seems to me that it could even be necessary to effect a technical adjustment in the practice of pharmaceutical training so that these highly scientific people can be utilized in the primary health system of South Africa. This is my personal view and it is not an unusual one. I have already said this to the Medical Council, as well as the Pharmacy Board. I expressed the hope that those two statutory bodies will appoint a joint commission of inquiry to try to seek a way out of this impasse. I am not concerned about the impasse, but I am concerned about the waste of highly scientific manpower. I am basically interpreting this matter as the hon. member for Pietersburg and other hon. members did. This seems to me the way in which the problems should be ironed out.

With the old cry of doctors who may not dispense we shall not get anywhere. A medical practitioner has been properly trained to provide his patients with certain medicines, but he is not entitled to trade in such medicines. I do not accept, as recent reports implied, that there are thousands of doctors who are trading on a large scale. One finds black sheep in any profession. Consequently I wish to appeal to this profession and say that when people are of the opinion that irregularities are occurring, they should come forward with the facts.

The hon. member for Parktown discussed the commission of inquiry. It is true that the Browne Committee which was appointed by my predecessor has not reported yet. A subcommittee of the Browne Committee was appointed to institute a specific investigation into the pharmaceutical profession. The Chairman of that committee informed me today that they might be able to report within two months. We hope to be able to have that report at our disposal when my Vote comes up for discussion. We can then take a good look at this matter. Hon. members will concede that I am correct when I say that since a report on this matter has to be submitted to me, it will serve no purpose now to appoint a further commission of inquiry in a similar matter. That may lead to duplication. I think that once we have received the report of the Browne Committee, and it contains outstanding features which we should know about, we shall quickly have them investigated. That is my standpoint on these matters. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity you have given me.

The hon. member for South Coast also asked what kind of specialized services would be registered. This is a matter which will change from time to time as the need for that emerges. I think the hon. member for Swellendam mentioned one possibility, namely the control over and handling of certain radioactive types of medicines. It may be necessary to do that. As development takes place, the Pharmacy Board may find the need to register certain specialists. What is being done in this Bill is simply to empower the board to be able to decide, when such a need arises, to create such a register of specialists.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill contains only three minor amendments to the Health Act, 1977. At the request of local authorities provision is made to empower the Minister to make regulations, at the request of a local authority, relating to the compulsory notification of births to such local authority, in order to enable the local authority to perform its statutory functions in regard to immunization against communicable diseases and to promote the health of children within its district.

The power of the Minister to make regulations relating to the control, restriction or prohibition of the catching or gathering for human consumption of certain products in the sea, is extended to include the seashore. This is necessary in order to safeguard consumers against polluted sea products gathered in or on the sea-shore, which are dangerous to health.

The definition of “local authority” for the purpose of the burial of deceased persons is also being amended in order to make provision for Black local authorities established under the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982. The area of jurisdiction of an Administration Board in this regard is also clearly defined to prevent any confusion that may arise.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as the hon. the Minister has said, has three clauses. The first relates to the registration of births, the second to regulations regarding edible products originating from polluted water and the third to the removal and burial of bodies.

I think this House should note the second clause with particular interest because this clause deals with the regulations relating to edible products originating from polluted water. It says in this clause “on account of pollution or the danger of pollution entails or may entail a danger to health”. This clause in other words relates to the prevention of disease. What is this aimed at? It is very obvious that this is preventive medicine to control a disease that is very much in the news today and a disease which, to judge by the figures we have, is rampant. There has been an epidemic of this disease and it is now virtually endemic in South Africa. I am referring here to cholera. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that clause 2 of the Bill relates to cholera among other things and I think that this would be an opportune moment to discuss the question of cholera and to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister in this regard. The hon. the Minister may say that it will be better to discuss this matter under his Vote but unfortunately we do not always have sufficient time under those circumstances to deal with matters that are very important.

When we look at the report of the hon. the Minister’s department for 1982 we find under the heading “Matters of prominence” on page 1 that the first one of these matters is cholera. I quite accept the fact that this matter has pride of place in this report in view of its importance. It is stated in this report that an estimated total of 60 000 persons were treated for cholera during the 1981-’82 epidemic. The report goes on to predict in the following paragraph—and this prediction has already come true—that a third outbreak of cholera will be experienced. The report states, inter alia—

The report then goes on to list the action that has been taken such as, inter alia—

The next course of action relates to clause 2 of the Bill before us—

I think it is tragic that we now have to talk in South Africa of cholera 1, cholera 2 and cholera 3. It would almost seem as though we are crowning a new king every year. As I have said, the department has forecast that we are going to experience cholera 3. In this regard I wish to quote again from a publication of the hon. the Minister’s department entitled Epidemiological Comments. This is the latest issue. This publication states, inter alia—

The report then goes on to list the possible reasons why this should be so. Therefore the department is not sure in relation to the 912 cases whether any information in this regard has been forthcoming from kwaZulu. The report continues—

By convention, Sir, the cholera epidemic starts on 7 August. Therefore, from 7 August up to January there were 5 040 cases with the position in kwaZulu unknown. The report states further—

The report goes on on page 15 to list the geographic areas in which the outbreaks of cholera have occurred. As we know, cholera 1 started in the Eastern Transvaal area with cholera 2 spreading to the kwaZulu area and the southern part of Natal while cholera 3 has now increased its infection of South Africa geographically so that we now read of outbreaks in the Eastern Province. The report states further—

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any evidence of cholera 3 in Lebowa this year. I ask this because in The Times of 28 January 1983 there is a headline which reads “Cholera explosion”, The report states—

According to the report no cases of cholera in Lebowa have been added to this number. This outbreak of cholera 3 is a very serious matter.

We, on this side of the House, will of course support the Bill because the Bill is aimed at prevention. Our party has always supported the prevention of disease. We have always maintained that more money should be spent and more efforts should be made to prevent disease. Therefore, we will support the Bill.

I think, however, that our views may be left alone; let us rather read what the Medical Association of South Africa has to say in its newsletter dated January 1983. We in this party have been criticized a lot because of our blaming the Government that it has in the past not realized the problems which we experience with primary health care in South Africa, with the prevention of disease and with providing the basic health needs of the people of South Africa. The term “basic health needs” is easy to define. It means the provision of potable drinking water, housing, food, sanitation and waste removal. We have blamed the Government that it has not paid enough attention to these needs.

All this, however, is useless if there is not health education, and when it comes to health education, one can try to help people as much as one likes, but what is needed is basic education, a little basic education to make it possible. When I visited the Port Elizabeth area last year, I saw lots of posters in the hospital there. Some of them read: “Wash your hands before you eat.” First of all, however, one has to make sure that the person who sees such a poster can read and secondly that he has food to eat before he washes his hands, otherwise that poster is of no value; in fact, it is counterproductive. In the past we on this side of the House have spoken about it.

I should like to read what is written in the January 1983 newsletter of the South African Medical Association. I think it is very important, when we deal with the Bill, to realize with what we are dealing and to think about it. I think the hon. the Minister and other hon. members will agree that the Medical Association speaks with some authority and that we should listen to what it has to say—

This is how they continue—

I think we can go with that to the hon. the Minister, his department and all other authorities—

I would suggest that we make the Health Vote the Vote of Prevention in this year. The newsletter continues—

That is the voice of the Medical Association of South Africa. When the hon. the Minister brings a Bill to the House aimed at preventing epidemics and taking measures against preventable diseases, the PFP will always support him. Not only will we support him in the introduction of this Bill, but we will also support any increased spending on prevention for the benefit of the people of our country, because prevention is at present the paramount need.

Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege for me, too, to associate myself with my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House who addressed words of sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, as well as the new Director-General. I also wish to associate myself with the word of thanks addressed by the hon. the Minister to the former Director-General, Dr. Johan de Beer, who for many years rendered extremely valuable services in the overall health set-up in South Africa. Since he is now attached to the Commission for Administration, we know that he will play his part there as well, and we wish him everything of the best.

As far as the hon. the Minister himself is concerned, very fine things were said this evening on a professional level by our colleague from Parktown, our good colleague from Rustenburg, our colleague from Pietersburg and my good friend from South Coast. I am in complete agreement with them that it is an exceptional privilege to have a Minister of Health and Welfare who has not only been scientifically trained for the task entrusted to him, but who is also a person who has both feet planted firmly on the ground. What the hon. the Minister omitted to say in his speech was that both he and the Director-General were former Tukkies. I think that that gives them a very good foundation. The hon. the Minister was also chairman of the student council at the University of Pretoria. From an early age he played a leading role and displayed strong leadership qualities. To us who know him well, the memories of camp fires and conversations over a cup of coffee are perhaps among our most pleasant memories. We wish the hon. the Minister well, apart from the fact that we also convey our congratulations to him. It is a special privilege for me to tell the hon. the Minister, on behalf of all my colleagues in the health group on this side of the House, that we shall support him as well as we are able in the exceptional position he occupies.

The same applies to the new Director-General of Health and Welfare. I, too, just wish to underline everything that was said about him. We have very great expectations of him as well. He is a person with scientific training and, particularly in the times in which we are living, which are going to make tremendously high demands on the Department of Health and Welfare and the services which the department renders, we also need a man like him, who is filled with enthusiasm and zeal. We wish to convey our best wishes to him as well.

As far as the Bill is concerned, I agree with what the hon. the Minister had to say. Actually, it contains only three short clauses. The first clause deals in a nutshell with the notification of births at the request of local authorities. This is concerned solely with notification and has nothing whatsoever to do with the registration of births with the Department of Internal Affairs. The exclusive object is to be able to promote health services within the specific area of the local authorities for the sake of those children. I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that clause 2 is an extremely important clause, a clause which is basically concerned with the consequences of polluted sources. Whether these are water sources, or river sources, or whether they are the oceans or the beaches along our coasts or whatever it may be, we are dealing here with something which ought to receive all our attention. Before I say something further about this clause, I just wish to say for the sake of the record that clause 3 deals with the handling of corpses, the interment or disinterment of such corpses within a specific area. It now provides that certain limitations may be imposed by the hon. the Minister, whether through the Administration Board or the municipality that controls this matter.

I think the root of the problem lies in clause 2. The hon. member referred here to the tremendous problems which the department had to cope with as a result of the outbreak of cholera a year or two ago. We were all upset and dismayed, and the Department of Health and Welfare quickly got down to dealing with the problem wherever the disease occurred. In the meanwhile a great deal has been done to inform the general public—and here I am referring in particular to the Black public—and to furnish them with guidance in regard to the prevention of this problem. This is all very well, but now the Department of Health and Welfare has a problem which it inherited and for which it was not responsible. I am very glad that the Cabinet decided that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries will take the lead this year in regard to the improvement of the environment. I think that an appropriate theme will still have to be chosen and that attention will have to be given to this matter this year on a very large scale. I think that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has the support of all hon. members of this House when we are concerned with steps for the improvement of our environment, not only the beautification of the environment so much as to counteract littering and that kind of thing. In the first place the question is who is mainly responsible for the pollution which led to the conditions in which this extremely serious disease develops. This matter has deteriorated to such an extent that we are now dealing here with a Bill in which the Minister of Health and Welfare is given the right to be able to issue regulations in regard to edible products originating from polluted water. There is a long list of items which might be polluted and items which should or should not be controlled. The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare is responsible for dealing with diseases as a result of situations for which, as I said a moment ago, he is not responsible but with which he is very well acquainted because he was until recently Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries and therefore knows about the serious problems, particularly in the densely populated industrial areas, in regard to pollution of water streams and water sources.

I want to go further than speaking only, under clause 2, about beaches, streams, plants, animals or whatever it may be. I also want to add that this pollution can also, to state it idiomatically, be spread from polluted sources to agricultural areas where crops which are not fit for human consumption are then grown. It is my firm conviction—and in this respect the Department of Health and Welfare, as well as the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has the support of this side of the House—that legislation in regard to the control of the dumping of unwelcome substances…

Like the Progs. [Interjections.]

… and other items which are responsible for pollution, ought to be tightened up. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if I could only have co-operation in eliminating the hon. member for Bezuidenhout from this debate, things would already be a lot better. In any event, he knows absolutely nothing about the issues involved here tonight. That is why he keeps on chipping in. What is more, he is quite hoarse, he sounds quite worn-out. [Interjections.]

Finally, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we are delighted at his having brought this Bill to this House. It contains good arrangements for the future in regard to local authorities, the prevention of source pollution, the regulation of funerals, etc. However, I wish to address a very serious request to the effect that serious attention should be given to the causes of pollution and to the causes of the symptoms which this department has to deal with. In future this will become even more essential.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear from the hon. member for Brits that the Government is going to devote special attention to environmental affairs in the coming year. I believe that this will play a very decisive contributory part, particularly in the matter which will be dealt with in terms of clause 2 of the Bill.

I want to begin, however, by referring to clause 1, a clause which has been very cursorily dealt with in the debate so far. Clause 1 deals in particular with the compulsory control of local authorities over child care, which of course also includes control over the immunization of children. I think it is very important that every local authority should know what children have been born in its area of jurisdiction. After all, this forms part of proper preventative services. The truth of the matter is that there are many diseases which can be prevented. I be live that in recent years the emphasis in health care has shifted from medical treatment to a preventive service. One thinks here in particular of the immunization against various diseases. One also thinks of the field of genetics, a still largely unexplored area of medicine in South Africa, although better attention is now being assured for the acquisition of knowledge pertaining to the prevention of certain genetic diseases.

One also thinks of course of problems such as obesity. Looking around this House, I see quite a number of hon. members who, if they had received treatment at an early stage from a children’s clinic, would perhaps have presented a completely different appearance today. [Interjections.] Clause 2 deals with the extension of the regulations dealing with edible products originating from polluted water, and, for example in the case of cholera, also with regulations relating to edible products originating from the sea.

The hon. member for Parktown levelled a measure of criticism at the Department of Health and Welfare here. However, I believe that unfortunately, due to a large extent to ever-deteriorating socio-economic circumstances, in particular in our neighbouring States to the north and north-east of us, where hygienic conditions have also gradually deteriorated, and added to that the fact that since a year or two ago an unprecedented drought has been prevailing, we were dealing with an almost endemic situation of cholera in South Africa, a situation which flared up again occasionally and sometimes even assumed epidemic proportions. We on this side of the House have great appreciation—and here I differ a little, as far as emphasis is concerned, from the hon. member for Parktown—for the task which the Department of Health is performing, particularly in connection with the provision of clean drinking water. This is an enormous task. One only realizes this if one considers where these services are being rendered and what the existing infrastructures in those areas are. This is and remains the most important factor in preventing this disease, cholera, while an early diagnosis and early treatment is able to keep the mortality rate very low. If we study the data, we find that the mortality rate in the case of cholera can be as high as 50%. If we then consider the figures which the hon. the Minister made available, figures for the period February last year to the end of January this year, and we see that there were only 69 deaths out of a total of 5 909 cases reported, we must admit that this speaks volumes for the huge task which the Department of Health has successfully performed and the effective treatment which has been applied.

Not for the 69 who died.

That is why we are greatly in favour of the measure, which is aimed at promoting the control of this disease. We also realize that the Department of Health, in view of the drought conditions which continue to prevail and the ever-deteriorating conditions in our neighbouring States, has an enormous task to fulfil in the years to come.

Clause 3 makes provision for the further extension of the statutory obligations of local authorities in connection with the burial expenses of indigent persons. This is also being extended to local Black authorities.

We on this side of the House gladly support these statutory amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this evening we have a very interesting piece of legislation before this House. If one examines clauses 1, 2 and 3, one realizes that what they really amount to is that one’s life is controlled by laws and regulations from the cradle to the grave. I say this because clause 1 deals with the notification of births, clause 2 with dangers encountered during one’s lifetime and clause 3 deals with the interment of bodies after death. [Interjections.] I really think we can make things a little easier for our people. [Interjections.] Section 33 in chapter V of Act 63 of 1977 makes provision for the fact that the hon. the Minister may make regulations relating to medical conditions which are notifiable by medical practitioners or other categories of persons to the local authorities concerned. In clause 1 provision is now being made for the making regulations by the hon. the Minister in cases in regard to which the local authority applies for the notification of births within the jurisdiction of such a local authority.

I should like to support the legislation, but I have a friendly request, which is that the hon. the Minister should be sparing with the making of regulations when he does perhaps receive requests from local authorities. My reason for this—and the hon. member for Brits made this very clear—that what is involved here is not the registration, but simply the notification of births. In this respect one should also look at the births, marriages and deaths Act. That Act provides that a registrar or assistant registrar, may be appointed to perform this task. Many years ago, every province in the country accepted the responsibility for the registration of births, marriages and deaths within their respective areas. Only in 1923 was a Uniform Act placed on the Statute Book to ensure that registrations of births, marriages and deaths were done in a uniform way. When we look at the repeal of the original Act and the substitution for it of Act No. 81 of 1963, we see that we were once again returning to the old ways, and this creates a problem for me. I am in favour of our having uniform legislation throughout the country. I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to be very sparing in the making of these regulations for the simple reason that confusion is going to arise among the various groups as far as the notification and actual registration of births is concerned. After all, I do think that when sufficient communication exist between the local authority and the registrar or assistant registrar appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs to perform this task, there is no reason to proceed to a step which will also give local authorities the right to be notified of births.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the matter is very clear. The present Act created problems and the minor amendment which is being affected will eliminate any doubt which may exist.

Clause 3 deals with the burial of remains and with responsibility in this connection. The administration of Black affairs was vested in the White local authorities for many years. What the establishment of Administration Boards and Community Councils and the Act which was piloted through Parliament last year led to was that we are now going to have Black local authorities as well. The legislation is simply being expanded now to ensure that everybody concerned accepts the responsibility for the costs in respect of the burial of unclaimed bodies, and will also accept the liability in cases where people are unable to pay the costs in connection with a burial.

When one considers the tremendous costs involved here, I am still of the opinion that the hon. the Minister and the department concerned should examine possible ways of disposing of the remains. The legislation makes provision for burial or cremation. For the sake of interest I want to give this House an indication of the extent of this problem. I addressed enquiries to the 14 Administration Boards in the Country. I am going to single out only three board areas. As far as the West Rand Administration Board is concerned, the costs for the year 1980-’81 amounted to R26 466 and those for 1981-’82 R37 210. In the case of the Port Natal Administration Board the costs in 1980-’81 were R4 778 and in 1981-’82 R27 581. I want to content myself with mentioning one last example, the Drakensberg Administration Board. The costs rose from R13 634 in 1980-’81 to R23 416 in 1981-’82. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that section 6 of the Anatomy Act, Act 20 of 1959, also makes provision for bodies to be sent to schools of anatomy. I made enquiries from one university and it seems that inefficient use is being made of those bodies. In the Act the necessary provision is made for a body which is unclaimed to be referred to a school of anatomy for demonstration, scientific and educational purposes.

I should like to make the friendly request to the hon. the Minister to see to it that this matter is gone into, to ensure that attempts are made, on the part of the Department of Health as well, to effect cost-savings for the authorities concerned, that have to bear the financial burden. I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I understood the hon. member for Witbank to call this the “hatch and despatch” Bill. Am I correct? I also took note that he spent an awful lot of time on clause 3, which represents the “despatch” side of it. Having been in the business, it is little wonder that it is very hard for him to lose touch with it. [Interjections.] I believe—I do not know whether it is true or not—that he has a nickname in Witbank, namely “Rigor Mortis”. He might be able to confirm it.

The NRP will be supporting this Bill. Clause 1 will certainly assist those local authorities who take their health programmes seriously to be in a far better position to ensure total health care for everybody. However, I am a little bit worried and I should like to have confirmation about something. While the position will now be that a local authority will ask for such privilege, could this not be the thin end of the wedge if it is seen that it does work out and it then be made compulsory for local authorities to register births? I just want to ask this question first of all.

I think this is an opportune time to have a look at the question of the registration of births. I should like the hon. the Minister to give consideration to something I am going to say here. I think that, especially among the Black population, the required registration of births does not in fact take place. When one looks at the practicalities of it, it is obvious to see why this is so. When a Black mother goes to hospital she usually goes in at the last minute, is there for the shortest possible time and is then discharged. She is not interested in going to a magistrate’s office or a Black registration office to register that birth, and one cannot blame her. What in fact is actually happening is that there is a very small percentage of Black births being registered. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not give consideration to having a look at the possibility of the registration of birth taking place at the institution where a child is born. I think this will greatly facilitate the position of the mother having to register the birth. Why I raise this is that whereas the official Black population of Natal is 4,5 million, I think that most people will agree that the actual population figures is nearer 5,6 million. I think this can be confirmed by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. I believe this is something which needs looking at and possibly the hon. the Minister would like to comment on it when he replies to this debate.

I think Natal has been longing for the type of control envisaged in clause 2. One only has to look at the beaches south of Durban to see the pollution that takes place there and one only has to hear what the Medical Officer of Health in Durban has had to say about Brighton Beach this morning. This is absolutely essential and I think the Government is to be commended on taking this step. It is definitely going to stop the pollution and the sale of infected crustaceans. This is a very important point. The hon. member for Parktown has elaborated on this and so it is not necessary for me to go into this.

As I see it clause 3 is merely consequential, because what is happening is that the Black local authorities are getting the same powers as the White local authorities, and having been given the same powers I believe they should have the same responsibility as the White local authorities. They should also have to bear the responsibilities of burying the dead in their areas. We shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members very much indeed for supporting this Bill. The hon. member for Parktown referred to the fact that clause 2 deals to a greater or lesser extent with the prevention of cholera. Cholera is a very dangerous disease indeed. It is fairly new to South Africa. It is a disease that came to South Africa from across our borders when the necessary health control in some of our neighbouring States went to pieces. This is a demonstration of destabilization in relation to health matters in our neighbouring States which has not been caused by the South African Government but in this particular case by Frelimo.

May I ask a question? Mr. Speaker, if the cholera epidemic in this country was caused because of the breakdown of health services in neighbouring States, why has it been impossible for us to curb the spread of the disease in this country in that it has now spread from our borders down to the Eastern Cape?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very easy. In the first place, we have the case of infected persons crossing our borders at places where it is not possible to prevent them from doing so. It was therefore brought into South Africa by infected persons who had not previously been in South Africa. As a result of the circumstances and the nature of cholera one now finds that it is endemic in certain areas. The reason for one finding that it is endemic is— precisely as the hon. member for Parktown said—because it is a disease caused by pollution, and mostly the pollution of water. For that reason it is obvious that one of the ways in which this disease can be prevented is to educate the people. The hon. member mentioned this himself. It is an important point. The health education provided by the Department of Health and Welfare last year, was done so well that in spite of the terrible drought and water shortages we are experiencing throughout the country, all indications are that cholera 3 will not be as bad as cholera 2 was. All the indications are there.

I just want to know whether the buffalo are also involved. [Interjections.]

Yes, the Barnards also crossed the border. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown is absolutely correct when he said that it is a case of health education. He said: Wash your hands before you eat. Unfortunately, however, there are very few people who wash their hands before they start eating. The hon. member was quite correct. Those things are correct, but let us get down to the basics. I think you and I and the Medical Association have an exceptional task. We must know that the worst polluter in the whole world is man. The more people, therefore, the greater the pollution. Everyone just wants to know: Why is the Government not providing food; why is the Government not providing education? However, there is no one who asks: Is there no one who can help the Government; is the Government not able to help us so that there is no population explosion? That is after all the basic consideration and that is where we have to begin. If we are able to prevent it, we can get further. However, if we continue with matters as they are, there will be 168 million people in South Africa by the year 2050, and then it will make no difference which one of the parties is sitting here thinking it has a policy to implement.

There will not even be sufficient water for anyone.

Yes, there will not even be enough water to drink—what policy does one want to implement then?

Let us be practical, let us help one another because there is where our problem lies. Let us help one another, not for our own sakes, but for the sake of everyone in the country. If there are 30 million Zulus, it is not only I who am threatened; Buthelezi then has as much trouble as I have and perhaps more. Let us take one another by the hand, let us look one another in the eye and tell the people who the real polluters are—man. It is not only the White people; it is Black people and Brown people as well—everyone! We have a task in this country, and that is where, so it seems to me, we should seek a basis on which to begin. Now I wish to tell the hon. member again that we need, as he expressed it, to “educate”. I say that is the real answer and that is where we must help one another.

I want to thank hon. members very much indeed for their help. The hon. member for South Coast rises to his feet and fires a few questions and then wants me to reply to them. His question was concerned with registration. He put forward suggestions in connection with the registration of a baby at birth and more specifically by the institution where the baby was born. How frequently are babies in Natal born in institutions?

Most babies there are born in institutions. [Interjections.]

I doubt that. In any case, I have learnt by now not to believe everything Natalians say, but I shall leave the matter at that now.

In any event, what the hon. member was advocating was the arrangement in terms of the old health legislation of 1919, but it did not work. As far as the registration of babies born in institutions is concerned, I must point out that this is the task of the Department of Internal Affairs.

The hon. member for Witbank made representations and asked us not to apply the regulations very widely. Look, this is merely supplementary. After an investigation it appeared unfeasible to consult local authority as well as the Department of Internal Affairs in this situation. We think it is necessary for local authorities to receive supplementary information. As regards his additional representations in regard to deaths and burials, I shall look into them, but I must tell him at this stage: “I bow to your superior knowledge.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House rose on 8 February, I had just voiced my concern about the Coloured community at Stockenström which finds itself embroiled in the consolidation proposals which we are now considering. Since that time there has been no real clarification coming from Government circles of what is to happen to these people. I made the appeal that those concerned with farmland should be allowed to buy farmland at no prejudice to themselves and without discrimination.

There have been certain suggestions made—I do not think they came from the hon. the Deputy Minister—about where to put the Coloured community. One suggestion is that they be put at Breidbach near King William’s Town. This suggestion has been received very negatively by the Stockenström community. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister could perhaps make a short statement about that particular proposal to clarify the situation further.

There is one other aspect about the proposals before us to which I should like to refer. The Government is committed to spending some millions of rand to buy out the property at Stockenström and in the Kidd’s Beach-Chalumna area. It is also committed to paying cash for these properties. I believe that the Government has a more important obligation with regard to this money. I refer to the unfortunate farmers who between 1975 and 1978 were paid out in Government stock. The history and the plight of this group of farmers has been raised in this House before by myself and by other hon. members and I certainly do not want to go into all that again. The hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware of the whole story concerning the Government stock and the farmers in possession of it. I know, too, that the hon. the Deputy Minister is sympathetic towards these farmers and the position in which they find themselves. He has, during this very session, made certain statements about these farmers. I quote from his Hansard of 11 February 1983 (col. 889)—

A little further on he said—

So the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of the plight of those farmers and is sympathetic towards them. He has said that he has gone to the Cabinet with the problems these farmers are experiencing. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister could tell us what kind of reception he has had from the Cabinet. [Interjections.] I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is smiling. It is a rather rueful smile. However, this is a serious matter and I know that he is probably still receiving requests every day from farmers who would like to see this matter cleared up. There is an amount of some R30 million involved. It is those farmers who co-operated with the Government during those years and who accepted that there was a problem who are now being made to suffer. My appeal is simply this: See these farmers right and cash their bonds as they have requested before going ahead with any further purchases. Considering the amount involved, I do not think that this is an unreasonable request. What I am saying is that we must not leave these farmers in the lurch. Many of them have retired from farming and are feeling the pinch of inflation. They would be able to make better investments than the one which they now have in Government Stock. They are definitely worse off now than before they were bought out under the consolidation scheme. I am sure that it was never the intention of the Government that the farmers should be worse off afterwards. So I am now making yet a further appeal to the Government. Before they go ahead with any further plans they must see to the problems that have been created in the past under a system that is now outmoded. That is where I believe the priority lies at this moment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany, who has just resumed his seat, intimated in exactly the same way as the hon. member for Berea did in his speech the week before last, that the official Opposition is totally opposed to this legislation. Not only are they opposed to the legislation, but also to everything which Government policy entails in this connection. It is my honest opinion that before one can make a meaningful evaluation of this important amending Bill, one ought to take cognizance of a few very important basic facts, which have already been referred to by a few speakers. For the sake of this discussion and for the sake of convenience I want to summarize these facts by saying that we are in fact dealing here with the retention of the objectives and main principles of the principal Act, but by means of this amending Bill we are attempting to include new land, and other land as well, in the schedule. The basic fact in this connection is that land which has been set aside, land which was set aside by the then Bantu Affairs Commission in the years between 1972 and 1975, is now to be included in the schedule. Consequently this is land which has already been set aside for the purposes of this legislation.

The second important aspect which we must remember, is that this legislation deals with the creation of an easier and better procedure so as to enable the State President, by way of proclamation, to transfer land from the jurisdiction of the Republic of South Africa to the jurisdiction of the independent States. A third matter that we must remember, is that before this legislation came into operation—I am referring now to the principal Act—a special law had to be made by this Parliament in any case so as to allow this legal action to take place. An example of this was the Bophuthatswana Border Extension Act of 1978.

A last important fact which we must take into consideration in the evaluation of this amending Bill, is that when the principal Act was before this House in 1980 all the parties were unanimous in regard to the objectives of the legislation. Having said that, any reasonable person will be able to conclude that this legislation is merely a piece of technical legislation, that it ought to be readily accepted by this House and that the official Opposition will not oppose it. But what do we find, inter alia, from the hon. member for Albany, a person who is also from the Eastern Cape, a person of great ability and a young politician who can make a very important contribution in this House?