Mr. Speaker, I wish to move—

We have now reached the stage where the principle of this Bill has been accepted. This means that those persons who are at present practising as chiropractors may continue to practise while those who are at the present moment being trained as chiropractors may also practise. However, beyond that no person may practise chiropractic. The anomaly here is that those who are practising chiropractic now and those who are still being trained for it, will be practising chiropractic for a long time. May I at this point briefly deal with the history of what has happened and with the reasons why I think this motion of mine ought to be accepted by the House. The first Bill that was introduced by the hon. the Minister in which chiropractors were dealt with …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion. He must not go too far into the history.

It is my intention, Sir, only to give the history in so far as it is relevant to the decision of this House on whether or not to accept this motion. I shall be very brief, Sir. As I was saying, the first Bill merely prohibited persons from being registered and from practising chiropractic after a certain date. However, after considerable public pressure and after negotiations with chiropractors themselves, the hon. the Minister withdrew that Bill and introduced the one we are discussing now. In this Bill there are two significant changes. It provides for the control of those who may practise. In fact, this Bill provides that only those who go on to the list may practise whereas before it was provided that those who were practising could practise. That is the first significant change.

Order! The hon. member is now surveying a discussion that has taken place in this House. He must deal with his motion, and his motion only.

Sir, the second aspect of this Bill which is relevant to this motion is that the hon. the Minister recognizes in this Bill an association of chiropractors. In fact, it is mentioned in the text of the Bill.

Order! The hon. member must come back to his motion.

Once we have an association of chiropractors, once we recognize that there is a chiropractors’ profession entitled in law to practise—and this Bill gives them that statutory recognition— then it is imperative, as we understand the position, that there should be a code of ethics. You see, Sir, any professional association needs a code of ethics. That this association is a proper association has been acknowledged by the hon. the Minister himself because he has provided that in making up a list as to who may practise as a chiropractor, this association must be consulted. During the debate on the Second Reading—and I do not propose to canvass the merits at all—one of the things that stood out was the point made by all hon. members who spoke on this side and by a number of hon. gentlemen who spoke on that side that the chiropractors must put their house in order, and having a code of ethics is part of putting one’s house in order. Sir, I would like to sum up that feeling by quoting the remark of the hon. the Minister when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was speaking. The hon. member said—-

The hon. the Minister of Health then interjected—

I said so in my broadcast on the 24th February.

What he then said was that if they would put their house in order he would reconsider this legislation. Sir, my point is this: The Association itself has asked for a code of ethics and, as I have indicated, it must have it in the interests of the Association and of the chiropractors and for the protection of the public. You cannot have a code of ethics which has any meaning at all unless you have the power to take disciplinary action to enforce that code of ethics, and you cannot take disciplinary action against anyone unless you have statutory authority for it. The Committee of the whole House when it considers this Bill will not, we are advised and believe, have the power to make an amendment of this sort or even to consider an amendment of this sort without having the permission of this House. That is the object of this motion. The sort of amendment which we have in mind is one similar to and in substance the same as that proposed by the Chiropractors’ Association …

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

… to make provision for a code of ethics in consultation with the Minister, which will be published in the Gazette and which will be enforceable through the authority which they will get. Sir, the motion gives the Committee of the whole House the opportunity at least of discussing the matter and deciding whether it would like an amendment and the nature of the amendment. Sir, having regard to what has been said and having regard to the anomalous position that we have here that the chiropractors by law are to stay, that their house must be put in order, that they want to put it in order and that they need a code of ethics, I cannot see that there can be any objection to the motion. I move this motion with confidence having regard to what the hon. the Minister has said before.

In support of the hon. member for Durban North I would like merely to say this to the hon. the Minister. His case, to a large extent, for not recognizing chiropractors …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

Mr. Speaker …

No, the hon. member must come back to the motion; he has the motion in front of him.

With respect, Sir, I am dealing with the motion. I assure you that I intend to be very brief and to confine myself merely to the motion. But with respect. Sir, in order to justify the motion, I must refer briefly to the case which the hon. the Minister made and I intend to do so quite shortly. The hon. the Minister stated that he could not grant permanent recognition to chiropractors, and one of the main reasons which he gave to justify this was that there was no form of control over the practice of chiropractic.

I never said so; I said there was no form of control whatever over their training schools and the curriculum.

Sir, that is not entirely correct, because the hon. the Minister also referred to the fact that many of them are doing things which are not in the interests of the public and are going beyond the limits of their ability. Surely the one way of being able to prevent that sort of situation is to provide a code of ethics. It is futile to establish or to recognize a body such as the Chiropractic Association and not to give them any basis upon which they can control their members, in the same way as the Medical Council is able to control the recalcitrant members of the profession. I believe that it will be in the interests of the profession of chiropractic and in the interests of the public—and it is the interests of the public that the hon. the Minister stressed very considerably—if there is a code of ethics which will be binding upon those members who are to be permitted to continue in practice. I would point out to the House and to the hon. the Minister that because the Minister is recognizing present practitioners and those who are at present studying and is allowing those categories of persons to continue in practice as chiropractors, it means that we will have practising in South Africa chiropractors for a very long time to come before the last of them finally ceases to practise. It has been estimated that it could be as long as 50 years. Sir, it is surely in the interests of the public that those chiropractors who are to be permitted to continue in practice for this period which could be as long as 50 years should be subject to some form of control, to a code of ethics. This is why we believe that it is vital, if the hon. the Minister intends to recognize the present practitioners. as he is doing under this Bill in which he is giving them statutory recognition, that they should also be subject to a code of ethics. Frankly I cannot see how the hon. the Minister can recognize them on the one hand and allow them to practise for this period but at the same time not be prepared to provide a code of ethics for them. Sir, the other aspect of our request for an instruction is that if there is to be a code of ethics, then there must be penalties provided for failure to obey this code.

Who must enforce those penalties?

Sir, this is what we would like to talk about. If the instruction is accepted we could put suggestions to the hon. the Minister. If the Speaker would allow me to answer the question, I am quite prepared to make a suggestion because we have given thought to this aspect.

Say it quickly.

Order! The hon. member must not allow himself to be led astray by the hon. the Minister.

The Minister is placing us in an impossible position; if he is going to use as an argument against accepting this proposal that there is no body to enforce this, then surely he cannot do that, because I am not permitted by the rules of the House to discuss this. Sir, this is no problem. It is quite easy to suggest to the hon. the Minister who should enforce this. This is the least part of the problem. I think what the hon. the Minister must confine himself to is the principle, and he must tell us whether he is for or against this principle. If he is not going to accept it—and I must say that his reaction tends to suggest that he will not accept it—I hope he will motivate it because the whole case he has made seems to us to suggest the vital need in the interest of the public for a code of ethics, leaving aside the practitioners themselves who would like, to have control. Leaving that aside, in the interest of the public, on the case that the hon. the Minister made throughout the debate, I cannot see how he can suggest that there is no need for a code of ethics. If he is going to use the argument that it cannot be enforced in order to reject this motion, then I suggest that is no ground whatsoever. I think he must tell us whether he is for or against this principle, and if he is against it, why. If he is for it, then we can discuss it in the Committee Stage, and if he is not satisfied with the methods we will suggest to him for controlling it, he can vote against it. But this is no basis for rejecting the instruction and I would urge the hon. the Minister, if he has doubts about the enforceability, to accept the instruction and let us debate the aspect properly. If he is still dissatisfied with it at that stage he can vote against it. I do urge the Minister, finally, in the interest of the public and in the interest of this profession, which will be continuing possibly for as long as 50 years, to accept this instruction and to let the matter be properly debated in the Committee Stage.

I rise this morning as a layman once again to point out the attitude of the man in the street towards this whole question.

Order! We are not concerned about the man in the street. The hon. member must confine himself to the terms of the proposed instruction.

With respect, I am dealing with the instruction and with the attitude of the man in the street towards it.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

I rise on a point of order. Surely we are concerned with the protection of the man in the street?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the instruction. This House has rules and I am here to enforce the rules.

Sir, I have risen in terms of the rules of this House and I am addressing you on a point of order. If I am out of order, I will resume my seat. But I am addressing you on a point of order, Sir. We are concerned with the instruction and the hon. member, I submit, is trying to put the view of the ordinary man in the street and you have not heard his arguments yet. I submit that he is entitled to put his point of view so that this House can decide whether this instruction should be accepted by the House so that the House can discuss it further.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion. That is all we have before us.

I will do so, Sir. This instruction requests that the Committee should consider the introduction of provisions in this Bill to allow the Chiropractic Institute to introduce a code of ethics and also to provide for penalties for failure to obey the code. Now, from the point of view of the man in the street who has to deal with professional men in all spheres, like doctors, dentists, attorneys, engineers and architects, it is a comfort to him to know that the man he is dealing with is being controlled by such a code of ethics, which I submit exists in the case of every other profession. Now we are, for the first time, officially recognizing in this country by a statute the profession of chiropractic. Surely if we are recognizing that profession, and we are giving them an association to control their affairs, we cannot remove the teeth from that association. What force and effect will this association have? How will they be able, in the words of the hon. the Minister, to put their house in order if they are not going to be given the power in terms of the legislation? As the Minister has said, they are to become a statutory body by legislation. If they are not given the power to control their own people, how can they put their own house in order and how can they continue to retain the confidence of the public, of the man in the street? With these few words I urge the hon. the Minister, in the interests of South Africa and of the public, of the people whom he is endeavouring to protect, to accept this instruction and to allow the Committee at least to consider the amendment which we have prepared and the answers we have to the objections of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply very briefly and keep to the rules. I shall merely furnish my reasons in this regard. Let me say, in the first place, that a code of ethics is a very good thing; it is desirable and essential for any group of people practising any profession. I think that in the case of chiropractic a code of ethics is also an essential. In fact, it is very desirable for such a code to exist, and I want to express confidence that in the process of putting their house in order, the Chiropractic Association of South Africa will start first of all with a code for their people.

I want to say that they find themselves in a very favourable position, more favourable than that of any other association in South Africa, since there are few associations which, in the first place, have statutory recognition, and since there are few associations which have as members 113 out of the 118 persons practising that particular profession in the country. In fact, this is a much higher percentage of membership than is the case in the Medical Association or other associations. In other words, I say that they find themselves in a most favourable position, and for that reason I once again want to make the appeal to them which I made yesterday, i.e. to include in the process of putting their house in order a code of ethics as well.

May I put a question?

No, I shall reply to everything. But we now have here before the House a motion which goes much further. This motion requests that we prescribe in legislation that provision be made for a code of ethics as well as certain penalties for failure to obey such code. The moment one does that, one accepts the principle that a body or person should draw up that code of ethics, implement it, see to it that it is obeyed and impose penalties in the event of that code being contravened. In principle it is being accepted that it has to be a body. Now, who can it be? It can be either the Minister or the department; it can be the association or another body.

Therefore, my presumption in regard to the first amendment at the Second Reading was correct, namely that the whole premise of the Opposition is to establish a body or something, a second authority side by side with the Medical Council, to watch over health interests. I am not prepared to accept that principle after the 43 years of the Medical Council’s existence and to override that council. But, in the second place, if this were to be the association, we would be deviating from all the standpoints and principles adopted in this House over the years. Except in one or two cases, statutory recognition has never been granted to associations to be the authority; for if one grants statutory recognition, the implication is immediately that there must, in the first place, be compulsory membership. If there is compulsory membership, the association is raised to the level of a statutory board.

I am not prepared to concede that principle. If I did, we would be out of step with the whole practice in South Africa. The Medical Council is not an association; the Nursing Council is not an association; the Pharmacy Board is not an association. These associations exist side by side with them, for there is no compulsory membership. They also implement their own codes of ethics. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North—and I see that he has now seen that things are going wrong for him—that there is a strict code of ethics in his own profession. Does that code of ethics have the sanction of an Act of this Parliament? No.

It does.

The code of ethics of the Association of Advocates, or whatever they may call it, was not provided by this Parliament. Of course not.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? He wants the chiropractors to introduce a code of ethics. How are they going to be able to enforce that against their members if there is no statutory authority for them to do so?

Precisely as it is being done today by the Medical Association. The Medical Association is not …

It is. It is under a law that they are able to make these regulations.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

I do know. You are the one who does not know.

The hon. member is confusing the Medical Council with the Medical Association.

No.

These are two entirely different bodies. I am sorry I cannot reply to any other questions.

One cannot enforce penalties without statutory authority.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely making the simple point that we cannot throw overboard here the principle that associations are now being raised to the level of authoritative bodies which will have the authority of this Parliament to impose penalties, authority which will be embodied in an Act. This is something for the association which has now received statutory recognition. It finds itself in a most favourable position for drawing up that code for themselves. Now I want to go further. Apparently hon. members have overlooked this entirely. If the Chiropractic Association approaches me or the Government once it has put its house in order, we shall look into the matter again. Furthermore, if one of them should act in an extremely irresponsible manner, there is adequate statutory authority for taking action against him. Section 34 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act is still on the Statute Book.

You have been a Nationalist for too long, Carel, to respect the law.

Has the hon. member ever read section 34 of the Act of 1928, as amended a few weeks ago? In section 34 of that Act chiropractors have not been excluded. This provision is still in force. They have never asked for it. Mr. Speaker, that is my problem with the hon. member. I want to ask the hon. member to take time off during the coming recess to read section 34 calmly and to try to understand it. Then we can have another discussion afterwards. I am sorry, but on these grounds I cannot accept it. Furthermore, I want to say that the refusal by no means precludes the possibility of that association’s having its own code of ethics and implementing it. I want to repeat that I shall welcome it. In fact, if my department and I can assist the association in that matter extra-statutorily, we shall certainly do so.

Having listened to the hon. the Minister at some length go into the matter of what we have asked permission to do, I think that I want to draw the attention of the hon. members in this House to the fact that what is before this House is whether the Committee should be afforded an opportunity of considering the advisability of this measure. The hon. the Minister himself has raised certain matters in his speech at this stage, which are open to question. I think that I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. members opposite to give us the opportunity which is asked for here, to discuss the advisability …

I am not prepared to undermine the Medical Council.

In this motion by the hon. member for Durban North, we are asking for an opportunity to discuss the desirability of introducing a code of ethics. I do not want to go into the merits of this suggestion, Sir, because you would rule me out of order. I cannot even answer the hon. the Minister when he says that we intend to undermine the Medical Council. If only this notice of instruction is accepted, we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter.

You had an opportunity during the Second Reading.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to close the door to the opportunity of considering what I believe will be beneficial to all concerned, as far as the implementation of this Bill is concerned.

Mr. Speaker …

Order! I think this matter has been fully discussed now.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question, Sir.

The Minister cannot reply now. He has already addressed the House and resumed his seat.

I shall be very brief, Sir. I should just like to make one point clear. I think the hon. the Minister should be made aware of this point. The object of this Bill is to avoid the very provision to which the Minister referred, namely section 34 of the Act, in terms of which this matter could have been dealt with. This Bill now establishes the chiropractic profession for the lifetime of those practitioners now practising, and for students now studying to be chiropractors. In terms of the Health Act, under which the Medical Council operates, that council has the right to arraign a medical practitioner or to prohibit him from practising if he does anything which is unprofessional or which is contrary to the spirit of medical practice in this country, in the interests of the public. All that is asked for here is that the same protection should be provided in the case of chiropractors. This will not undermine the Medical Council. It is an entirely different matter. It is the principle of protection. I merely wanted to point that out.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is afraid that the Medical Council will be undermined if this instruction is agreed to. First of all, the instruction only gives us an opportunity of discussing the position.

But you had a full opportunity of doing so during the Second Reading.

Although the matter will then be discussed, the suggestion can still be accepted or rejected. What do we ask for? We ask for a code of ethics to be incorporated in this Bill so that the public can be protected.

That point has been made repeatedly.

There is one point that has not been settled yet.

What is that point?

I am speaking of whether or not the Medical Council will be undermined if we adopt this suggestion. I say that the Medical Council will not be undermined. The Medical Council has refused without further consideration, to accept the chiropractors under their wing. Another body, therefore, has to be formed. Such a body can only be formed with the permission of the Minister if it is going to have any effect at all in the protection of the public. Not only will the public be protected under such a body, but one chiropractor will be protected against another. This was a point made by the chiropractors themselves.

Who will protect them?

He is not allowed to answer.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. the Minister put that question to me?

No, he has had his opportunity.

May I then answer the question the Minister put earlier on?

Yes, if it is relevant. If it is not relevant, I am going to rule the hon. member out of order.

Mr. Speaker, it is for you to judge whether it is relevant or not. He asked whom we would recommend to look after the code of ethics.

I think the hon. member must ignore that question.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste the time of the House. I respectfully ask the Minister to allow a code of ethics to be incorporated in the Bill, for the good of all people concerned.

I put the question.

Mr. Speaker, do I have a right of reply to my motion?

No, I am sorry. Standing Order No. 112 prohibits it.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—32: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

NOES—67: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hoon, J. H; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

This is the clause which puts chiropractors out of business after a certain period. This principle has been accepted and consequently it would be wrong for me to argue about it now. I rather have a feeling that although the hon. the Minister has taken nine years to dig out and dust off an old report and thereafter to produce a Bill, he has come here with a Bill that is half-baked, a Bill which could be construed as being a slap in the face of the chiropractor. Therefore I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he really intends putting into practice the word “list” referred to in line 6. In any event, what does he mean by this “list”? Should it not be a “register”? A “list”, after all, may mean only a piece of paper which may be stuck on the back of a door with a drawing pin. I should like the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter and before taking this measure to the Other Place substitute a more fortunate term. The same word appears also in clause 2. I really suggest to him that he substitute for this word a more suitable one, one more suitable to a profession.

I notice that the hon. member has an amendment on the Order Paper. I was not aware of it and consequently I have not had the opportunity of …

I do not intend moving the amendment.

In any event, this is the first time this point has been raised; so I have not had an opportunity of looking into it. However, I shall look into it between now and the time the Bill is introduced in the Other Place. I cannot, however, undertake that I will make a change.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

I should like to deal with this clause in the light of the side note, which reads: “List of persons entitled to practise as chiropractors”. I have a problem here and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to assist me. I notice that there will be a certain measure of control because a person of the Department of Health is involved. Later on in the clause reference is also made to the Secretary for Health. Therefore, the Department of Health will in some way or other be involved with this list. My problem is this. As I see it, the Chiropractic Association of South Africa will submit to the Secretary for Health a list of names of persons who ought to be allowed to practise. Those will probably be members of the association. The Minister has indicated that this is a voluntary body. Having once gained admission to this list, a member could, for motives of his own, decide to resign as a member of the association. In my opinion, there is nothing in this clause which would enable anybody to remove the name of that person from the list or to prevent him from practising for as long as he wishes to practise. My problem arises from this, that he may then depart from the ethics to which he subscribed while he was a member of the association. Consequently, he could embark on some sort of advertising campaign, a practice to which the commission of enquiry referred on several occasions, i.e. that certain chiropractors advertised and did so in an undesirable manner. My question now is what power there is to remove the name of such a person from the list. During the debate just now the hon. the Minister in reference to the Medical Association stated that it was a voluntary body. That I accept. This means that if a member ceases to see eye to eye with the policy of his association, he may resign. But then he is still subject to the ethical rules which have been laid down by the Medical Council. This too I accept as being in the interest of the public. Here, however, we have a man who has been permitted by his association to register. As I see it, he has every opportunity to resign from the association should he want to. After that, as far as I can see, there will be insufficient control over that man. This I am concerned about. On the 25th February (Hansard, column 1667) the Minister said—

The point here is that the Minister said that some of these people are good people. On the same bases we are entitled to assume that some may not be such good people and may therefore be prepared to further their own ends to the detriment of the public. I fail to see how in terms of this Bill those people can be controlled in order to protect the public. I know that as far as X-rays are concerned, the necessary legislation has been passed establishing the means of preventing people from taking X-rays when they do not comply with the standard prescribed for this. Here we are in fact creating a monopoly—in the sense that those chiropractors who appear on the list will be able to practise for the rest of their lives. This concerns a question of vested rights and I can understand that the hon. the Minister wishes to protect these rights. However, this is a monopoly and it will become more and more powerful as we have fewer members practising. As the names on the list become fewer so will opportunities to exploit the public increase. In fact, at some point in the future the list may become so small that the Chiropractic Association may even decide to dissolve. Despite that, there will be nothing to stop those still on the list from continuing to practise and to practise without any supervision or discipline whatsoever.

Sir, I would like to make the attitude of the official Opposition to this clause quite clear. We do not intend to vote against this clause, and we do not intend to do so for this reason: It is providing statutory recognition to those chiropractors who are at present practising and in training. By necessary implication therefore it is also preserving the right of the public to consult those people. It is therefore going part of the way that we believe is the way to be followed by this House and on which I will elaborate in a moment. For that reason, Sir, we do not intend to vote against the clause. But I would like the House and the public generally to be in no doubt as to what our attitude is to this matter and therefore I would like to repeat briefly for the record what we stated in the second reading debate. We believe that permanent recognition should be given to chiropractic as a profession subject to proper control, subject to a proper code of ethics and subject to an accepted standard of training and education. Subject to these conditions we believe that permanent recognition should be given to chiropractic as a profession. We believe that the public of South Africa has the right to consult chiropractors, should they wish to do so, on the basis which I have just elaborated. I want to make it quite clear, and hope that the hon. the Minister will not try to misrepresent our attitude, that we do not advocate that there should be completely uncontrolled freedom to anyone who likes to label himself as a chiropractor to practise as he wishes.

Do you accept the philosophy of chiropractic?

Yes. Under those conditions.

Do you accept the philosophy of chiropractic?

Mr. R, G. L. HOURQUEBIE: Sir, the answer to the hon. the Minister is unequivocally “yes”, subject to the conditions which I have already stated.

Why are you allowing them to practise?

The hon. the Minister is adopting a very curious attitude. He is allowing a whole body of people to practise for as long as 50 years until the last of them dies, and yet he tells this House and the public that he does not accept the philosophy of chiropractic. He has no right to give them statutory recognition if that is his official attitude. This is an equivocal stand, and I challenge the hon. the Minister, if that is his attitude, to have the courage of his conviction and to ban chiropractic completely. But he knows that he will not do that because he knows that the public of South Africa will be dead against him, so he adopts this equivocal attitude of saying on the one hand that he does not accept the philosophy of chiropractic, but on the other hand giving recognition to a large body of people who will continue the practice of chiropractic for as long as 50 years. Sir, the hon. the Minister must stop with his equivocation.

And he talks about making politics out of this!

We believe that the public has the right, as I have just said, to continue to consult chiropractors, if they wish to do so, under proper control and subject to their fulfilling a standard which will be accepted. We believe also that it is wrong to create a monopoly, as the Government is doing, for those who are fortunate to be practising today. We believe that over the period during which the present chiropractors will be practising, if it is as long as 50 years, the profession in other parts of the world will develop. Just as the medical profession did over the years, so the chiropractic profession will develop, and the Government is depriving the country of the benefit of those developments and advances which will be taking place in other countries throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to take this matter further. We expressed our attitude at length in the second reading debate. The Government has expressed its attitude and I wish merely to place on record our dissatisfaction with this clause and at the same time to explain why we shall not vote against it.

The hon. member for Musgrave is the one member on that side of the House who has stated their standpoint very clearly. I have no doubt whatsoever about the standpoint of the Opposition, and I want to thank the hon. member for that, because otherwise uncertainty about their standpoint could have created problems in a discussion such as this. The standpoint of the Government is the opposite. The standpoint of the Government is, firstly, that we accept the abundant amount of evidence that there is no scientific basis for chiropractic; secondly, that the philosophy of chiropractic is false and, thirdly, that it would be wrong to give permanence to something like this. There are other reasons as well, but I am not going to go into them now. Furthermore, the standpoint of the Government is very definitely that we have in this country a group of people who have spent their money in good faith in order to be trained in that philosophy which I and the Government regard as false, people who have earned their living from it over the years. The standpoint of the Government is the same as it was in 1928 in the case of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and the same as it was in 1934 in the case of law agents, and the same as it was on other occasions, although this is not the ideal position, although it is desirable to put an end to it today, i.e. that such vested rights must be protected. For that reason, and only for that reason, they are being protected and recognized here. It is not the ideal position. For example, the fact that a monopoly will be created as time passes, as the hon. member put it, is something which is highly unsatisfactory to me, but this is the only way we have been able to find over the years to deal with a practical situation such as this. Therefore I feel we cannot deviate from that. In fact, I have given my undertaking in this connection to persons practising chiropractic today.

Without control.

The hon. member says, “Without control”. The position is that there has never been control since the time chiropractors first started practising in South Africa up to this day. The hon. member for Berea’s view of the matter is quite correct except in one respect. Let me just tell him how this clause works. The department has only two functions in this matter. The one is that an officer of the department shall keep a list of chiropractors. He does nothing more; he shall only keep a list. After six months that list will be complete, and what is the value of that list? The value of that list is that after six months any person who practises for gain as a chiropractor and whose name does not appear on that list shall be guilty of an offence. That is the value of the list. The second function of the department is that if the Chiropractic Association of South Africa does not recommend that the name of some person be entered on the list, such a person may appeal to the Secretary and his name may be entered. These are the only two things.

Let me say now that as regards the function of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa, the fact that we are giving the association recognition constitutes a major improvement, because in South Africa today there are certain schools, for example in Johannesburg, which would allow young men to study for six weeks so as to have their names entered on the list if this association’s advice were not to be sought regarding the names to be entered on the list. But now we have a safety valve in that only the names of those people who have been practising in the past so as to earn a livelihood from chiropractic and of those students who do bring it as far as those who have been allowed in South Africa over the years will be entered. These are the only two functions.

Now the hon. member wanted to know what would happen if someone were to resign from the association; he said in that case his name could not be removed from the list. But membership of the association is not compulsory. It is not compulsory anywhere. It is only a recommendation of the association to enter a name. Let me now give a practical example. There are in South Africa five chiropractors calling themselves the “straights”; they are not “mixers”. They are strongly opposed to this association. They do not want to and will not become members of the association, but their names will nevertheless be entered on the list because they comply with other requirements. So even if someone does not belong to the association it has nothing to do with entering of his name on the fist. It is merely a recommendation. Therefore I feel the point raised by the hon. member has no substance in regard to this matter as it has never been envisaged that membership should be a factor as regards entering any name on the list.

I want to ask the Minister two questions. I want to ask, firstly whether the Minister is going to do anything to control the indiscriminate use of X-ray apparatus by chiropractors; and, secondly, is he going to allow a man who is a chiropractor and puts D.C. after his name, to continue to use the word “doctor” so that he could be confused with a medical practitioner? Those are the two things I thought the Minister could have dealt with if we had a code of ethics …

Order! I do not think that has any bearing on the clause at all.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his detailed explanation of the effect of clause 2. I accept everything that he has said, but it does not solve my problem. I realize also that the problem is a little beyond the scope of this clause. I want to make one appeal with your permission, Sir, namely that during the Easter recess, before this Bill goes to the Other Place, serious consideration be given to devising some legal means to protect the public and to overcome this problem which, I know the Minister realizes, is a very real problem. I make that appeal.

Clause put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

AYES—61: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. L; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W.C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Wentzel, J. J. G.;

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—30: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A,; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R.G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten. H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L.E. D.; Wood, L. F.;

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Title of the Bill accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause One:

1. 2. Section 26 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for paragraph (b) of the following paragraph:
   1. “(b) of which the ownership is not in terms of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936), vested in the South African Bantu Trust, constituted by section 4 of the said Act or land not contemplated in section 4 of the South-West Africa Bantu Affairs Administration Act, 1954 (Act No. 56 of 1954), or other land in the territory not included in the ‘Gebiet’, as defined in section I of the Rehoboth Investment and Development Corporation Act, 1969 (Act No. 84 of 1969); and”.

This amendment of the hon. the Minister is the bone of contention and we indicated to him yesterday already that we are unfortunately unable to go along with him in accepting this new clause. Our attitude is in accordance with the attitude we adopted last year when the Soil Conservation Act was under discussion. Then we also said that this Act should be applied to all areas and that certain areas should not be excluded. Why are we adopting this attitude? In the first place we are adopting the attitude that the Soil Conservation Act is a very good Act. Consequently there is no reason why any other group or area should be excluded from it. In the second instance we are adopting this attitude because the non-White areas in South-West Africa, as is the case here in the Republic as well, are extensive areas. After all, the bulk of the Bantu population, as well as the other non-Whites, comprises the largest percentage of the people to be found on the land, on farms and in the reserves. For example, if the hon. the Minister would just take a look at the population distribution in South-West Africa, he will find that there are only 36 per cent of the Whites in agriculture. In the case of Coloureds it is more or less 41 per cent. But, if one were to take a look at the Bantu population, one would see that it comprises 40 per cent in the southern sector and 93 per cent in the northern sector. If one were to investigate the matter still further, one would find that the Bantu in the northern areas of South-West Africa have the areas which receive the heaviest rainfall in South-West Africa. In other words, these are excellent agricultural areas. Those areas must undoubtedly be protected. I have already mentioned to the hon. the Minister the argument that it is not only those areas which should be protected, but that the adjoining areas should also be protected. It would be of no value to the White farmers their applying the best methods if the best methods are not also applied in the Bantu areas. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services, with its Soil Conservation Division, is surely the best equipped to see to such an important matter as soil conservation. Why the hon. members want to exclude those areas, I simply cannot understand. They are not yet adequately equipped, and they do not have the necessary staff there. I do not want to say that progress is not from time to time being made in those areas. If one were to glance at our own soil conservation reports, one would find that progress is in fact being made there, but the progress there is considerably less rapid than the progress which is being made in the White areas. Consequently I can foresee that it will for many years still be necessary for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to maintain control over such an important aspect of agriculture. Hon. members want to leave it to the territorial authorities, the Rehoboth Bastard group, or other Bantu areas. I think that this would be doing the conservation of soil in South Africa and South-West Africa a disservice. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to give consideration to withdrawing this amendment of his. Originally the hon. the Deputy Minister came forward with legislation and included those areas. It only came about subsequently, after representations had been made to the hon. the Deputy Minister, that these areas were to be excluded. The mere fact that legislation was introduced in that way, is tangible evidence that the Department also thought that it would be in the best position to look after soil conservation in that area.

I can mention many other arguments to influence the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, I think that he must first furnish us with a more detailed reply in this regard. After that we could perhaps take the argument further. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will see his way clear to withdrawing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the United Party argument is that this amendment invalidates the application of the entire Soil Conservation Act on South-West Africa. Hon. members allege that because the legislation is not being made applicable to the entire area, any attempt at soil conservation will as a result of that be undone. However, we have a very clear precedent of this situation in the Republic of South Africa.

That is precisely the point.

This is a very important point. The fact of the matter is that since as long ago as 1946, when the first Soil Conservation Act came into operation under the then United Party regime, it was provided that the then Department of Native Affairs should have a representative on the Soil Conservation Board. This was done to effect sound liaison between the then Department of Native Affairs and the Department of Agriculture. This consequently had good results. I think that we will have the same good results if the same principle is applied in the territory of South-West Africa. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the Soil Conservation Report. The last Soil Conservation Report was submitted in 1969. In terms of this new Act it will now be abolished. From the report it appears that 7 000 000 morgen of the plus-minus 13 000 000 morgen of Bantu area has already been planned. This amounts to 53,8 per cent. These areas will not therefore simply lie there so as to be exposed to erosion. The Department of Bantu Administration is in fact effecting very thorough liaison with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

However, I also see in the objection of the United Party to this amendment that they want to undermine in a political way our policy of separate development in the Bantu areas. There are political issues behind this entire matter. Surely it is only logical that with the development of the Bantu areas soil conservation will form the basis because agriculture is the most fundamental industry in the Bantu areas. Now one cannot give these powers and these privileges to Bantu Administration in other laws, and at the same time allow Agricultural Technical Services to have a say there as well. This must be a consolidation of all the developmental practices under which soil conservation is included. I cannot see how this amendment will in any way harm the development of soil conservation in the Bantu areas of South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethal has accused us of playing politics with this clause. I may just mention that this is a political House and a political Parliament. We happen to be the Opposition and one of our basic differences in ideology is definitely this question of separate development or parallel development of the homelands. We call it parallel development and hon. members on the other side call it separate development. We have always maintained, even in the application of the principal Act, that there should be an overall plan for soil conservation for the whole of the Republic and South-West Africa. We cannot have separate authorities applying different principles in adjoining areas within the same country. We must admit at the present time, whether you live in a Bantu homeland or in a White area of the Republic, that we all live in the same country. We must also remember that many of these Bantu homelands are in the catchment areas of our watersheds. That is particularly so in South-West Africa in so far as the Okavango and the Fish Rivers are concerned. These watersheds should be protected by a soil conservation plan and afforestation plan, etc., with a view to the protection of the ecology of the catchment areas. There must be one plan, however, and one plan only. There must not be two separate plans.

The hon. member for Bethal also said that on the old Soil Conservation Advisory Board there was a representative of the Department of Bantu Affairs. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister has appointed a “Bodembeskermingsraad”. I do not know what that is in English. We would therefore like the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply to tell us whether he has representatives of the Department of Bantu Affairs on this new board that he has appointed under the new Soil Conservation Act, so that there will in that way be a certain element of co-ordination. According to a note passed to me by my hon. friend, this board in English is called the “Soil Conservation Advisory Board”. The hon. the Deputy Minister should therefore tell us whether there is a representative of the Department of Bantu Administration on that board and whether in fact there is a co-ordinated plan that covers the adjoining areas. My experience in representing a constituency which is cut in half by the Ciskei, is that although the Department of Bantu Administration do endeavour and spend a great deal of money to apply soil conservation practice, the idea has not yet got through to the people who live in those territories. As far as I know no penalties are applied to them when they overstock. When endeavours are made to reduce the stocking of those territories, they suddenly become re-stocked from nowhere.

It is particularly important in a country like South-West Africa where, as I said yesterday during the Second Reading debate, you have long periods of drought with no rain, followed by very heavy rains in the semi-arid and arid regions of that country. It is of the utmost importance that a uniform plan be applied. I believe that this can be of benefit to the people, Brown, Black and White. There is this difference in ideology in our approaches to the homelands. But when the homelands, particularly under the Nationalist Party policy, receive independence, as it is said they will and proper soil conservation principles have not been instilled in the minds of the people and applied during the period of our administration of those territories, these people will not be thankful to us. But let us take the hypothetical case of that party’s policy being taken to its logical conclusion. If we have applied proper soil conservation principles and trained the people to apply their minds to soil conservation in order to protect their soil, they will be grateful and friendly to us. That is why we plead so hard that this clause be withdrawn, that the legislation be applied as a whole and that an overall plan for South-West Africa shall be applied. The comparison has been made that this provision also applies in the Republic of South Africa. But one must remember that in the Republic of South Africa the proportion of ground which is homeland, is far less than in South-West Africa. In fact, in South-West Africa more than half of the whole territory is homeland. Therefore, by introducing this clause, we are applying a restriction to the Bill, a restriction which reduces its scope to such an extent that it applies to less than half of the territory. It is a restriction on a very able Deputy Minister. We on this side of the House think a lot of this hon. Deputy Minister of Agriculture. We think that he could do a great deal for South-West Africa if he had carte blanche to apply his mind to the matter of soil conservation.

He must just listen to us.

Yes, if the hon. the Deputy Minister listened to us and withdrew his amendment, we would really have a lot of respect for him, because he could apply his mind as a practical farmer to soil conservation in South-West Africa and see that a proper job is done. In fact, I might also go so far as to say that we wish he could do the same in the Republic.

A restriction is not a good thing in any legislation. I was a little worried earlier when I saw the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture tap the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture on his shoulder. I wonder whether they were saying to him: “Hands off our territory”, or something of that nature. I hope they were not. I hope they told him that they agreed that he should withdraw his amendment. I look forward to hearing the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Albany was so honest and sincere as to admit that politics also play a part in this matter.

In my Second Reading speech I furnished the reasons for this. I do not think it is necessary to repeat them. What is at issue here is a policy. That side of the House believes in covering all colours and aromas together under one blanket. We believe in everyone in his own area. I referred hon. members yesterday to the assistance we are offering the Rehoboth Bastards. They are receiving more subsidies than the Whites. Here you have the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, to whom soil conservation in the Bantu areas has been entrusted. I mentioned to hon. members yesterday that it was with a feeling of pride that I saw during my visit to the Bantu areas in the Northern Transvaal how soil conservation was being applied there. I do not know why we should be so concerned about the Bantu lands if the machinery is there to undertake this conservation. Hon. members on that side of the House must not think that I do not want to accept their amendment because I am being indifferent. But, as I said, what is at issue here is a policy. I should like to protect the land of both the Whites and the Bantu. We have created the machinery for that purpose, I must inform hon. members that we have an extremely difficult task in simply to make first the Whites soil conservation conscious. We must not therefore in this discussion be so concerned about the Bantu lands while the machinery for the conservation of this soil is in fact there, under the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. We must first see how we can protect the White as far as this is practicable.

The hon. member asked whether there was any liaison with the Soil Conservation Board, and whether the Bantu had representation on it. I can inform the hon. member that officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development were present at every meeting of this Board as well as the Agricultural Advisory Council. Our extension officers work hand in hand with these people to achieve the goal. There is liaison. I see no problem in this connection. Hon. members must not feel that we are being indifferent. I can give them the assurance that this is not the case. In addition I do not believe that hon. members on that side of the House merely want to make politics out of this matter. It is for them, too, a really serious matter, particularly in regard to the area of Natal where the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, at our insistence, is giving special attention to the question of co-ordination between conservation works in the White and in the Bantu areas.

I must react immediately to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s allegation that we want to turn this matter into a political issue. The fact of the matter is that every hon. Minister would like to build up his own little empire for himself. Hence this amendment. The hon. the Deputy Minister may find himself in difficulties, because sitting next to him is the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration, who regards it as his prerogative to see to matters such as these. Our argument concerns the question as to which Department is best equipped to see to such a fundamental matter as soil conservation. In our opinion it ought to be the Minister of Agriculture, or his deputy, and not the Minister of Bantu Administration. The latter occupies his time solely with the political constellation in South Africa, and therefore does not have the time to busy himself with soil conservation. The policy of the opposite side is to give each group its own territory, so that each looks after its own affairs. There is nothing wrong with their in due course looking after their own affairs. But the hon. the Deputy Minister has surely had experience of what has happened here in our own Bantu areas. He need not go further than to ask the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for King William’s Town, as well as members from some constituencies in Natal. He need only ask them what their experience has been of what is happening in their areas as well. The same is happening today in the Bantu areas in South-West Africa. It is happening because they are not equipped for it. They do not have the technical know-how, nor do they have the officials to see to this matter. Take, for example, the Fish River in South-West Africa. Through what areas does it flow? One minute it flows through a White area and the next through a Bantu area. Wherever there is such a great river, there must also of necessity be a great down-flow of water. When such a river flows through different areas, in what way can it be ensured that there will be proper conservation of the water and the soil? Of what use will it be if the one race group takes the necessary preventative measures in its own area as far as possible, while in the adjoining area this is not done? This is the point we want to make, and it is not that we want to make a political issue out of this matter, or, as the hon. gentleman said, to cover everyone under one blanket. We see the soil of South Africa as one entity. Therefore, if there is soil erosion in the one area, this must inevitably have an influence on the adjoining area. This is the approach we want the hon. the Deputy Minister as well to accept; then he will be doing soil conservation in South Africa a service.

Suppose we were to accept the amendment of the hon. member and applied this legislation to the Bantu areas in South-West Africa as well, what assurance could the hon. member give us that we would be promoting soil conservation in the Bantu areas there? We have areas there which do not have the necessary human development. Of what significance is it then to make legislation such as this applicable there? What use would it be to make such legislation applicable to an area if one did not have at one’s disposal the human material to carry it into effect? To do so would therefore be useless. In the meantime the Department of Bantu Administration is making the Bantu conscious of soil conservation. Only with the assistance of and through liaison with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services can this be successfully done. My point is therefore that we will achieve nothing by simply making this legislation applicable to the Bantu areas. Who has the technical knowledge necessary for this? The Department of Bantu Administration. However, they will not be able to put any soil conservation plan into effect without consulting the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

But the point I want to make, is that we will be achieving nothing by simply making this legislation applicable to the Bantu areas as well. In practice this would mean nothing because the Bantu are not yet properly soil conservation conscious. As far as this is concerned, they are still a tremendously long way behind the Whites. That the hon. member must admit.

What is more, the procedure in regard to land ownership is different among the Bantu than among the Whites. Among the Bantu there is communal ownership and the land falls under the jurisdiction of chiefs. Consequently other methods are necessary for the issuing of directives. The circumstances there are quite different.

The hon. member has completely missed the point we are trying to make.

He is in fact assisting our argument.

Yes. The point we are trying to get across to the other side is the necessity to use the Soil Conservation Act as a medium to establish in this country something like the Tennessee Valley Authority. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know about that. It controls dozens of states and Indian Reserves; it has statutory rights to control the entire Tennessee Valley. Something similar ought to be done here wherever we have soil conservation within catchment areas, and even outside. Much of our country is arid and semi-arid and these areas have to be protected. As a matter of fact, we are finding erosion of our soil even in the higher rainfall areas. So, what we plead for is the establishment of something like the Tennessee Valley Authority to work through the Soil Conservation Act, so that Bantu Administration, Water Affairs, Planning and Bantu Affairs may be combined in an endeavour to formulate a uniform plan to protect our soil for the future. I said yesterday that to my knowledge there was no other country in the world with such a patchwork system to protect its soil, not even in Black Africa. Hence I am very glad to learn from the hon. the Deputy Minister that his department is co-operating with Bantu Administration in this matter and that he has representation on the board. This at least is a step in the right direction. We are pleading for a uniform plan for the whole of South Africa. We cannot afford to lose any more of our soil, not in the Republic nor in South-West Africa.

Proposed new Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—62: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt. H. J. D.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES29: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Proposed new Clause accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

To add the following as a paragraph (b) to subsection (4):

1. (b) The provisions of subsection (3) shall mutatis mutandis apply to Proclamation No. 258 of 1944.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Sir, in reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday afternoon the hon. the Minister said, “We do not say who shall and who shall not go to a university and we do not close the door to anyone”. He says that they have never refused anyone the right to study at one or other of these institutions, meaning the ethnic universities as well as the open universities, and then he said, “I know of no example where anyone has been refused”. May I say that I do not challenge the bona fides of this hon. Minister personally, but there is no doubt he acts very often and, indeed, must act, on recommendations from his colleagues in charge of Bantu, Indian and Coloured education. Sir, I have the hon. the Minister’s unrevised Hansard here and I quote what he said yesterday—

I then made an interjection and said: “In every case?” The hon. the Minister replied—

I accept that this hon. Minister did not deal with every case—

The hon. the Minister then went on to say that in fact the Act had been in operation for ten years and that he was quite satisfied with the manner in which it had been applied.

The hon. the Minister there made it quite clear that as far as he knew there had been no exceptions, that everybody had been accepted and that there had been no rejections. Well, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that on 26th April, 1960, the Minister of Bantu Education at that time informed this House that he had received 190 applications from Bantu for permission to enrol at open universities, and that in fact he had approved only four of them. He then went on to say that seven of the unsuccessful applicants had wished to study engineering and that permission was refused, because in the Minister’s opinion there were as yet “no prospects of employment for qualified Bantu engineers”. That was the basis on which the Minister’s discretion was exercised. It was not exercised, I maintain, on academic lines at all. It was exercised purely on the basis of what he assessed to be the kind of jobs that these students might try to get when they qualified. I say that that is an arbitrary type of decision; it is an arbitrary yardstick and it certainly is not relevant to the academic world at all. It is certain that at the time, in 1960, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education made that statement many, if not the majority, of the faculties at which those 190 Bantu students would have liked to study were not available at all at the ethnic colleges. I suggest that if that was the manner of thinking of this Government at that time, I doubt very much whether the leopard ever changes its spots. This seems to me to be quite impossible. If I want to study for a degree in electrical engineering, am I to be prevented from taking such a course because I am a woman and because no women have ever been electrical engineers before?

They are going to have candles in the Bantustans, and no electricity.

I say that this should never have been the decision of a Cabinet Minister, but should have been the decision of our academic people themselves. In coming to his decision, one wonders, in that instance, how much weight—and indeed, in future instances—is to be put on the real value of the individual’s academic studies, and on the other hand how much value is to be put on Government considerations based entirely on questions of race or ideology or whatever it happens to be. If one looks at the most recent figures, it is very interesting. I had questions on the Order Paper on 30th March, just three days ago. Take the Bantu. A total of 91 potential Bantu students applied to attend the open universities in 1969 and 1970, and a total of nine were granted permission. In other words, 102 were refused. I was given the faculties for which they applied, and it is very interesting that discounting those who wanted to study medicine—and there were only four who were in fact concerned with medicine. The Minister told me today that there is no engineering faculty at any of the ethnic Bantu universities. There is no faculty of dentistry either. Yet eight students were refused permission to study at open universities in these courses during those two years. Then there is another list headed “Unspecified”. There were thus 16 other students who applied to study at open universities where there were no equivalent faculties at ethnic universities and who in fact were refused admission. Then take the question of engineering, just to get back to my original example. Four Bantu students were taking engineering courses at the open universities in June of this year. There were six applications. That means that for better or for worse two applicants were refused. The Minister said yesterday that in fact no one was ever refused. Well, even if only two were refused, it endorses the correctness of our assumption that people are being kept out of these institutions for reasons which are not necessarily academic. It should be left to the academic authorities.

Order! Have the decisions taken previously by Ministers a bearing on this clause as it stands now? I think the hon. member should confine herself to the clause.

What I am dealing with here is the Minister’s discretion to say whether these students can or cannot be admitted to the open universities. This surely is the principle at issue in clause 1; it refers to the contents of clause 1. The same thing applies to the Coloureds and the Indians. We are dealing here with people who have ethnic universities and where there are no courses available at their universities. The Minister said that under no circumstances are they refused the right to enrol at the open universities. I am sorry, but I challenge the validity of the Minister’s statement. Take the Coloureds. In 1969 and 1970 a total of 574 were granted permission, and 130 were refused. As far as the faculties are concerned, can the hon. the Minister assure me that there is an engineering faculty at the University of the Western Cape and that there is a music faculty and a faculty of dentistry? I doubt it very much. And how many of the 130 students who were in fact refused permission to enrol at the open universities wished to enter such faculties? The same applies to the Indian students. An agricultural faculty does not exist at the University of Durban—Westville. A certain number of Indian students applied to enrol as students at the open universities in that faculty, and it seems that they were amongst those who were rejected. There is not an engineering faculty at the University of Durban—Westville either, nor an architectural faculty at present. So the figures seem to me to bear out the validity of our contention that certain individuals—I do not say that there are a great many, but there are some— have been kept out of the open universities not on a purely academic basis nor as the result of decisions taken by those universities themselves, but as the result of decisions taken by the Minister himself for unspecified reasons, because he is under no obligation to give any reasons for his decision. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Wynberg based her argument to a large extent on the figures that were given in answer to a question she put some days ago. Now it is of course known that one can apparently explain all sorts of matters by means of figures, and this I think is also the weakness in the hon. member’s argument here. It is true that there were quite a number of applications of non-White students—she referred more specifically to Bantu students —for admission to the so-called open universities, and that a large number of those applications were refused. What is really important in this matter is, naturally, the reasons why they were refused. It is not within my sphere to elaborate on the reasons why they were refused. Neither do I know whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that it is not I who refused admission in the case of the Bantu students, but my hon. colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. The fact of the matter is, however, that the very repeal of Proclamation No. 434 in terms of clause 2 (2) of this Bill has, inter alia, the object of enabling Bantu students to study engineering. If we had not repealed that clause it would have been one of the obstacles to their being allowed to enrol for study in engineering. In other words, here we again have proof of the goodwill of this Government in refusing nobody the opportunity to receive higher training. I think that if the hon. member would, furthermore, have regard to Question No. 125, which she asked herself, about non-Whites at White universities, she would notice that in the case of the University of Cape Town, for example, there are no fewer than 103 Coloured students at the medical faculty; and this while specific provision has been made for Coloured, Indian and Bantu students in medicine at the University of Natal.

Yes, but that is not involved in this Bill.

I think it is very much relevant to the hon. member’s argument that this Government allegedly refused non-White students admission to the universities for reasons other than academic reasons. I think it very clearly proves the goodwill of this Government in enabling these students to do this, also in view of other circumstances which are not strictly academic. There are 103 Coloured students in medicine at the University of Cape Town. There are 54 Asiatic students at the University of Cape Town. Now I find it remarkable that the hon. member quotes figures for Bantu only, but that she does not mention these other figures. This actually prejudices her argument. I think I can satisfy the hon. member as to the fact that it is not the intention of this clause to refuse any student who wants to study and who has the necessary intellectual ability, the opportunity to do so. If that opportunity does not exist for him at his own university, we create it at a university for Whites while those facilities do not exist at the other universities yet. I think that with this I have replied to the hon. member’s objections.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would elaborate a little as to what he means when he says “if there are no facilities available at his own university”.

At the ethnic university, as you call it.

The universities are not set up for ethnic groups as I understand the position. There are the universities of Zululand, Turfloop and Fort Hare. These universities cannot be for just one ethnic group or for just three ethnic groups. For which ethnic groups are they then? We would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would indicate how he determines which is “sy eie universiteit”. Which is “sy eie”? As far as the Zulus are concerned, I suppose that one could say that that is a simple question. There is the university of Zululand. But, concerning the others, the position is certainly not clear. As far as Fort Hare is concerned, it has a long history and a long tradition. It has a longer tradition in history than the other universities have. One would have thought that some Bantu might prefer to go there regardless of the ethnic qualities of any university, because of that tradition and long standing. I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell me whether I am correct when I say that he indicated that, as to the applications by Bantu, which the hon. member for Wynberg referred to in her question, the decision rested with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education. Is that correct?

Have you not read the Bill?

Yes, I have read the Bill. The Bill does not say anything about that. My impression from the hon. the Minister’s reply was that he felt that the hon. member for Wynberg’s questions relating to the Bantu fell under his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Education. Is that not correct?

Yes.

I should like to have clarification in this regard as well, because the position is certainly not clear when one studies the Act in relation to this Bill and compares these measures with that answer.

Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I should like to reply to the question put by the hon. member. It must be evident to you that the hon. member is not as stupid as he pretends to be on this occasion. The principal Act stipulates clearly who the Minister is in terms of the definition of “Minister”. I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading out this definition, but the principal Act clearly stipulates in the definitions who the Minister is. In other words, in the case of Bantu students, it is the Minister of Bantu Education. In the case of Coloured students it is the Minister of Coloured Affairs and in the case of Indian students it is the Minister of Indian Affairs. This is therefore really a task I am performing on behalf of those Ministers, because it was originally embodied in this Act when provision was made for separate university facilities for those groups. I am now referring to the Extension of University Education Act. I think this point is very clear. If my learned friend were to study this matter in detail he would see that it was not really necessary for him to put that question.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of ethnic grouping. He is most certainly aware of the fact that Fort Hare caters mainly for students of the Xhosa-speaking nations. He is also aware of the fact that this university is not exclusively meant for them because other students may also study there, provided they can understand the language. He is also aware of the fact that there is a university for the Zulu national group in Natal at Ngoya. Then there is also a university at Turfloop which caters for the Sotho and related languages. It goes without saying that there is a university for Indians in Durban itself. When we speak in general of facilities a student does not have at his own university, we mean that when a student cannot attend a certain university on the grounds of his language and of his national unit, because the facilities are not yet available, he may be sent to one of the universities for White students.

Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the hon. the Minister for his reply, but I want to point out to him that I asked this question because the Act defines “Minister” as being a Minister appointed in terms of a proclamation in the Gazette issued in terms of section 38 of the Act. It is very difficult to know what is in proclamations. One cannot go through all the Gazettes to find when the proclamations were made. That is why I asked the question. This provision is not in the Act. It is done by proclamation, and the hon. the Minister has now indicated that in fact the Minister of Indian Affairs deals with Indians, the Minister of Coloured Affairs deals with the Coloureds, and the Minister of Bantu Education deals with the Bantu. This Minister is therefore not in a position to indicate to the Committee what the policy is in regard, for example, to Coloureds who wish to attend the Indian University, or vice versa. Is there any policy regarding a Bantu being allowed to attend a Coloured or an Indian university, for example? Who decides this? Does the Minister himself, as the Minister of National Education, not have an overriding discretion so far as these various decisions are concerned? I am really concerned with policy. Here we are giving to the Minister a discretion, and as he has pointed out, it is being given not just to him as the Minister of National Education, but also to the Ministers of Indian Affairs, Coloured Affairs and Bantu Education. In fact, when one reads this provision and listens to the hon. the Minister’s explanations, one finds that this Minister does not really make any decisions at all, because the applications do not come from White people. The White people go to the open universities. The Minister of National Education should therefore not be dealing with this measure at all. We should be getting these answers from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education appreciates that this Bill concerns him? He is the one who should be listening and taking some interest and answering some of the questions that are being asked.

I am not handling the Bill.

No, you are not handling the Bill, but you are the one who has the power. You are being given powers and questions are being asked. The hon. the Minister of National Education is the one who has to try to answer these questions. In fact, he does not make any of the decisions at all. It is the Minister of Bantu Education who will make these decisions, and he is not even prepared to answer some of these questions. The questions asked by the hon. member for Wynberg are very pertinent. Sir, where is the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs? He is not here either. He also has a discretion, according to the Minister of National Education.

Frankie is not here either.

Yes, that other academic intellectual, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, is not here either. One would have been interested to hear some of the answers he would have given in this regard. I really do appeal to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education to get up and enlighten us. Why should he leave the task to the Minister of National Education? Failing that—and it does not look as though he is going to—perhaps the Minister of National Education will, with his usual reasonableness, indicate to us what the policy is as far as co-ordination is concerned, and whether there is a policy relating to the attendance of Bantu at other non-White universities. This is what we are dealing with, after all. The words “non-White universities” are used in this clause. I should like to know whether there is any policy regarding the attendance of non-Whites at other non-White universities and, if so, to whom this applies, and who will make these decisions.

Mr. Chairman, after having listened to the hon. member for Durban North, you will agree with me that there is no other hon. member in this House at present, nor has there been since the time of Mr. Alec Gorshel, who is better able to fill in time than this hon. member when he does not want a matter to be disposed of at a certain time. It was a difficult thing to do for the hon. member for Durban North to pretend to be so stupid about the legal provisions now before us, because I think that he, as an advocate, knows precisely what is being said in this Bill. The hon. member wanted to know from me what the actual procedure was going to be in connection with this matter. He wanted to know what the norm was going to be according to which I, or my colleagues, the Ministers of Bantu Education, Coloured Affairs or Indian Affairs, were going to act. I just want to emphasize again that it is the aim of the principal Act to make it possible for everyone of these population groups to enjoy higher education, and to derive the maximum benefit from it. If this cannot happen at their own universities, then at universities for Whites. This is the overriding consideration with every one of the four Ministers concerned in this Bill before us. A Coloured student who wants to study medicine, for example, ought to go to the Durban university, because this is the faculty we established for them where they will be trained together, but if there are circumstances why such a Coloured student cannot or does not want to go to Durban, he has the right to submit the matter to the Minister of Coloured Affairs. The fact that 103 of them are at present studying at the University of Cape Town goes to show that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, is not so unreasonable in exercising his discretion as far as those students are concerned. As far as Asiatics are concerned, I have mentioned that 54 of them are studying at the University of Cape Town. I do not know what the circumstances of those students are, but to me simply the number of students proves that the Minister concerned exercised his discretion on a reasonable basis. I take it that if the hon. member wants to take ud this matter with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education in due course, he will certainly get the answer to the question as to why certain of these students were turned down while others were accepted.

In passing, I may mention that in the case of the non-White students studying at the medical faculty in Natal, a preliminary year has been added with the permission of them all, in order to give the student an opportunity of proving what his potential is. It may be possible—I am not convinced of the fact—that certain of my colleagues require that a Bantu wishing to undertake engineering studies should at least furnish proof of what he can do and that he should perhaps first take an ordinary B.Sc. degree before being allowed to proceed with his engineering studies. I do not know whether this is the case, but I think it would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from the circumstances and the concessions being made here.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one observation arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply. He has made an extremely interesting admission today. In fact, after the challenge which the hon. member for Durban North made to him just now, the hon. the Minister said in so many words that he does not know all the details of the individual cases that are dealt with by the other Ministers, in other words, the Ministers of Bantu Education, Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs.

I am not concerned with these cases.

The hon. the Minister says that he is not concerned with this. But the interesting fact then is that the discretion, in spite of this legislation, does not rest with the hon. the Minister of National Education as indeed it should with regard to enrolment at these open institutions of higher education. It rests, in fact, with the ethnic Ministers involved. I call them “ethnic Ministers” advisedly, because their decisions are taken on that basis. The universities are institutions of higher education under the supervisory control, as it were, of this hon. Minister of National Education. Yet, he does not have, as it would seem from his admission today, the initial say as to which of these students is to be admitted or not to the open universities in cases where there are no faculties available for them at the ethnic universities. I think that this makes nonsense of the whole clause in this amending legislation under those circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to what the hon. member for Wynberg said, I just want to correct this point. As the Minister, of National Education, I do come into the picture in as far as I must grant permission to a student other than a White student who is not classified into one of these three categories. In such cases I am in fact the person who must grant permission. This applies to Chinese students, for example. They are not classified under our classification laws. In their case I do have to grant permission.

Mr. Chairman, I am still not quite clear on one aspect. The hon. the Minister has given his explanation. As I understand the situation, where a non-White student is unable to attain the necessary training at an ethnic university created for that particular race group and he seeks training in a specific subject, he will then be referred to a White university and not to a university of another ethnic group. Is that correct? The preference then is to refer them to White universities and not to refer them to a Bantu, a Coloured or an Indian university. Is it correct that the preference would be to refer that particular student to a White university for that training?

Yes, that is the preference.

I still have my difficulty which I raised yesterday during the Second Reading debate with regard to those non-White students who have been educated in primary and secondary schools in the medium of Afrikaans. As a matter of fact, the Minister thanked me for starting, as he said, a “veldtog”. However, I am now seeking information. What provision will be made for those students who have received their basic instruction through Afrikaans as the main medium? They will obviously be subjected to a handicap should they apply and be admitted to universities in which the English language is used as the medium of instruction. As I understand from what the Minister has said, there will be no other facilities for them. Under the circumstances, is it the Minister’s intention that where it is possible, say, for a Bantu who received his basic instruction through the medium of Afrikaans to be placed in the university of another ethnic group if his particular subject is offered through the medium of Afrikaans? This is my problem.

There is, of course, nothing prohibiting something like this. It is one of the matters resting with the administrative discretion of the Minister concerned. This Bill actually deals with the question of the admission of non-White students to White universities. In this regard the main consideration is the question whether the course of study which the non-White student concerned wants to follow is offered by a non-White university. If not, the Minister concerned will consider admitting him to a White university. However, if it happens, for example, that a Xhosa wants to study at another non-White university, it cannot be prohibited in terms of this Bill. This is a matter which will then rest with the discretion of the Minister concerned. In this regard I have already pointed out that the way in which the Ministers concerned have exercised their discretion in this respect, has been to everybody’s satisfaction for ten years now. I am convinced that in the future there will be no reason for dissatisfaction either.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 2:

This clause contains exactly the same principle as clause 1. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Wynberg set out our objections to clause 1, I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat on clause 2 what she has already said. Those hon. members present here have heard what the hon. member for Wynberg said. For the same reasons we are also opposed to clause 2.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 3 put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Title of the Bill accordingly agreed to.

AYES—55: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. L; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—24: Basson, J. A. L.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Emdin, S.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hope-well.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

This clause contains an important provision, which we also discussed at the Second Reading. I do not intend delaying the proceedings of the Committee by repeating the arguments advanced at that stage. This clause contains the important provision that the Bill will only come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Government Gazette. This means that when this Bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses, it will eventually. I assume, been assented to by the State President and the State President will then by proclamation in the Government Gazette fix the date upon which these improved benefits will come into operation. There is a proviso in this clause to the effect that the amendments effected by the other clauses of this Bill will not apply with reference to any accident which might occur prior to the fixed date. The most important provision here is the question of the fixing of the date. That is why I would like to appeal to the lion, the Minister to ensure that once this legislation has passed through its various stages the fixed date to be declared by proclamation in the Government Gazette is advanced as far as possible in view of the fact that any person who may be injured in an accident in the course of duty will, until such time as the fixed date comes into operation, only receive the benefits and the compensation that exist at the present time, which are based on a percentage of R150. In terms of this clause, therefore, the improvements provided for in the other four clauses passed by the Committee will not apply with retrospective effect; so, the fixed date is very important of course. The provisions of the other clauses will not come into operation until such time as the fixed date has been set. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that this fixed date will be fixed as early as possible so that persons who suffer accidents or injury after that date will have the benefit of the increased compensation that will be payable in terms of this legislation.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is the intention to bring this measure into force as soon as possible so as to allow beneficiaries to have the benefit which are provided for here.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

In the application of the Forest Act, 1968, it was found that a few aspects of the Act, as it reads now, suffer from a few defects. In the amendment Bill now before the House an attempt is being made to bridge these shortcomings in the existing Act.

It has been accepted as a policy that the multi-purpose use of State forests is a function of the Department of Forestry. The multi-purpose use of the forest property embraces, inter alia, making those forests available for recreation purposes. As a result certain facilities such as footpaths and picnic and camping spots will have to be established on the forest property. In State plantations or indigenous forests these facilities can, in fact, be provided in terms of the Act. However, the Department has set aside certain nature reserves in terms of section 7 of the Act. In these declared nature reserves, as the Act reads at present, the Department may only take steps for the protection and preservation of these areas. Some of the loveliest natural scenery and indigenous vegetation occur in these declared nature reserves, and it serves almost no purpose to protect this natural scenery and indigenous vegetation if facilities are not established to enable also the general public to share in this particular natural scenery. The amendment proposed in clause I of the Bill will grant authorization for the establishment of the desired facilities. With total protection applied, in terms of the Act, in nature reserves in the past, it was found that particularly geophytes, grasses and early maturing plants were being stifled to such an extent by dense growth that they are gradually disappearing. The proposed amendment in clause I will enable the Department to apply more scientific control measures in nature reserves with a view to preserving the unique indigenous vegetation for succeeding generations.

Sir, while South Africa was formerly known for its inviolate natural scenery, the situation is now changing as a result of the rapid increase in population and the increasing technological development. Increasingly more land is being utilized for intensive agricultural production, rural industrial development is changing the character of the landscape, extension of the road systems and electrical distribution networks are continually reducing the inviolate areas of nature. Without standing in the way of progress the State can secure portions of State forests against human intrusion and preserve their inviolate status for the succeeding generations. With this object in mind provision is now being made in clause 2 of the Bill for the delimitation of wilderness areas. In these wilderness areas nature will be allowed to take its course. If any developments have to take place in wilderness areas, this can only be done with my approval.

As far as clause 3 of the Bill is concerned, practice has shown that, as a result of the extensive road systems, it is impossible for provincial administrations, in practice, to comply with the provisions of section 13 of the Forest Act, 1968. Natal alone controls about 27 000 km of roads. Clause 3 of the Bill now makes provision for agreements to be concluded between local authorities and land owners for the establishment of fire belts. This will enable provincial authorities, particularly in a province such as Natal, to conclude agreements with land owners in connection with the establishment of fire belts alongside roads, with consequently improved precautionary measures against fires.

We are all aware of the damage and destruction that can be caused by veld and forest fires, and in an endeavour to induce people to protect property against fire, section 21 of the Forest Act, 1968, is now being amended so that the owner of land must take precautions beforehand to prevent a fire that starts on his own property from spreading to neighbouring properties. We trust that this provision will be a means of checking the spreading of fires between neighbouring forest properties.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is one which this side of the House will support, as it is concerned with the preservation of nature reserves. It gives the Minister the power to extend the control he already has over State lands for the establishment of picnic places and nature resorts. Any one who has seen the disasters of fire in this country will agree that it is essential that the Minister be given further control. Practically every year in the Cape Province we see the disasters caused by bush fires. If we are going to preserve these nature reserves, we must have more adequate control and we must fix the responsibility for the establishment of fire-breaks and so forth. Furthermore, if we are going to have these nature reserves, we must recognize that nature reserves are the places of escape for those of us tied up in the concrete jungles of our cities. The nature reserves give one the opportunity, in these days of motor traffic, to get away from the bustle of our cities. We welcome these additional powers taken by the Minister. We shall examine them in greater detail at the Committee Stage. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

We are glad that the Opposition also supports this Bill because it is going to mean something to us in the future. Last year the Minister held out the prospect of this legislation in his Budget, and we are now glad that he is coming forward with it. It mirrors a change we are experiencing recently in the approach to our forests. I remember that in earlier days it was regarded as one of the biggest sins in the world to make a small fire in our forests, and there was also a great deal of danger attached to the practice. Today it is still dangerous, but over the years we have increasingly converted to the multi-purpose use of our forests. Today we not only use them for the wood, but also for the pleasure they give us. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of accompanying the hon. the Minister of Forestry on a short drive in the Knysna-Tsitsi-kamma forest and to see the fine work being done there by the Natural Forests Division to make our forests accessible to the public. It is really worthwhile to see what is being done there. But there is a need not only for pleasure. We also have a need to preserve certain places in our country in the natural state in which our forefathers encountered them, and this Bill will now make provision for that need to leave something to our succeeding generation in the state in which we received it. We want to welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. It is, admittedly, virtually going to bind the Department of Forestry because it will have to consult with the National Monuments Council, but I think it is a very good arrangement that another body, which can take an unprejudiced look at such a matter, can also express an opinion about the preservation of such wilderness areas. We welcome this amendment.

We must now make provision for more fire belts than in the past. I notice in the amendment that was moved that the words “take beforehand such precautions” are now being changed to “clear beforehand such firebelts”. I am sure that this is a more realistic approach. It is very difficult to determine what preventive measures one must apply, but if one keeps firebelts properly cleared this ought to be a sufficient preventive measure. I am sure that this Bill will meet with everyone’s approval.

I must agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Humansdorp and associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Pinetown when he advised the hon. the Minister that we would support this measure. I must express my regret this afternoon that the hon. member for South Coast, to whom such matters are very dear and to whose heart they are very close, is unfortunately not with us today and unfortunately I find myself in the position of having to stand in for such an illustrious a member.

The question of the wilderness areas did raise, as far as we were concerned, one query I had hoped that the hon. the Minister—and while he was speaking the hon. member for Humansdorp came very close to answering the question which worried us—would say something about it. We are not altogether clear as to why this should be on the recommendation of the National Monuments Council and why in terms of the new section 7A which is to be added a wilderness area may only be established by the hon. the Minister on the recommendation of the National Monuments Council. That is the way we read it. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us some idea why he is doing this. We already have the provision in the Act in terms of section 7 whereby the hon. the Minister can, in State forests only, proclaim nature reserves and protection forests. The provisions for the wilderness areas are almost identical, except for the one point that the hon. the Minister can only do this on the recommendation of the National Monuments Council. We would like a little more detail in this regard as to why exactly only on their recommendation this can be done. The other point I want to ask is what the difference will be between these two types of areas. The provisions are almost identical and the aims and objects are almost identical with the one exception of the wilderness areas.

While we are talking about that, there is an interesting aspect in the proviso in the proposed new section 7A (3) referred to in line 10 on page 4 of the Bill, which reads:

In the existing section 7 of the Act, the onus is on the Secretary and there is no question of his deputy or deputation. I know that there is a general delegation section in the Act, but we are interested to hear from the hon. the Minister why there is this specific provision.

To come back to clause 1, which amends section 7 of the Act, the hon. the Minister said that this amendment was to give him added powers and a greater facility to deal with the matters for which section 7 is intended to give him the power. We accept that, but once again we are puzzled by a small matter. It possibly is small and we certainly hope that it is small. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us the reason why in both the proposed new section 7 (1) (a) and in section 7 (2) the words “or soil erosion” are deleted from the existing Act. The Act at the moment provides that:

The words “or soil erosion” are now deleted. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us the reason for that. We find that the same applies in the proposed new section 7 (2) where the words “or soil erosion” are again deleted. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will be able to satisfy us on that point. May I say that we wholeheartedly support the extension of the powers which the hon. the Minister asks for in clause I of the Bill.

Let me say that we, in Natal particularly, are grateful for clause 3. Particularly in Natal, as the hon. member for Pinetown pointed out, our problem is veld fires as opposed to the problem of bush fires in the Cape. Up to now section 13 of the Act has made provision for fire belts and protection in terms of forest land, whether it was Government land or a private forest concerned. I must say that we do welcome this extension to the construction or the burning of fire belts on any land. We are particularly glad that this now extends the provisions to incorporate local authorities and, in fact, the Provincial Administration. The proposed new paragraph (b) (ii) is particularly welcome, because there have been some unfortunate accidents in Natal when, because of fire, smoke has caused trouble on the roads.

May I say that I am very pleased to see the extension of the offences, which the hon. the Minister now creates in clause 4. Up to now an owner or occupier of land would be guilty of an offence if he fails “to take such steps as in the circumstances are reasonable and necessary preventing any fire on such land from spreading to any adjacent land or causing damage to any property on such adjacent land”. The hon. the Minister has extended this to make it an offence, if I may presume that the amendment which he has on the Order Paper to this clause will be accepted, for any owner or occupier who fails “to clear beforehand such fire belts” as to make them adequate to see that the fire which starts on his property does not go on to his neighbour’s property. When this is tied to the amendment of section 13 of the Act which makes the clearing of fire belts compulsory on all land, not only forest land, may I say that we in Natal, who have been faced with the terrible veld fires, really do welcome these provisions. The final provision of this Bill is to extend the legislation to South-West Africa. May I say that we have no objection to the extension of the provisions of this legislation to South-West Africa. But the hon. the Minister has certain amendments on the Order Paper which go a bit further with the extension of this Bill to South-West Africa. I think we will have to discuss those more fully when we come to the Committee Stage as, in terms of the rules, we are not permitted to discuss them now.

With that and with the assurance that we will support this Bill, I leave it now to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I expected to get the support of both sides of the House for this legislation because I think we agree, as testified here, about the principles of the legislation. It is not difficult legislation. It actually involves rectifications which we have all long since been agreed upon.

†In connection with the question put to me by the hon. member who has just sat down regarding the National Monuments Council and its recommendations, may I say that once the National Monuments Council has recommended the Wilderness area, it gives added weight to the entrenchment of such an area as a nature reserve for all time. One would feel that by proclaiming such an area as a wilderness area, it could be tantamount to proclaiming it as a national monument. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that in doing so, one should have the weight of the National Monuments Committee added to such an act.

*Mr. Speaker, as far as the remarks of the hon. member for Humansdorp are concerned, I just want to say that the position is, in fact, as he stated it to be. With this legislation we propose to open to thousands of members of the public, who would like to enjoy the scenes of nature, not only our wilderness areas, but also those areas controlled by South Africa which we were disposed to close to the public in the past because we wanted to protect them. We never thought that those areas could still be protected if they were opened to the public and to those who wanted to utilize their facilities. We felt that with this legislation, and also with our policy and our future action, we shall make a point of rather inviting people to enjoy our natural scenery. We felt that we must create opportunities for these people. As the hon. member said, we have already created dozens of similar opportunities in the lovely parts of the Southern Cape. We shall also do this in other parts of the country. We think that it would mean a lot to South Africa if its people know that in future they would be welcome to enjoy the lovely places of South Africa to which they did not have access in the past.

Then I also just want to make a remark in connection with a further question which the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, asked about the difference between wilderness areas and other conservation areas. The difference is—and this is how we tried to state it in the legislation—that once an area is declared a wilderness area, we want to give that extra protection to the area so that any other authority or body cannot easily come and push a road or a power line through such an area. We do not want anything to be done to such an area that we shall regret at a later stage. I think that there are, after all, certain areas that are valuable enough to South Africa that not even another State authority may lay a finger on them without the Minister’s approval. I also just want to say that because so many areas under the control of the Department of Forestry can so easily be entered because the State may never say no, we feel that there are certain areas where the State must be placed in a position to say no to other State authorities if it is in the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member also asked me why we are making an exception in the case of soil erosion and why we have left those words out of this legislation? This is simply because the other Department has an Act that includes soil erosion. We feel that it is a good thing that it is embodied in that Act and that we should not, therefore, write in into this legislation. We do not think that it will adversely affect the action taken against soil erosion. We simply feel that the Department of Forestry can leave it to good effect in the hands of the Department whose task it is to look after that.

Are you satisfied that that department is carrying it out in the State forests?

Yes, unless of course, it is an area where we charge fees. Then this department will be in a position to act according to the provisions of the other department’s Act. However, I feel we should not write it into this legislation of ours.

*I do not think that there are any more questions that have to be answered, and I once more want to say that I am grateful for the fact that we agree, and I believe that it is in the best interests of South Africa that we must take protection further in our conservation areas, as we are doing with this legislation, by the proclamation of wilderness areas. I think that hon. members will agree with me that forestry is becoming important enough for protection to be given to it. I think that we will also go as far as to make it compulsory for persons to protect their own forests in such a way that if a fire breaks out it cannot spread to and cause damage on a neighbouring property. That is why we are doing this here, and I think that we do so with the support of all the people who have suffered millions of rands damage as a result of the carelessness of neighbours who did not look after their own properties.

Motion put and agreed to.