Order! We have in our midst today, in the Speaker’s Bay, Ngonyama Goodwill Zwelithini Zulu, King of the Zulus, and also his good wife. I extend to them a hearty word of welcome here with us.

Hear, hear!

Order! I have to announce that on Thursday, 30 May, I received reports from the Standing Select Committees on Transport Affairs and Justice of the House of Delegates submitting the Second Railway Construction Bill [No 93—85 (GA)], the Judges’ Remuneration Amendment Bill [No 94—85 (GA)] and the Attorneys Amendment Bill [No 96—85 (GA)], respectively, which had been referred to them. The reports will be printed in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Delegates, and I have placed the Bills concerned on the Agenda for Second Reading today, and on the Order Paper of the House of Delegates.

laid upon the Table:

Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill [No 105—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Saint Andrew’s College, Grahams-town, (Private) Amendment Bill [No 106—85 (HA)]—(Mr E K Moorcroft).
2. (2) University of Stellenbosch (Private) Amendment Bill [No 107—85 (HA)]—(Mr P G Marais).
3. (3) Certificates by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the above-mentioned Bills deal with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bills, while retaining the form of private measures, to be proceeded with as public bills.

Bills referred to the Standing Select Committee on Private Members’ Bills.

Mr Chairman, I move:

That—

1. (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 41 (2A), the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill [No 97—85 (GA)] be placed on the Order Paper for Second Reading; and
2. (2) Order No 10 for today be discharged.

Mr Chairman, to start with I must say that I am rather astounded. The way that this motion has been moved by the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance is an insult to the Standing Committee on Finance, it is an insult to this House and it is an insult to Parliament. The fact that he can come with a motion like this, give notice and then stand up and move it without providing or attempting to provide any motivation whatsoever, clearly illustrates in what contempt the Government, hon Ministers and presumably the Chief Whip of Parliament hold this House and the system under which we operate.

This is in fact an extraordinary motion which has been moved in the name of the hon the Minister of Finance. It asks that a unanimous report of a standing committee of this Parliament be rejected formally, that Order No 10 for today be discharged and that the Second Reading of the Bill concerned be proceeded with. In those circumstances I can hardly believe that the hon the Deputy Minister handling this measure believes that no motivation whatsoever is required.

I will give a reply.

This is a strange new procedure we have now. The hon the Deputy Minister moves a motion which is not self-evident in terms of its motivation and then thinks it is enough to say that he will reply to the debate without having given any motivation for the Government’s case in the first place. [Interjections.]

Let us have a look at the facts of this matter. On Monday of last week, which was 27 May, without any prior warning to this side of the House whatsoever, we arrived at Parliament to find that one of the items on the agenda of the joint sitting as of last Monday was the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. During the course of that morning we proceeded to get the background documentation to this Bill. This comprised two sizable volumes—I am only referring to the English language—in addition to the Bill itself.

We also discovered, without any prior warning whatsoever, that a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance had been scheduled for the following day, the Tuesday.

My party made representations to have the standing committee meeting postponed so that we would have time to arrange our affairs and also to study the necessary documentation. It was pointed out that in terms of the Rules of the House that was not possible because on a measure such as this the standing committee had to meet on two succeeding days.

We then requested that the Second Reading at the joint sitting be postponed till later to give us and other hon members of all the parties and all the Houses an opportunity to study this measure and to enable us to do our work properly.

To whom did you address this request?

We asked it via that Chief Whip and if we could not get hold of him, we would have asked one of his lieutenants.

That you wanted it delayed?

Yes, we asked that the Second Reading be delayed.

That is simply not true.

It is simply true. The hon Chief Whip of Parliament obviously does not know what is going on in Parliament and he also appears not to know what is going on in his own party. I suggest that he finds out. [Interjections.]

We were told that the hon the Minister particularly wanted it on that day and he was not prepared to have it shifted to another time. The standing committee met on the Tuesday. At that meeting which was attended by most of the hon members of all the parties of this House and of the other Houses, a resolution was unanimously adopted by all three standing select committees of the Standing Committee on Finance.

That was as reported on page 205 of the Minutes of Proceedings of this House, inter alia, as follows:

That is tomorrow and Wednesday. This report was presented by the hon member for Smithfield who is the chairman of the committee and was adopted unanimously.

Much to our surprise, on Thursday of last week the hon the Minister of Finance gave notice of the motion that we are discussing today, namely that that report be thrown out, that the Second Reading be proceeded with and that the Standing Committee on Finance be given no opportunity to study the Bill or make any report on it whatsoever.

Those are the facts of the matter but what is the background to it? Over the years it has been tradition that in regard to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill—one is introduced every year or almost every year—advance copies of and documentation on the draft Bill are supplied to Opposition spokesmen on finance in advance of the Bill being introduced. It is a recognized fact that this is complex and technical legislation and, if this House is to do justice to it, hon members need as much time as possible to study it. That did not happen this year and, when we made enquiries as to why it had not happened, we were told that it had not happened on the specific instructions of the hon the Minister of Finance. Because he refused to allow the documentation on the legislation to be sent out in advance, we were presented with these documents at the very last moment. Even now this draft legislation has not been circulated among all members. However, hon members who have a knowledge of this subject will know that it involves a vast number of details many of which are of a technical nature.

There is a further factor this year and that is that we have new members of Parliament in the other two Houses who are having to find their way in regard to procedure and documents such as this. More than any of us in this House, they need time to be able to come to terms with their approach in regard to legislation such as this.

Some of the hon members in the other two Houses mentioned the fact that they had not been present on the Monday, and so mid-morning on the Tuesday was the first time they saw the documents with the standing committee scheduled to meet at 14h30 on the Tuesday afternoon.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Sir, I am just telling that hon Minister about his contempt for this Parliament. [Interjections.] He needs to look at the results of the last election and then he will see that the pensioners can speak for themselves as well. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister was my public relations officer in the Gardens constituency in the same way as his benchmate is a public relations officer for the ANC these days.

The day that that standing committee meeting was called for, the Tuesday, we had the own affairs Budget in this House. The members on that standing committee belonging to the various parties were then specifically involved in a financial debate in this House. Because we ended up postponing our deliberations, most of us got back for the balance of that debate. Again, however, it simply shows what a shambles of organization the Chief Whip of Parliament tries to impose upon Parliament. Time was needed, hence the report of this standing committee.

Let us see what has happened in the other Houses of this Parliament in regard to this matter. Exactly the same report was presented to those two Houses as was presented to this House because it was a unanimous report. I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why a motion identical to the one we are discussing now was moved without notice in both the other Houses. Perhaps the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament would like to tell us.

He will not know! [Interjections.]

Why was a similar motion moved without notice in the other two Houses of Parliament? Why were the other two Houses not given notice in advance of that motion?

What motion?

The very same motion we are discussing here now.

Do not be stupid! They disposed of it.

Yes, but notice of the motion was not given in either of the other two Houses. It was moved in both the other Houses without prior notice being given.

But it was down following an agreement. [Interjections.]

Agreement? Well, I am delighted the hon the Chief Whip has said that, Mr Chairman. That is exactly what I wanted to hear him say. Who was consulted in this matter? Will he tell the House that, Mr Chairman? Who reached agreement on this?

They do not need to consult with you! [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a general discussion across the floor of the House. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens must continue with his speech.

Mr Chairman, I believe you will appreciate that it does cause a problem when the hon the Deputy Minister chooses to insult hon members of this house by failing to motivate the resolution in terms of which this motion was placed on the Order Paper. It appears as though we are expected to debate this issue without having any knowledge of the facts to which the hon the Deputy Minister resorts to substantiate this motion.

Order! The hon member may continue with his speech. I must point out, however, that some people might describe this as a fishing expedition.

A fishing expedition, Mr Chairman?

Yes. The hon member may continue.

Fishing in troubled waters! [Interjections.]

Well, let us have a look at what went on in the other two Houses in relation to this matter. In the House of Representatives—as we can see on page 174 of the Minutes of Proceedings—on Thursday, 30 May, the hon the Minister of Finance moved without notice a motion identical to the one being discussed by this House at the moment, the only difference being the in relation to the number of the Order of the Day. That motion was agreed to, apparently without debate.

In the House of Delegates—at 17h22 on Wednesday, 29 May, which coincides exactly with the time of the adjournment of that House on the day in question—the Leader of that House moved without notice the very same motion which we are discussing here now. That was evidently done within a minute or two of the time of the adjournment.

Scandalous! [Interjections.]

Acting under instructions, of course!

Mr Chairman, we know that this is a matter of a technical nature. If someone moves a motion such as the one under discussion now, in terms of some Rule—which in this case happens to be a Rule introduced in February of this year, a Rule which does not even appear in the printed text of the Standing Rules and Orders yet—it is clear that many people will assume that it is done because it is necessary for the smooth running of the proceedings of Parliament. That means that in most cases such a motion will be carried without any questions being asked.

I can tell hon members of this House, however, that the chairman of the Standing Select Committee on Finance in the House of Delegates was not consulted in connection with the moving of that motion, which was done without prior notice. [Interjections.] The motion was sprung on them. They did no realize the implications of the motion. Nor did they realize what the hon the Minister of Finance was attempting to achieve by moving that motion. The chairman of that standing select committee, for one, is not at all happy about the whole affair. [Interjections.]

We find ourselves in a new system, Mr Chairman. In some respects the system is already collapsing because of the incompetence of the Government. We are supposedly in a new era but the Government and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament are using the same old bull-dozer tricks so often employed in the past. I believe that that is a recipe for confrontation; not for consensus. The Standing Committee on Finance and various members of that committee have been requesting legislation they knew was coming for weeks and months. Now a ridiculous work-load is being heaped on the shoulders of the members of that commitee in the hope that it will be shovelled through as fast as possible.

This year, Mr Chairman, the Government can use every trick in the book. It can outmanoeuvre new hon members who are still unfamiliar with complicated procedures. As with their discredited political policies, however, their chickens will come home to roost—and sooner rather than later. [Interjections.]

I warn the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that they are playing with fire. For Parliament to function properly there needs to be fair play—at least as far as procedural matters are concerned. They may succeed in scoring some petty points in the short term by employing tactics of this nature but they are sowing seeds of mistrust within the ranks of Parliament itself. If they want Parliament to be a charade and to be held in contempt, they are setting about it in the right way. If they want just yes-men and puppets to participate, why do they not say so? Bulldozing is an effective method of flattening obstacles one does not like, but is not the way to encourage co-operation and consensus in a deeply divided society such as ours.

We oppose this motion not only because we believe that the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill needs to be properly discussed by the Standing Committee on Finance, but also because this motion makes a mockery of the way in which this tricameral Parliament is supposed to work.

Mr Chairman, let me say at once that I think it a pity that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens should use the extravagant language he has used when dealing with a matter like this. This is fundamentally a procedural matter. In order to allow the business of this Parliament with its three Houses to proceed, it is necessary that discussions be held and co-operation sought between the parties in the various Houses. For that hon member to make the insulting remarks he has made this afternoon about our colleagues in the other Houses I find very distasteful. It is distasteful for him to give the impression that we pulled the wool over their eyes or that, if we tried to do so, we would succeed. I do not at all subscribe to what he said and I hope that he will apologize to our colleagues in the other Houses.

Apologize for what?

For saying that we pulled the wool over their eyes or, indeed, that, if we tried to do so, we would have succeeded. [Interjections.] Oh yes, he clearly said that.

I did not refer to pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

All right. But the hon member did say …

I spoke of smart tricks.

All right.

Sir, some of what the hon member said was partially true and some of what he said was not true at all. For a start, he said that the motion was moved without notice in the other Houses. Of course the motion was moved, but not without notice. The fact is that there was consultation with all of the parties concerned. If the Opposition in the House of Delegates was opposed to the motion, their simple remedy was to oppose it when it was moved, which they did not do.

They were not consulted.

Why did they not oppose the motion if they did not agree with it?

Because they did not understand the technicalities. [Interjections.]

Sir, that is the kind of insulting remark I am referring to.

Furthermore, that hon member blandly made the statement here that requests were put to his side of the House to delay the legislation. That is partially true. I shall explain to the hon member why I say it is partially true. At approximately 20 or 25 minutes past two on the afternoon of the Joint Sitting I was going to deliver the Second Reading speech on that particular Bill and literally two or three minutes before I rose to do so—the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works was on his feet and I was the next speaker—the hon member for Yeoville signalled to me to meet him outside. I joined him outside and asked him whether I could help him. With a face of thunder he said I must withdraw the Bill. As I had three Second Reading speeches to deliver that afternoon, I asked him which Bill he was referring to. He said he meant the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. I said to him: “Why on earth, Harry? Why should we not proceed with the Bill?” He replied that he had had no notice of it and then came with the arguments—I admit that—which the hon member has raised here. I want to ask the hon member for Cape Town Gardens whether he thinks it is reasonable literally minutes before the Minister or Deputy Minister in charge of a Bill delivers his Second Reading speech at a Joint Sitting to ask him not to proceed with a speech. It is simply not reasonable.

Your party was approached repeatedly during the morning.

Sir, I do not know who was approached. I was dealing with that legislation. It is common knowledge that, by convention, the Deputy Minister deals with that legislation. Yet, nobody at all approached me with the request that I delay that speech.

Me neither.

The Chief Whip of Parliament tells me that he did not receive any request either for the matter to be delayed.

I want to give the hon member the undertaking that, had I been approached that morning or the previous Friday, I would have supported such a suggestion. We do not think it is reasonable to expect standing committees of Parliament to deal with complicated legislation of a very technical nature within minutes after the details have been made known. There is a long-standing convention that these documents are given to hon members as long a time beforehand as is possible. That is a convention with which we should like to continue. I do not think it is good for either the Government or Parliament if one should not do that. Insofar as that happened, I am very sorry.

I want to tell the hon member that insofar as that is concerned I will in the case of matters with which I deal do everything within my power to see that it does not happen or as seldom as possible. At the same time I want to tell hon members that is not reasonable if just a few minutes before the Second Reading is due they suddenly request us to withdraw a Bill. Such a request is absolutely ridiculous. For a start the hon members of the other Houses come here for a joint sitting. Many of them make special arrangements to do so and they make a special study of the Bill, and when they arrive here they find that I have suddenly withdrawn the Bill. That is not reasonable.

I want to go further. The hon member said that on 27 May he had heard of the Bill for the first time. That may be the position, but I want to tell him that on 21 May the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill was certified. On 21 May—that was two weeks ago—on my instruction the relevant documents—in other words, the books as published, to which he referred, the explanatory memorandum and the explanatory notes—were delivered to the secretariat of the Standing Committee on Finance. The secretariate was given all this information with the request to distribute it. I do not know why the secretariat did not distribute the information.

What happened was that the Bill was not available yet. What happened traditionally in the past was that a roneoed version of the Bill was made available together with the explanatory memorandum and the detailed information. In this case, because there was a delay with the printer—I have the details as to why the delay occurred—the Bill was certified by the legal people on 21 May. It then went to the printer. The proofs were received on 23 May and the Bill was ready on 25 May for distribution.

I think it is wrong that the secretariat did not distribute what information they had available as soon as they received it. I am sure that if the hon member for Cape Town Gardens were to use his good offices with the vice-chairman and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance they would see to it that it would not happen again.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it was not the case in the past that these particular documents were circulated by the Department of Finance directly to members of Parliament and not via the secretariat? Perhaps this is where the problem arose.

Mr Chairman, it is true that in the past the ministry sent the documents directly to Opposition spokesmen who were dealing with such legislation. I want to point out that we now have a Standing Committee on Finance. It is a new ball-game. All the Opposition spokesmen who are interested in this kind of legislation are members of the standing committee. Our instructions were and are that all the members of the standing committee should have sight of the documents. If other members of Parliament would like to see the documents we ourselves could make them available or we could authorize the Standing Committee on Finance to make them available.

The fact that the documents did not become available is an unhappy situation and I am sorry about it. The hon members, on the other hand, must be reasonable. If they want us to withdraw legislation, they should not approach us two minutes before the Second Reading is due and complain that they have not had adequate consultation. They should not approach us if they have not even consulted the Chief Whip of Parliament who after all has the primary responsibility of regulating the flow of work through this House. As far as the hon member’s comment is concerned that we gave instructions that the documents should not be made available to members …

That is what we were told.

That is simply not true. The fact of the matter is that I personally instructed the Commissioner: Customs and Excise—who nods in approval I see—that we should make the documents available, via the secretariat, to all members. That is the situation. At no time did anybody give an instruction such as the one mentioned by the hon member. We understand that the job of government and of opposition is not an easy one and that one should get documents as far in advance as possible. It is not a requirement but a convention and a healthy convention that has come about in our parliament. As far as we are concerned, it is a convention which we will continue to adhere to. A set of circumstances arose in this case that made it difficult, if not impossible I am told those who have to manage the flow of work in this House, to adopt any other procedure than the one we are adopting today. Hon members in the other Houses have passed similar motions without any opposition in their Houses, and for that reason I support the motion before the House.

Mr Chairman, it is generally conceded that if we are to improve living standards in South Africa and to create jobs for our increasing population, we need a level of growth in our GDP of between 4,5% and 5%. Over the period 1972 to 1982, we had a growth rate of some 3,28%. While this is fairly respectable by international standards, it is of course far short of the growth rate we need in this country.

However, what is of course of more concern is the increase in our growth rate per capita. In South Africa over the same period it was only some 0,55%, which puts us at the bottom of the log as far as many of our trading partners are concerned and also as far as most other Western countries are concerned. This low growth rate per capita is obviously due to our large population increase. Unfortunately, the results of studies carried out elsewhere show us that it is only under the impact of improved socio-economic conditions that we can expect population growth rates to decline. So this again underlines the importance of an adequate growth rate in South Africa.

The growth rate in any country depends on how the resources of land, labour and capital are used. Any action that improves the productivity or the efficiency in the use of that resource is automatically going to have an impact on the growth rate in a country. The growth pattern in South Africa to date has been largely based on exploiting more and more of our natural resources, as is outlined in the White Paper. For example, during the post-war period some 75% of the increase in our GDP was due to an increase in resource utilization, and only some 25% of our increase in growth rate was due to improved productivity or efficiency in resource utilization. For comparative purposes I may mention that increased productivity in Germany, for example, accounted for some 67% of the growth rate in the post-war period.

What is even more disconcerting is that in South Africa in the manufacturing sector we fared even worse during the post-war period. During this period the increase in the gross value added because of productivity increases was only 5,8%, and increased factor inputs, in other words, increased use of our natural or other resources, were responsible for 94% of our growth in the manufacturing sector during the post-war period. It is clearly outlined in the White Paper and by other authorities that it is no longer possible or feasible for us to rely on increased use of inputs for growth. I think the hon the Minister will concede this.

It is also conceded that we are going to have to look in future to our manufacturing industry and also to increased productivity for growth. Unless we can do this we are going to lose our competitiveness on international markets; and without protection for our local manufacturers we are going to lose out on our local market as well.

The White Paper discusses various strategies for growth. I have very limited time at my disposal, so I cannot deal with export-led growth or with import substitution. However, I would like to look for a while at the expansion of domestic demand as an avenue for growth because I do not think enough emphas is is placed on this. I believe that in the short run it is in this area—the expansion of our domestic demand—that we have the greatest potential to expand our market. I think this opinion is shared by other people as well. Dr Brand shares this opinion, and I refer hon members also to the report of the Mercabank Study which was brought out very recently. I would like to discuss very briefly then the role that domestic demand or expansion of domestic demand can play in growth.

In order to expand domestic demand we need two things. The first is that the income of Blacks must be increased in real terms, because that is where we have to look for expanding domestic demand, and the only way in which we can do it is by increasing productivity. The second thing to do is to become more competitive in our domestic market in order to be able to handle competition from outside. Increase in domestic demand can therefore be a vehicle for growth. Improved productivity leads to improved income and increased expenditure. This is also recognized in the White Paper, although I do not think it is emphasized strongly enough.

Increasing domestic demand also has two other advantages. Firstly, a growth based on domestic consumer demand boosts consumer industries which have a very much higher multiplier effect in job creation than other industries. Secondly, it means expanding existing industries. This is far easier because we have the technology, the management and the knowhow. It is easier to expand an existing industry than it is to bring in high technology new industries.

Where do we start if we wish to increase labour productivity which is the key to the whole problem of expanding domestic demand? Productivity largely depends on a person’s aspirations and whether it is possible for him to achieve them. These aspirations are based on a whole range of factors, for example, whether advancement possibilities are available to such a person; whether he can improve his social and economic status, which is a very strong motivating factor towards increased productivity; freedom to choose his job, the place where he wants a job, and where he can sell his labour to his best advantage. The equality of treatment before the law is also important in order to increase productivity and motivation. Another factor is the ability to share in the benefits of the free enterprise system, which we all have. Obviously, the availability of training and training facilities is equally important. All these factors interweave to determine a person’s productivity.

I think that if hon members in this House are honest, they will recognize that it has not been possible for most of our work force to aspire to these goals under the legislation as it has been in the past. Expansion in domestic demand can also only come about in an urbanized situation where we have a well-trained urbanized work force who can aspire to many of the goals I have spoken about. In the urban situation there are more jobs in the formal and the informal sector. Formal and informal training facilities are also there, and the opportunity to share in the free economic system we aspire to is also there.

I know that the hon the Minister will say that many of these problems are recognized, but to date we have not had any urbanization policy; in fact, policies to date have been against urbanization, and I think we should start emphasizing more strongly that urbanization can be a very positive phenomenon which we should use and exploit for future growth in South Africa. Unfortunately, however, although I must concede that there have been changes, many of the old legislative measures are still present. We still have all the legislation concerning influx control affecting worker mobility, affecting their choice of a place to live and the movement of their families. As I have mentioned, we still do not have an urbanization policy. Therefore my plea to the hon the Minister today is the following: We have a vast potential in South Africa in our domestic market and even the markets to the north of us. We should use the expansion of this domestic market as a vehicle for promoting growth in our country, especially in the short run. To date many policies have worked against exploiting this potential that we have. There has been a lot of talk about it. I think the hon the Minister recognizes many of these problems, and my plea is that it is time we actually did something about it.

Mr Chairman, in thanking the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South for his interesting and useful contribution, I should also like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on completing the Comrades Marathon successfully on Friday. Coming from a fellow-runner, he will appreciate that this remark is sincere but not without envy.

*Because of the extremely limited time at my disposal it is unfortunately not possible to reply to all the positive contributions that members made to this debate. As a matter of fact, I have approximately 30 minutes to reply to 21 speeches. I think it was Langenhoven who once appeared before the students of Stellenbosch and dealt with seven subjects in a speech lasting seven minutes. Perhaps we need more of those Langenhoven type speeches, especially in politics.

Right at the outset of my reply I want to thank all members—and I mean all members—for their contributions to this debate, which was conducted on a high level. Members of all the various political parties really made constructive contributions. This does not mean that they were without criticism. In-depth and well-considered criticism is necessary for a sound and fruitful discussion.

Therefore I thank all members for their contributions. If it is not possible for me to react to hon members’ speeches in the short time at my disposal they should not think that great value is not attached to their respective contributions.

I should, however, also briefly like to thank the hon member for Vasco, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry, for his management of the committee this year and also for the support that he, as leader of the NP’s study group, has given to me and the department in this regard. Unfortunately the hon the Deputy Minister is busy in one of the other Houses, but I should also like to thank him for his valuable contributions to the department in the short time since he joined us.

I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the Director-General, Mr Du Plessis, and our top management very sincerely for their guidance. The department is big and we administer 38 Acts. Events or complications often occur with great rapidity, and decisions have to be taken under pressure. Good administration, organization and teamwork are then of great importance. These are the qualities which our Director-General and the top management possess. I thank them for their support in this connection.

†I should also like to thank the hon member for Walmer for his kind and complimentary remarks to the department and myself. I believe we have a good working relationship. The hon member is a friendly and courteous person and he is well versed in economic affairs. He is capable of making useful and valuable contributions to any debate on trade and industry. However, my problem with the hon member is that he too often gives way to the temptation to play politics with economic issues. [Interjections.] Let me just remind the House that at the beginning of this year during the no-confidence debate as well as in a subsequent private member’s motion, the hon member severely criticized the Government for its policies regarding Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage. He criticized us for the lack of concessions or inadequate concessions and spoke about the neglect of the region. Subsequently the hon member requested an interview with my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and myself and, accompanied by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, he further pursued those matters. Now, a few months later, it is amazing that in this whole debate not a single word was spoken about the problems of Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage. Of course, the by-election is history now. [Interjections.]

In his speech the hon member rejected the policy of decentralization—at least that is the impression I gained. He went out of his way to reject almost out of hand the policy of decentralization. Now, I detect an obvious shift in his approach to the subject. Originally, a few years ago, when we started applying the policy of decentralization, the hon member at least accepted the need for a policy of regional development.

I still do.

The hon member for Walmer says he still does. Well, that is very interesting. From what the hon member said it did not appear as if he was still positive about decentralization in any way. [Interjections.] He called it an ideologically inspired policy which distorts the market, creates growth through subsidies, and he said that it would cause long-term damage to industry. [Interjections.] However, if the hon member is in favour of decentralization and belives in the policy of decentralization, why is he not more explicit on the matter? Why does he not formulate the policy of the PFP in this respect? They support concessions for certain growth points, for example in Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage.

You know my policy.

Hon members of the PFP favour concessions for certain areas. I can say this because the hon member for Walmer requested us to increase the concessions for Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage. [Interjections.] I have a Press statement here in which the hon member asked the Government whether we would agree to a rebate to reduce the cost of railing goods into Port Elizabeth. The hon member is thus favouring some kind of decentralization.

The point is that the hon member is capable of making a contribution to the debate on decentralization but then he must avoid using vague slogans. He must then get away from the rhetoric and discuss the specific realities within the policy. I am sure the hon member can make a far more valuable contribution if he is prepared to discuss with us possible ways in which the policy of regional development and decentralization can be improved instead of rejecting it outright and leaving the impression that the whole policy is evil.

I have very little time but for the sake of the record I regard it as necessary to correct the hon member on a specific issue. There has not been an increase of 250% in the budgeted amount for 1985-86 over the expenditure of the previous year. [Interjections.] Sir, one must at least compare apples with apples. The hon member must take the amount provided for in the additional estimates into consideration. [Interjections.]

The hon member made a few positive remarks about the White Paper, and I appreciate that. He called it a good and useful document but said that he had expected something more challenging. Sir, the White Paper is not a blueprint providing all the answers on the specifics of economics. Its purpose is to provide guidelines for facing the challenges of this decade and the ones beyond it. Those who seek more explicit replies in the White Paper are actually asking for more Government intervention. Prof Paul McCracken of Princeton University wrote the following about industrial policy:

I am sure the hon member for Walmer will agree that we need less and not more direct Government intervention in the economy. Insofar as the Government has a role to play in achieving the objectives which have been spelt out in paragraph 2.9 of the White Paper, we will not shirk our responsibility.

The hon member for Umbilo apparently did not hear the hon the Minister of Finance’s announcement in his Budget about the bridging finance of R30 million which would be made available to small businesses through the Small Business Development Corporation. Subsequent to the announcement by the hon the Minister of Finance I issued a Press statement which was reported on extensively by the media. The announcement caused such wide reaction that the Small Business Development Corporation received 7 205 inquiries within the first eight weeks after the announcement. Subsequently there was a total of 1 496 applications for assistance totalling well over R66 million.

*In his contribution the hon member for Langlaagte also referred to the Government’s policy on industrial protection. I should like to point out to the hon member that we in fact availed ourselves of this opportunity to deal in great detail in the White Paper with the Government’s standpoint on import replacement and protection. I think the hon member is aware of the fact that most of the issues he mentioned here are dealt with in paragraphs 5.9 to 5.30 of the White Paper.

The hon member also spoke about the selling price that has to be indicated on merchandise. I have here the Gazette of 16 March 1977, and unless I misunderstood the hon member, I just want to point out that the retail prices of all items should be very clearly marked. If the hon member wanted to put another point of view he can discuss it with me later.

Several speakers touched on important subjects. As the time is very limited and I cannot reply to each speaker individually, there are two subjects in particular to which I want to come back briefly. The first is the concentration of the economic power in the South African economy; this is a subject to which many speakers referred. Secondly I briefly want to talk about privatization and deregularization.

Before I come to that, I should like to make an announcement about the TV production industry. The announcement will be issued, but I would like to put it to the Committee.

With the introduction of a television service in South Africa in 1976 and the establishment of a television manufacturing industry the Government laid down certain protective measures for the industry as well as a set of ground rules with which the designated manufacturers had to comply.

Since the manufacturers have now been in operation for several years, the Board of Trade and Industries instituted an investigation into the television manufacturing industry. An announcement in this connection was published in the Gazette during May 1984. The board’s report has now been received and its findings and recommendations have been studied.

The findings of the board are not very encouraging. It was found that less progress had been made with the local production of components, than had initially been envisaged. The net contribution of the television manufacturing industry to the economy was also disappointing, while the effective level of tariff protection was very high. Consequently the board recommended a new dispensation for the industry aimed at encouraging local content and promoting keener competition in the industry.

The Government has accepted the board’s recommendations in broad outline, but after consultation with the local manufacturers and as a result of their representations it was decided to have further discussions with them on the requirements which will apply after the termination of the present ground rules and to negotiate with the SABS on the standards that must apply. The industry also requested that the abolition of the restriction on entry be phased in. Control over the number of manufacturers will therefore be retained until the end of 1986. Until that date only a limited number of new manufacturers will be allowed. The department has from time to time received applications for entry to the market from potential new manufacturers, and these are being considered.

The limited number of new manufacturers that can now be allowed in terms of my agreement with the existing manufacturers means that further possible manufacturers—that is over and above those who will now be allowed—will have to wait until 1 January 1987, from which date restrictions on the number of manufacturers will no longer apply.

†The hon member for Constantia made a very interesting speech regarding economic concentration in the South African economy. I agree with many of the points that he made on Thursday. The SA economy is highly concentrated and the fact that this tendency is on the increase is causing great concern. However, the economy is a very fragile and delicate body and any irresponsible action can cause irreparable harm to the economy and can destroy the confidence which is such a vital prerequisite for any healthy economic environment.

The Government executes its policies concerning competition and concentration—that is market structuring—through the Competition Board. The Competition Board functions in terms of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act. I should like to remind hon members that a mere five years ago, when that legislation was debated here in this House, the PFP cautioned that the Competition Board should act with the greatest circumspection as far as take-overs and mergers were concerned. The then official spokesman of the PFP was Dr Zac de Beer, former MP for Parktown. I should like to quote here just one paragraph from the speech delivered by Dr De Beer on that occasion.

*On Wednesday, 2 May 1979 Dr Z J de Beer said here in the House, and I quote (Hansard, Vol 80, Col 5445):

Thus far the words of Dr Z J de Beer, the then chief spokesman of the PFP.

†Also in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act we find that the recommendations made by that commission really served as the basis for the current Act. In its report the commission also indicated that the concentration of economic power as such should not be condemned out of hand. I quote now from paragraph 211 of the said report, as follows:

That does not mean, Mr Chairman, that the Competition Board is ineffective in respect of market structure. On the contrary, many undesirable take-overs and mergers have been prevented because of opposition expressed by the board in prior consultations. Unfortunately these instances cannot be made public because it will destroy that trust and the confidence in the board which is of vital importance for the effective functioning of the board.

The hon member also referred to the question of prior notification. The board has the power to demand prior notification, and has indeed done so in many instances. The fact is that compulsory notification will serve no purpose, and the board does not have the staff to deal with such a situation.

The hon member for Constantia also complained about the lack of section 10(l)(c) prohibitions. The fact is that the notice I gave on Thursday in terms of section 10(l)(c) will have a major effect once it has been gazetted. In terms of the notice as it now stands, the timber marketing agreement, for example, will be prohibited. In terms of the notice as it now stands the central marketing organization for cement will be prohibited. The effect of these 10(l)(c) measures on an organization such as Bifsa, or even on the tyre trade for that matter, as well as on many other fields of industry and trade will be quite far-reaching. Therefore—and that brings me to another point raised by the hon member—it is necessary to provide for exemptions. It is in the first instance necessary to provide for an adjustment period in which the immediate prohibition could have a detrimental effect on the economy of the country. Secondly provision should be made for exemptions in order to exclude marketing agreements which cater for the small businessman.

In this respect I think of an organization like Spar which caters for the small, individual trader. The point I should like to emphasize is that the board does take action. The board is not ineffective. However, where its effectiveness might still be impeded by insufficient legislation, I will come back to the House with the necessary legislation. If I come back to the House next year with legislation aimed at strengthening the powers of the Competition Board, can I rely on the support of the hon member for Constantia?

In principle, yes.

“In principle, yes”: That is a very cautious response. Having listened to the hon member, I would not have thought he was cautious when he said how he thought we should deal with the concentration of power. I hope I can therefore rely on the support of the hon member and his party next year.

There are also many factors outside of the control of the Competition Board, or of competition policy, for that matter, factors which could have a major effect on economic concentration. Taxation policy, to take one example, can have an important bearing on concentration. It can either encourage further power concentration or it can discourage economic concentration. It was therefore clearly stated in the terms of reference of the Margo Commission that tax policy should be designed to promote competition. It is there in the brief. The hon member will realize that.

I wish to make one final remark on this subject. Reference is often made to the antitrust legislation in the USA. The hon member also referred to it. The fact is—and this is often not considered—that competition policy in the USA has been drastically changed since 1982. The new Administration had numerous problems with the Robinson Patman Act and now well-known or notorious section 7 of the Clayton Act. In the Competition Board’s Report No 4, an Investigation into Discrimination in respect of Prices and Conditions of Sale, it deals extensively with these matters and with US legislation and I should like to recommend to hon members interested in the subject that they should read that report of the Competition Board.

*Several hon members also expressed ideas concerning privatization here and I want to make a few brief remarks in this connection. Privatization is one of those words which has now become fashionable. It is often used, often very superficially. Therefore I want to thank hon members who participated in the debate for the incisive way in which they dealt with the subject.

Firstly I want to say that deregulation, that is the abolition of excessive limitations, especially with regard to entry to an industry, is inextricably linked to the idea of giving the private sector a greater share and greater scope in the economy. Hence I agree with the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member Mr Schoeman and also the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, who touched on this subject that the economy is over-regulated. There are too many conditions, regulations, limitations, provisions and administrative red tape that stand in the way of the business man, in the informal and semi-informal sectors in particular, but also in the formal sector. Let us also honestly admit to one another that many of these limitations are not located in the sphere of the central authority. That is why the President’s Council was directed to undertake an in-depth investigation into this matter.

I hear that legislation exists in the United States of America which cuts diametrically across all existing legislation to accommodate the small businessman in that country. It is possible that the President’s Council will also have to think along those lines of measures in order to make progress in South Africa as far as this matter is concerned. I trust that the President’s Council, through its recommendations, will force a gap for enterprise and initiative in South Africa.

Secondly, economic concentration has already reached an alarming level in South Africa. We dealt with that during the course of the debate, and several speakers also stated their views on this topic. The authorities will therefore have to give very thorough consideration to the way in which privatization must take place so that it will not encourage further concentration in the South African economy. For this reason privatization in South Africa cannot simply be compared with privatization in the United Kingdom or the USA. The market conditions here are completely different.

Thirdly, the interests of many State employees and those of semi-State institutions are involved. Thorough consideration will have to be given to the position and interests of these people. Any rash actions and of course any ill-considered emotional debate about this matter creates uncertainty and fears on the part of management and the work force. This can, of course, have disruptive results.

Fourthly, the private sector is interested in profitable investments, and rightly so. Of course the private sector is interested in taking over those assets of the State which will yield good returns. The transition of a State monopoly into what is nothing but a private sector monopoly therefore gives rise to various problems which must be considered with the utmost care.

With these few remarks I do not wish to say that the Government is dragging its feet; far from it. This is a complicated matter which requires well-considered actions. The matter is receiving attention, and when necessary, the Government will announce further decisions in this regard.

The hon member for Stellenbosch argued that it was time to review the Liquor Act. The arguments the hon the member raised were very valid, and I want to support him in that. I think, however, that the best way of rectifying this matter would be to do so in two phases. As a result of an directive I have already issued much progress has been made with draft statutory amendments for introduction next year with a view to removing all unnecessary discriminatory measures which might still exist in the Liquor Act as well as dealing with other urgent matters.

It seems to me as if a more thorough review will take longer. I am also of the opinion that the best institution to take this initiative further is in fact the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry. The department will therefore prepare the necessary legislation to enable the committee to give further attention to this matter. Then the committee itself can decide on the method according to which it wants to accomplish its task.

Unfortunately my time has now run out. In conclusion I should again like to thank all hon members who participated for the very high level on which the debate took place and for the many stimulating, well-considered and constructive contributions. I regret the fact that my time was so limited that I could not react effectively to all the many good suggestions and contributions.

Mr Speaker, I move:

This Bill, as dealt with and amended by the standing committee, amends the respective Acts on the universities, technikons and schools for Blacks, but with emphasis on university affairs.

As far as universities are concerned, this Bill amends the relevant university Acts, in view of the application of greater autonomy conferred upon the universities falling under the Committee of University Rectors and the streamlining associated therewith, to make provision inter alia for the following: Empowering the council of a university to decide of its own accord, without the approval of the Minister, on the conditions of service, powers, privileges, duties and functions of the rector and vice-rector (clauses 1,2 9, 10, 17, 18, 28 and 29); the concluding of agreements between universities and other institutions of higher education (clauses 7, 15 and 34); a right of appeal to the Minister for persons discharged from permanent posts at university and technikons (clauses 4, 12, 22 and 30); and the concession that students without university or matriculation exemption may register for a study course or subject for non-degree purposes at a university (clauses 5,13,23 and 32).

†Furthermore the Bill provides for the cancellation of the registration of a student by the council of a university or technikon if it considers such action to be in the interests of the university or technikon (clauses 13, 23 and 32).

The Bill also provides for the admission as a student of a person other than a Black person on such conditions as the Minister may determine from time to time after consultation with the council of a university (clauses 14,24 and 33).

The Bill seeks to repeal the provision in terms of which a university may organize any portion of the university as an institute (clauses 16, 26 and 35).

The Bill also provides for the changing of the composition of the council and convocation of the Medical University of Southern Africa. With the composition of the previous council on the founding of Medunsa in 1976, it was deemed necessary to broaden the representation for the establishment of the university. The university is now settled and it is deemed expedient to streamline the composition of the council. This is dealt with in clauses 19 and 20.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of additional faculties at Medunsa by the council with the prior approval of the Minister.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of a nursing school at the Ga-Rankuwa Hospital.

Furthermore provision is made for the addition of a citizenship qualification in the Vista University Act, 1981, as a requirement with which a person who wishes to be transferred from a post at another university institution to a post at Vista University shall comply.

There is also a redefinition of the duty resting on a technikon to transmit to the Minister once every year a balance sheet and a full statement of the technikon’s income and expenditure together with a report of the council’s activities in respect of the preceding year.

The Bill is also aimed at amending the Education and Training Act, 1979 (Act 90 of 1979) so as to assign certain duties and powers to school committees or governing councils of public schools. At the moment such bodies only possess advisory powers, and the new development in education requires that they also be entrusted with certain executive functions.

To summarize, the Bill now before Parliament promotes the interests of education at all levels, and in the case of university education, which is the main content of the Bill, the degree of autonomy already enjoyed by the universities falling under the Committee of University Rectors will be enhanced by these amendments.

*In conclusion I want to thank all the members of the standing committee for the contributions they made during the discussion and improvement of the Bill during the sessions of the committee.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this Bill was discussed at some length during the discussions in the standing committee and the main issues received fairly detailed consideration. We were also privileged to have the hon the Minister present at the second meeting of the standing committee, and I believe his presence and contribution assisted in clearing up a number of matters which caused some problems. We were grateful for his presence there. I also want to express our appreciation to the chairman of the committe, the hon member for Ermelo, for the patience he showed throughout the discussions on the Bill.

Having said that and although we are going to support the Second Reading of the Bill, I must say we still do so with mixed feelings in regard to some of its provisions. The Bill, in general terms, deals with a number of administrative matters relating to specified universities and other educational institutions charged with higher education for Blacks. In that respect it extends the powers of the councils and those in authority at those institutions. It also purports to extend university autonomy and the hon the Minister referred to this objective in his Second Reading speech more than once. There are two aspects that still cause us concern. One is to be found in clauses 5, 13, 23 and 32 which entitle the council of a university or a technikon to cancel the registration of a student if it considers such action to be in the interests of the university or technikon concerned.

The Bill in its original form when it went to the standing committee contained a clause 2(b) which provided that such cancellation could take place without there being any obligation on the part of a council to give reasons for the cancellation. That provision was, with the consent of the hon the Minister, deleted after debate by the committee. It improves the position because it keeps open the right of a student whose registration is cancelled to, if necessary, go to court for a declaratory order in order to protect his rights. In that sense it is an improvement, but we still find it unfortunate that in legislation dealing with a university this sort of power is given to a council in order to cancel the registration of a student.

The arguments advanced during the discussion in the standing committee in support of this clause were twofold. The first argument was that where a student or students were acting against the interests of proper control of a university institution the council in the past had found itself with no authority to rectify that situation other than having to take the extreme step of closing down the university or institution concerned. The second argument was that, after all, the people who are members of councils of universities are so prestigious that they can be relied upon to exercise their judgment in a matter of this kind in a responsible manner. We in these benches are still uneasy about this provision. We think it could lead to abuse. However, we hope it will not lead to abuse, that the situation will be watched very carefully in the interests of maintaining order at a university and that students should not see themselves as being able to be subject to victimization by a council without due cause in respect of any action taken by a council.

The other aspect which causes us disappointment if not concern, is that which in the main also deals with the extension of university autonomy and is to be found in clause 6 and the related clauses which I believe are 14, 24 and 33. Those deal with the provision that people other than Blacks can be admitted to these specified institutions subject to conditions laid down by the Minister instead of the existing situation where such admission has to be with the permission of the Minister. Clearly the amendment contained in this Bill is an improvement on the old situation which, as I have said, required the Minister to go through the laborious process of issuing permits or permission to individual students other than Blacks to attend these institutions. That is now to disappear and we are assured by the hon the Minister that when there is talk—as is mentioned in this Bill—of conditions laid down by the Minister, these conditions will be general conditions laid down as broad guidelines for the institutions concerned. So we see that as an improvement.

However, we are disappointed that the hon the Minister did not go further and give the university absolute autonomy to decree whom they may admit to their institutions and whom not. We believe that if the councils of a university can be charged with the responsibility to which I have referred, viz that of withdrawing the registration of students registered at that university, then surely the council can be relied upon to exercise the same sound judgment in deciding whom to admit to the university and whom not. So we see the present Bill as a step forward in this regard but we feel it falls short of what we would regard as desirable in the interests of university autonomy.

The other clause with which we still have some problems is clause 31 which makes provision for people who have lost their jobs at universities in self-governing territories and independent states which were formerly part of South Africa to demand, in terms of this new Bill, reappointment from the Minister in another institution of higher learning in South Africa. That seems to be fair enough and we have no argument with it but it relates only to people who are South Africans or who are not citizens of those self-governing territories; in other words it does not make any provision for South African citizens who lost their citizenship as a result of the independence of those territories which were formerly part of the Republic. We think that is unfortunate and wrong and we believe it can place that category of people, former South African citizens who lost their citizenship as a result of independence, in an invidious position.

However, as I have said, despite these reservations we believe that on balance the general effects of this Bill will be an improvement on the existing situation and we shall therefore support the Second Reading.

Mr Chairman, we are grateful for the support given to this Bill by the Official Opposition. I shall return to the objections they still have against regulations in the Bill and give further replies to them in the course of my argument.

The Bill amends the University of Zululand Act, the University of the North Act, the Medical University of Southern Africa Act (Medunsa), the Vista University Act, the Technikons (Education and Training) Act and the Education and Training Act. The Bill expresses the endeavour to grant greater autonomy to all these tertiary educational institutions for Blacks, such as for example in the first place that the councils of service, powers, privileges, duties and functions of the rectors and vice-rectors without the approval of the hon the Minister of Cooperation, Development and Education.

In the second place it is meant to enable the councils to cancel a student’s registration if the council considers this to be in the interests of the university. Here I want to reply at the same time to the objection raised by the Official Opposition through the hon member for Berea. We must keep in mind that in the light of the current conditions, where a small group or a few radical students can disrupt university life totally and deprive hundreds or thousands of students who would like to study of the opportunity to do so, it is absolutely imperative that the council be given the power to terminate the registration of the disturbers of the peace immediately for the sake of peace and quiet.

Previously the council could refuse to enrol a student. Once the student had been enrolled, however, it was a drawn-out and disrupting process to get rid of the radical trouble-maker. The university council had to close the university first and then give students the opportunity to enrol once again. Only then could they refuse to enrol the scapegoat.

Another important amendment of the existing Acts bears reference to the admittance of students other than Blacks to universities of technikons. This Bill makes provision for the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education, after consultation with the council of a particular university or technikon, to determine certain conditions upon which students other than Blacks may be admitted. A degree of restriction has therefore been placed upon the admittance of students other than Blacks by the council of the university concerned. This stipulation in the Bill should not be seen as a restriction of the autonomy of a university or technikon, but rather as a positive effort to protect Black students against unfair crowding out by people of colour who may be lured to the university or technikon by the lower study fees at Black universities, which are possible as a result of greater State subsidies for the very purpose of giving the poorer Black students the opportunity to get a university training.

In connection with the celebrated sacred cow, viz the autonomy of universities, the hon member for Berea spoke about “the absolute autonomy of universities”. There is no such thing as the absolute autonomy of universities. Even so-called independent universities are becoming increasingly dependent upon State funds as a result of constantly expanding activities. As a result of this a State’s right to interfere in the affairs of a university will have to increase. This is a world-wide phenomenon. It is interesting in this connection to note what happened in America. In September 1978 Dalling H Oaks, president of Brigham Young University, said the following amongst other things in a speech before American heads of universities:

He goes on to say:

This as far as the autonomy of even independent universities in a country like America is concerned.

That is why we should not be surprised that the State, especially in respect of certain universities, should have the right and be able to exercise it in applying certain restrictive measures. What is very important, however, is that provision is made in this amending Bill for that restriction upon admittance to Black, Coloured and Indian universities to be applied only when certain conditions set by the Minister have been complied with after consultation with the university council.

After very thorough and penetrating discussion, the standing committee has made certain amendments, and therefore it is with great confidence that I recommend the passing of the Amendment Bill, as tabled at present, by this House.

Mr Chairman, the CP does not see its way clear to supporting this amending Bill, although there are many positive things which we welcome.

As far as the speech of the hon member for Kimberley North is concerned, I merely want to point out that it is striking that a very great change in emphasis has taken place in the arguments of members on the Government side. The point at issue is that the hon member’s motivation for the fact that there is still a degree of restriction upon the admittance of students who are not Black, is different from the standpoint of the Government through the years, viz that it is educationally sound and good to have institutions for each population group which bear the stamp of that population group.

We therefore say we do not support this amending Bill, but we do welcome the positive aspects of the amending Bill, for example the greater autonomy granted to universities. We welcome the fact inter alia that the councils of the universities can decide themselves upon the conditions of service, powers, privileges, duties and functions of the rector and vice-rector. We regard this as a good development. In the second place we welcome the fact that the council of the university can conclude agreements with other universities, as well as the concession that students who have not attained a university or matriculation exemption certificate, can enrole for a course of study or a subject for non-degree purposes. We regard all these as examples of grater autonomy, which can be welcomed.

In addition provision is being made for other praiseworthy measures, viz the establishment of a nursing school at the Ga-Rankuwa Hospital. These are fine developments which are an example of the progress being made on this level.

We object in particular, however, to clauses 6, 14, 24 and 33, which deal with the admittance of students who are not Black to the universities concerned. In the past the Minister decided on the admittance of such students. Now provision is being made for the council to take the decision according to a directive of the Minister which is determined after consultation with the council. The members of the standing committee argued about the question of “after consultation with the council”, and I do not believe it makes a great difference to the whole situation. What is important, however, is that the council now has to decide according to the directives laid down by the Minister, about the admittance of students other than Blacks. The important fact is that the council cannot decide that no other student may be admitted to such a university.

What it comes down to is that provision can no longer be made in future for exclusively Black universities. That is why we cannot support this Bill. That right which a council or a people should have—a Black people too—to establish a university exclusively for its people, may not be forfeited. The CP believes that only the best education should be available to every population group in South Africa, including the Blacks. We believe that this can take place only if educational institutions bear the stamp of certain population groups. This also applies to the tertiary level. A university must bear the stamp of the population group it serves. If the right of a university which serves only the members of a certain population group, is forfeited …

Mr Chairman, what about the lecturers and professors at the so-called Black universities?

That is true, but we regard it as a transitional phase. In the meantime the people are coming forward and are being trained. It is also true that there are certain universities today which were not established for a specific people. It was impossible in the beginning to establish a university for each Black people. The development should take place in that direction, however. It is also true that the states which have become independent, and did not have an own university, viz Bophuthatswana, Venda and Transkei, have instituted their own national universities. This was one of the very first things they did. We feel this is the direction in which things should develop, and in which things should be guided. They should not be guided in the opposite direction, and these universities must not be opened to everyone.

The CP sees this development in the general political spirit the Government is consolidating and establishing in South Africa, viz that facilities be opened and made available to everyone so that a process of integration can be promoted and enforced in South Africa. We see this as part of the process the Government is engaged in, and therefore we cannot support it. We say one will not get really good education according to the pattern being laid down by the Government at present.

I want to read a report that appeared in The Citizen of 20 May 1985.1 quote:

In addition the following appears from the particulars made available there:

In addition this very important statement was made at the conference:

We know that integration in the sphere of education was enforced upon the people in the USA. We also know the integrationists of the USA say today that if one wants to enforce integration upon population groups, one must begin at the top, at the universities, and work downwards. I am afraid the Government of the RSA is following that formula, of starting at the top, at the universities, to enforce integration there, and then to work downwards to the secondary and the primary levels of education.

Despite the integration enforced in the USA, the people who are now holding conferences to improve the position of the Coloured people say those people’s conditions are critical. Integrated education has not improved conditions for those people, and re-segregation between the two population groups to the original state of affairs is now being effected. That is why we in the CP say we do not want to allow the process the Government is engaging in at present, to take place. We do not agree with the idea that integration should be enforced first, only to realize later that one has to segregate again to have a sound community and also sound education for everyone in this country.

Mr Chairman, much of what has been said during this debate has been heard many times before. In reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg I should merely like to say that his objections to this Bill really just reflect the old classical argument about apartheid in tertiary education versus a more relaxed and more acceptable form of education at tertiary level for all people in the country. If desegregation—or rather resegregation—in the USA is in fact again taking place as a natural consequence and without legislation being taken up in the Statute Books, then so be it. If that is the choice of those groups, and it happens on a natural basis, then that is not going to come under the same sort of attack as statutory discrimination. For that reason we on these benches will be supporting this legislation.

I think the hon the Minister’s presence at the standing committee meetings was most valuable. I for one would love to be a fly on the wall when the debates at the various university councils take place on the occasions when, according to clause 6 of the Bill, the hon the Minister will consult with the various councils as to the conditions under which they may admit students other than Blacks. I believe it will be extremely interesting to hear what those councils have to say during such a discussion because they are very balanced in their representation. I should love to hear what their thoughts and feelings are concerning this type of admission. When one realizes that even inverse apartheid or affirmative action have become swearwords in the USA, and that the actual subsidies by this Government in terms of per capita contribution per year by the State and in terms of lower boarding fees and registration fees at these universities, are vastly greater compared with other universities, then I believe the country and in fact the world at large should know the kind of effort this Government has made in respect of improving the opportunities for education as far as the Blacks are concerned in order to make it possible for them to compete in the open, free market. I am quite certain that when those councils sit in consultation with the hon the Minister to decide upon the standards for admission, the question of the State’s contribution and there being any misuse by any other group will to a very great extent be a deciding factor.

Without much more ado, we in these benches will support this legislation. We believe it is a vast step forward in terms of autonomy—a careful one but certainly a very interesting one. Before one takes the next step of total autonomy, it will be very interesting to hear from the hon the Minister exactly what the content of the debates was in the process of deciding upon the conditions for admission.

Mr Chairman, I wish to express my heartiest thanks to hon members supporting this legislation on behalf of their parties. In this respect I am thinking of the hon members for Kimberley North, Berea and King William’s Town. The hon member for Lichtenburg indicated that his party would not be supporting the legislation although its members welcomed specific positive aspects of it. They are not supporting the legislation particularly because they object to the clause in the legislation providing for the admission of students other than Blacks to these universities by the councils themselves.

I should like to state it anew, as contained in this legislation as well, that the point of departure of the Government remains that education, including that at tertiary level, should be directed fundamentally at service to a specific population group. The Government is convinced, however, that a greater degree of flexibility and openness should be permitted at tertiary level. Experience has shown that this can occur in South Africa without having to jeopardize the particular character of such a university and without detriment to the service furnished by that university to a specific population group.

In consequence the Government welcomes the type of development taking place in America, as referred to by the hon member for Lichtenburg, which obviously proves that murder will out and that efforts to carry out forced integration in education simply lead to a setback and reaction. It proves that the community itself insists on having education in a differentiated form according to different groups. Nevertheless no rigid demarcation without any exception takes place in this process at tertiary level in America either.

I should like to state it very clearly that the Government firmly rejects any allegation that the greater flexibility it advocates in the admission of members of other population groups at the level of tertiary education will be enforced at school education level. As regards the level of school education, this side of the House has never left it in any doubt that it is and will remain its standpoint that school education should be dealt with separately for the different population groups by their own education departments.

The hon member for Lichtenburg apparently does not object to the university councils granting the concessions now instead of the Minister but his objection is evidently that there is no longer an exclusive, restrictive composition of the student community of those universities. When the hon member himself administered this matter, however, and when his hon leader before him administered it, he had already sacrificed the principle that these universities would serve only one population group exclusively or even one ethnic group within the population group. They had therefore already, within limits, accepted the possibility of a relaxation as regards the throwing open of those universities. The principle is not being modified now because those hon members were already assisting in implementing it at the time. The only change is that it is now being proposed here that the administrative procedure by which the principle is applied be amended. It is proposed that decisions be taken by the council instead of by the Minister.

Previously the arrangement was for the Minister to issue an individual permit to each student of a different population group. In practice this arrangement did not prove to work well at universities where it applied. Administratively it became impracticable and too complicated. Consequently the council involved is the best body to decide which students are acceptable to the university.

In order to ensure the retention of the community-orientated character of that university and that there be no abuse of specific financial concessions which, for example, as mentioned by the hon member for King William’s Town, are made on behalf of the students of a specific population group by the influx of people from other population groups, it is necessary for the Minister to be empowered, after consultation with the council, to lay down specific directions within which the council will decide on the admission of such students.

In illustration of his standpoint, the hon member for Lichtenburg referred to the case of the national states which established their own universities immediately after their assumption of independence—he referred to them as their own ethnic universities—namely Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana. Not one of those states, however, has exclusive universities intended solely for its citizens or for the predominant population group in each separate state. They also admit people of other population groups and citizens of other countries as students at their universities as is the international custom of the academia throughout the world. Nowhere on earth are universities which isolate themselves and admit only members of a specific population group or the citizens of a specific state as students. It is generally accepted that there should be a degree of mobility—a type of academic circulatory system—at university level, especially where advanced studies are involved.

Furthermore I appreciated the argument put forward by the hon member for Kimberley North to the hon member for Lichtenburg especially when he pointed out that, if an absolute restriction were required in order to permit the members of only one population group with a view to maintaining the character of a university, it certainly came down to a much greater anomaly to admit lecturers from another population group than to admit students from such a group because everyone knows that, in proportion to their numbers, lecturers exert a far greater influence in the teaching situation—on the character of the university as well—as a number of students would be able to exert. Whereas the hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon leader of his party—in the time when they were still responsible for this—never raised a conscientious objection to the admission of lecturers from other population groups to those universities and also never regarded the admission of such lecturers as a threat to the character of the universities involved, it appears to me to be totally illogical suddenly to argue as the hon members of the CP are doing at present.

In addition, Sir, I should like to refer to the three provisos the hon member for Berea raised in his otherwise positive and supportive speech.

†The hon member for Berea referred firstly to the clauses providing for the councils of universities and technikons to terminate the registration of a student should they consider it to be in the interests of the institution concerned. I should like to point out—as indeed I pointed out on the standing committee—that this provision for a university or technikon council to terminate the registration of a student whom it has allowed to enroll, is far less serious and less far-reaching than the powers conferred on the universities falling under the jurisdiction of the Committee of University Principals by virtue of section 11 of the Universities Act. Section 11 of that Act empowers all the universities—with the exception of those universities established for Blacks—to refuse admittance to a student who applies for admission should it be considered to be in the interests of the university concerned to do so.

All those universities who are claiming to be upholders of academic and university freedom and autonomy—for instance the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Cape Town, the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape—were in agreement and even requested the legislature to introduce this particular provision in order to enable them, not to terminate the registration of a student who had been given an opportunity of enrolling, but to refuse a student an opportunity of studying by refusing him admission to that university, which is of course far more drastic a measure. Moreover, I am not asking for that measure to be introduced here. I have merely asked this House, at the request of the universities concerned, for a much more limited right, namely to encourage universities to admit students so that they can study there but also to grant them the authority to refuse a student continued attendance at the university should it be deemed to be in the interests of the university in question to terminate such registration.

Furthermore I should like to point out that it is important that the whole university community of South Africa accepts, that universities should have the power to refuse admission to any student should it be considered in the interests of particular universities to do so. Nobody objects to that. Remarkably, however, the objection is now to a much less drastic provision, namely the provision enabling universities to terminate the registration of a student already—admitted should it be considered to be in the interests of the university concerned.

I should also like to point out that this provision introduced in terms of clauses 5, 13, 23 and 32, is not introduced at the initiative of this department or of the Government but as a result of a direct request on the part of all the universities concerned. What is more, some members of the standing committee apparently doubted the seriousness with which the universities had made this request. The universities were all invited to submit comments on this Bill, and all the universities concerned, without exception, confirmed that they needed this amendment to their laws in order to enable them to terminate the registration of a student when they considered it in the interests of the university concerned. This is therefore a measure that has been introduced on the initiative of the universities, and this desire of the universities was confirmed after the standing committee circulated the Bill for comment.

*It is necessary to emphasize that the universities which requested this measure did so after a few years’ experience of serious disruption on their campuses. They requested it because they had experienced that normal disciplinary procedures according to which they acted in the case of students’ irregular behaviour were inadequate in specific cases to bring guilty students to book. It appeared that even when a student had transgressed openly and then been summoned before the disciplinary committee in cases of violence, destruction of property and intimidation, the intimidation factor or the secret threat factor was such that no students would come forward to testify duly against the student concerned. In consequence of the violence and intimidation the universities ultimately came to a standstill.

What does it mean when a university comes to a standstill? It does not merely mean a holiday for a number of students or personnel. It means that a large state investment, an investment approved by this Parliament, is under-appropriated or unappropriated to a great extent. Huge amounts are involved here, amounts we approved in this House and in Parliament earlier this year for the universities. In total they amounted to R133,8 million. The amount paid per student to these universities in the form of state subsidies to enable them to function ranges from R4 000 to R6 000 a year. A large amount therefore goes to waste if a specific student cannot study properly that year.

Nevertheless it is not only money of the State or the taxpayer which goes to waste but also invaluable time for study and a segment of the particular student’s life. When he loses a year and cannot sit his examinations or when the disruption is such that he cannot attempt his examinations successfully, it means that student has to return and study longer so that the period when he is capable of contributing positively to his profession and earning a decent income is also postponed further. This therefore has an appreciably adverse effect on the student’s opportunities for progress in life.

It also affects the parents, especially those of Black students, who often have to find funds at great personal sacrifice from a relatively less favourable economic or financial position to enable their children to study. The money saved with such difficulty which they forfeit for their children’s study is squandered and goes to waste through this type of interruption which occurs at universities through disorder, undermining of authority and violence.

It is therefore in the public interest, in the interest of students and their parents that this type of interruption of the good order of a university be stopped and, after thorough consideration and after quite a few years’ experience, university councils tell us this could take place only if they were also to obtain the power granted them in the Bill. That is why we believe it responsible of this House to grant universities these powers. I agree with the hon member for Berea that we may accept that the councils will act in a responsible way and that we should hold a watching brief to ascertain that this actually takes place and should ensure that these exceptionally far-reaching powers—because they are far-reaching—are not abused. I am actually convinced they will not be abused.

I also wish to say here that, in granting these powers to councils, the Government will also expect the councils to put those powers to serious use when necessary and not merely condone disorder and riots at their universities because they ostensibly can do nothing about them, but, in fact, use the instruments they have requested in a responsible way in ensuring as the council that the university will continue furnishing its service to the community.

The hon member for Berea also objected to the clauses enabling the Minister, after consultation with the university, to lay down specific conditions under which the university is to deal with the admission of students other than Blacks. I should like to point out that the admission of such students to universities primarily intended for Black communities is a matter of interest not only to those students and that university but also to the State.

While the State and the Government have the greatest respect for academic autonomy, the self-governing right of university councils, they also have to insist that the interest of the State be duly considered in this respect. The State is interested in the admission of students other than Blacks in that it has to guard against abuse of the special financial concession made to these universities in the light of the fact that their students come from communities which are relatively less strong financially and economically compared with other communities.

Consequently a certain degree of protection has to be built in to ensure that this special concession is used in the first place in the interest of the Black students for which it is primarily intended. In the second place, one will have to guard against other students drawn from more privileged communities descending on those universities and actually exploiting preferential financial arrangements of the State, whereas they are not really intended for them.

I wish to point out that, while all universities have been placed on the same subsidy formula from this year, it remains a fact that in the case of Black universities the own contribution to the funding of the university according to the formula will ultimately be only two thirds of the contribution demanded of other universities. At present it is even less than two thirds and in the case of operating expenses over the next six years, and eleven years in the case of capital expenditure, it will be phased in until the own contribution of the university, which it has to find from academic fees for example, is equal to two thirds of that paid in the case of other universities.

In consequence it is clear that, whereas the same financial formula applies to all universities, that formula differentiates between the own contribution of the universities for Black communities and that of other universities to the extent that students at Black universities receive a much higher State subsidy per caput as I have just indicated.

This also results in tuition and boarding fees at universities for Black communities being considerably lower than those of other universities precisely because they receive this more favourable subsidy in accordance with the formula. In the case of tuition fees, they are only between 60% and 66% of those at other universities whereas in the case of boarding fees they are approximately 54% of those at other universities.

That is why it is essential for the State, which provides this exceptional financial concession, also to carry out the responsibility of ensuring that, in the admission of students other than Blacks, the university council will take note that places and opportunities for study meant for Black students are protected and that in selection they also receive preference with a view to the development of Black people at the level of tertiary education.

I therefore think it is clear from this point of view that the State cannot merely leave the admission of students other than Blacks exclusively in the hands of the council but that it also has to reserve the power to the Minister of laying down specific conditions in this regard. I am sure this will be possible by means of consultation and mutual understanding between the Minister and university councils as in the case too between the Minister of National Education and the universities for which he was responsible at the time.

I also wish to refer to the hon member for Berea’s objection that the protection referred to in clause 31 for the members of the personnel of universities falling under the authority of an independent state was limited to non-citizens of that state. An appeal was made that it should also be available to citizens of the independent state concerned. It is the standpoint of the Government and in particular also of my colleague the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that it would be improper of the RSA to intervene by means of its legislation as it were in the relations of an independent state and its citizens in order to protect the citizens of that state against their own state. Consequently it is only correct international etiquette and goodwill for the protection accorded members of personnel in the establishment of the university of an independent state to be limited to people who are not citizens of that state.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the hon member for Kimberley North’s remark when he said with justification that there was no such thing as absolute autonomy as regards universities. He pointed out that throughout the world certain restrictions were placed by the state and through other circumstances on even the most private and independent of universities. I should like to underline this point clearly. I do this while fully reaffirming my respect for the concept of academic or university autonomy. I believe it is in the interest of a sound academia for a university to govern itself autonomously by means of its authoritative body, the council, with the minimum of outside interference. It is a fact, however, that especially since the early seventies the concept of greater accountability of the university to the community and various institutions outside the university has found general acceptance universally. Until the late sixties universities throughout the world were inclined to do what they saw fit in a spirit of self-sufficiency and in a type of “ivory tower” community without giving much account of this to the outside world. Worldwide student insurrection, resistance and protest movements which occurred in the academia during the late sixties gave rise to its being accepted that universities had an accountability, a duty to justify themselves to various institutions outside the university. This duty is not only to the state but frequently also to alumni and to a great extent to the students as well.

Universities cannot merely govern themselves today without taking note of the wishes and requirements of the students. There should be properly structured communication between university authorities and representative student bodies. The university should also acknowledge the donors on whom it depends so heavily for financial aid and who hold out certain expectations of the university from the private sector. The university also has to consider the general climate prevailing in the community. In this way one may contend that over the past five years a most critical climate has arisen in the broad community of America and Europe in particular as regards the financing of universities. The general public began asking what universities were doing with the money made available to them, whether their products were truly relevant to the demands of society and other similar questions. The hon member for Kimberley North is therefore perfectly correct in questioning the term “absolute autonomy” used here. I concede this to him and think that universities today should consider the broad diversity of outside interests to which they owe justification and accountability for their actions. If they exercise their autonomy in that spirit, I think a good balance is struck between internal autonomy for a university on the one hand and accountability and justification to institutions outside the university on the other.

I believe the additions and improvements to this Bill were introduced in that spirit. They increase the autonomy of universities and grant them greater powers of decision internally but they also acknowledge they have a responsibility to institutions outside the university—inter alia also towards the State, their students and the community in general. I hope the House will accept this Bill in that spirit.

Mr Chairman, before the House adjourned last Wednesday night, I explained to the House how the NP in general and the Acting Minister in particular had turned their backs on the medical profession in South Africa in favour of the associated health service professions.

That is not true.

An hon member says it is not true. I merely want to repeat, however, that on the day upon which this Bill was tabled, the NP arranged for these professions to give evidence before the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. [Interjections.]

Secondly this standing committee of Parliament tried to prevent the Medical Association as well as the Medical Council, through the NP, from giving written evidence. [Interjections.] Although they permitted it, they tried to prevent a written memorandum from being submitted. This is true. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, when we voted as to whether the Medical Council or the Medical Association could give evidence orally, the NP voted against it. Let us hear whether or not this is still true. [Interjections.] It is clear from this that the NP turned their backs on these bodies. When I spoke of this Bill, the present hon Acting Minister made an interjection which can be compared with his remark that R20 per month is enough for pensioners to live on or that the health services in Houghton are just as good as those in Onverwacht. He said this Bill has nothing to do with the Medical Association and the Medical Council. It is clear therefore that the NP members have done everything in their power on the instructions of the acting Minister to prevent the Medical Council and the Medical Association from giving evidence.

You are talking nonsense.

I am pleased to hear that. It gives me a chance to prove I am right.

The NP has turned its back on 16 000 doctors, more than 80 000 nurses and all the medical technicians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. We tried to get these groups, the medical practitioners, the chiropracters and the homeopaths together in the standing committee, but what happened? We were not permitted to go any further. We tried to convince the NP that the qualifications of these associated health service professions do not comply with the standard to allow them to take part as the equals of doctors in the treatment of our patients in South Africa.

I should now like to put a few questions to the hon the Minister. Firstly I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the people in these “professions” may call themselves doctors. In all the documents I have received from them, both the chiropracters and the homeopaths call themselves doctors. My first question therefore is: May these people call themselves doctors?

Have you ever…

Sir, the interjection was made by the acting minister of chiropractic. I hope he will speak about that. [Interjections.]

My second question to the hon the Minister is: If, in their profession, they may be called doctor, may they admit any ill person from the street to their consulting rooms, take down his history, examine him and treat him? May they do this in respect of any person who goes to them? In the third place I want to ask the hon the Minister whether they, merely because of their training and experience, have the right to treat this patient. Then, in the fourth place, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he places this training of the chiropracters and homeopaths on a level equal to that of formal medical training. If for example they get a patient from the street and treat him for any illness—if they may do that!—does the hon the Minister accept that their training is equal to that of a medical doctor? [Interjections.] In the fifth place I want to ask him: Where will this training take place? Will it take place in a hospital amongst patients? The hon the Minister is a trained medical doctor himself, and therefore he knows what kind of training we as medical practitioners receive. I want to ask him therefore: Where will this training take place and who will be responsible for this training? The first part of the training is the theoretical training and the second part is the practical training.

In addition, as this Bill makes provision for new registrations of people in this profession who have been trained abroad, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there is any recognized training for homeopaths, naturaopaths and herb doctors.

Where?

Anywhere in the world. Does any place in the world provide recognized training for these people?

You know the answer. Why are you still asking me absurd questions?

According to the hon the Minister there is training for these people, but according to the chairman of the Chiropractic Association of SA—he told us this the other day—there is no recognized training anywhere. It is not as easy a question as the hon the Minister wants to pretend, therefore.

What is the answer? The hon the Minister must just give us the answer.

Yes, just give me the answer. Where in the world is recognized training given to these people? [Interjections.] I then want to ask the hon the Minister how many chiropractors and homeopaths have been appointed to his department. If they have not been appointed to the Department of Health and Welfare’s clinics and hospitals, why not? Or are they only going to be allowed to examine and treat patients in private practice?

In conclusion I want to ask: Why this urgency? Why is this Bill being rushed through this House? A new Minister has been appointed to this portfolio. Is he, as a new Minister, not entitled to expect this Bill to be dealt with thoroughly? After all, it is a Bill which involves many problems. Or are we seeing how this hon Minister, before relinquishing the Health and Welfare portfolio, is trying to enforce his will on this House in his acting capacity? I think it very unfair of this hon Minister to leave a problem of this nature for his successor. I therefore still ask at this late stage for this Bill to be withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to read to the House from the report before us to refresh our memories, seeing we stopped this debate before the weekend. The hon member for Middelburg submitted the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare in connection with this Bill on behalf of the chairman. The report reads:

Because it is such an extremely important piece of legislation …

Read on.

That is the whole report.

There is a second paragraph.

I shall read it:

I am sorry, that sentence was on the following page.

It is this last little sentence which incurs our serious doubts and those of at least one House in the standing committee. I agree with the hon member for Parktown and join him in asking why there is so much haste concerning this matter.

The two most important principles involved here, are firstly that the qualifications of persons who wish to be registered must satisfy the council. The second important principle in this Bill is the question as to whether the persons who have the suggested qualifications should be permitted to register. This is a drastic step. The hon the Minister knows very well what happened in New Zealand and in the United States of America. I want to ask the hon the acting Minister what the advice of the American Medical Association to him was on this topic in 1982 when he himself was the Minister concerned. This legislation is extremely important, as these professions will be affected by this for a very long time to come, because this legislation is going to drive a total wedge between the medical professions and these associated professions. The two groups of professions cannot be placed under a statutory umbrella body such as the Medical Council. That is why, if this legislation is to be proceeded with, we say that problems will be created into the distant future as far as these two professions are concerned. That is why we felt it to be extremely important for the Medical Council and the Medical Association at least to have been given the opportunity to give oral evidence before the standing committee. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Parktown pointed out in great detail how informal oral explanation by chiropractors and homeopaths was heard by members of the standing committee. This created the impression that evidence was given orally at an official meeting. It had an official appearance because members of the standing committee and other interested parties were invited to it. [Interjections.] As pointed out by the hon member for Parktown, some of the people who had come to give guidance at that meeting admitted that there were doubts about the standard of training of people in these professions.

Now we are aggrieved that these people were given the opportunity to give guidance orally to certain members of the standing committee—we admit everyone was not there—whereas that opportunity was not granted to members of the Medical Council and the Medical Association of South Africa. A homeopath who applied to appear before the standing committee was refused permission to do so. There were two applications from the Medical Association. Two telexes were sent—they regarded it in this serious a light—in which they urgently asked to give evidence before the standing committee. I quote as follows from one of the telexes:

What is its date?

It is not dated, but another one with 8 May as its date, reads as follows:

It is addressed to the chairman of that standing committee, Mr Hollander. [Interjections.] Our standpoint was that members of that standing committee were deprived of the opportunity to acquaint themselves fully with the implications of this matter. That is why it was imperative for a meeting of this kind to take place.

I want to point out to hon members that the Medical Council is a statutory body which inter alia has to co-ordinate the rendering of medical service and has to regulate medical training and qualifications in medical training. The objective when instituting the Medical Council was therefore to establish an overall regulatory process which deals with all aspects of health. That is why it is extremely important that at least the representations or the opinion of that body, which does not consist only of doctors—indeed, as the hon the Minister knows, the doctors elected to it are in the minority because only 10 of the 33 members are elected doctors…

How many doctors are there? Only 10 are elected, but how many are appointed?

It does not matter. The fact is that it is the statutory body which should exert control over all medical services. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is welcome to look at that book of his; I have a copy here too. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member referred to the fact that an interview was probably arranged by the NP with chiropractors to give informal information here. May I ask the hon member whether or not he arranged a similar interview with Prof Guy de Klerk when he was the chairman of the NP’s health study group.

Yes, in 1982 I arranged a meeting of this kind, and this hon Minister denied in this House that the hon member, as its secretary, was aware that the hon the Minister had been invited to that meeting as well. Will the hon member deny it? [Interjections.] Is the hon member saying yes or no?

He is yawning. [Interjections.]

That hon member was the secretary and he knows that the hon the Minister was invited to that meeting, but the hon the Minister denied categorically that he had received an invitation. The hon member should rather not speak about it.

In terms of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, No 56 of 1974, the SA Medical and Dental Council is a statutory body with the following objects:

Now this council wants to give oral advice to an extension of this council, but is refused permission to do so. What are the general powers of the council; I do not want to list all of them, but there are three which are very relevant here. The council can:

Now I want to ask the hon the Minister where the training schools that are to be approved for these professions are.

This is a supplementary health service profession, Sir. Why is attention not given to the opinion of the Medical Council in this connection. [Interjections.]

This is legislation which will have far-reaching effects in the rendering of health service in South Africa, and we are not satisfied that the standing select committee has acquainted itself fully with all the aspects under discussion here. For that reason we cannot support this report.

Mr Chairman, I will try to keep to the motion which is before the House and not discuss the Bill itself which the efficient spokesmen of the Medical Association of South Africa have been discussing.

The motion before the House is a report informing the House that the standing committee was unable to reach consensus. What are the facts of the matter? The facts are that it became clear that there was no desire or intention to reach consensus except on one basis. The hon member for Parktown made this absolutely clear when I asked him in this debate whether memoranda were submitted by the two bodies, the Medical Association of South Africa and the Medical Council and furthermore, whether they were not a direct rejection of chiropractic and homeopathic treatment—a flat, total rejection under all circumstances and without reservation? The hon member for Parktown confirmed this. He nods his head again now. In other words, there was in principle a total rejection even of consideration of the recognition of the right of people to practice chiropractic or homeopathy before the standing committee. That was what the committee reported.

The spokesmen for the Medical Association of South Africa are now saying …

They do not represent Masa.

Well, the two speakers who spoke here both took—let me put it this way—the line of argument of Masa verbatim. They now come to the House and object to the motion before the House, because they say, and I quote the hon member for Pietersburg’s words: “Ons probeer dat die dokters en die chiropraktisyns bymekaar kom.” However, when we put this matter in the standing committee and when I put it to the hon member for Pietersburg in this debate, he said that there was no way in which they could consider approval of those two practices. People who wanted to practice chiropractic and homeopathy should first take a full medical course and qualify as doctors and then spend an additional two years in order to specialize as chiropractors or homeopaths. Unless they first did that, there was no way in which any consideration would be given to their recognition.

Therefore, the standing committee reached a deadlock. When a standing committee reaches a deadlock, there is only one way of resolving it and that is to come to Parliament and report that an agreement could not be reached in the standing committee and that Parliament, the highest authority, has therefore to decide. That was the recommendation.

There was objection to all sorts of detail in the Bill which I am not going to deal with at this stage. When this motion is accepted, the Bill will come before the House and then we can discuss the curriculum; We can then discuss whether they diagnose and we can then discuss all the arguments we have heard on the question whether we should discuss it at all or not.

Now there is an objection to Parliament discussing the Bill, but the whole basis of the objection is that the standing committee refused to hear oral evidence. This was after the standing committee had been told clearly and unequivocally that the standpoint of the Medical Association and the Medical Council was that they were unshakeably committed and there was no way they would change it or even consider accepting anything less than that the practitioners would first have to qualify as doctors. What does one discuss then? On what does one find consensus? In other words, it is consensus “provided that you accept what we say”. In this case “we” are the Medical Council and the Medical Association.

When this matter came before the Medical Council and it was suggested that they should take control of chiropractic and homeopathy they rejected it. They said that they were not going to have anything to do with those two practices. They themselves rejected responsibility. However, now that that responsibility has been given to another board because the Medical Council rejected it and another board has been created, now they want to take responsibility and exercise authority. When they were asked to take that authority and responsibility, they said they would not have anything to do with it, that it was quackery and that they rejected it.

Now that the matter is regulated and we are discussing curriculae and the registration of further members, they suddenly want the Medical Association and the Medical Council to take charge. One cannot have it both ways. If one rejects responsibility totally and says that one does not want to have anything to do with it, one has to accept it when a new body is created.

I have never been to a chiropractor or a homeopath for treatment, but I believe that there are large numbers of people who use their services and are satisfied with them. I do not believe it is the right of this Parliament to support a closed shop which denies the right of those people to go to them for assistance and in fact receive help from them. We have heard, and we will hear in the debate—I do not want to discuss the Bill now—that some doctors send their patients to chiropractors for treatment. In other words, the doctors recognize that there are conditions for which the chiropractors can give relief better than anybody else.

We did not have this problem when nursing was recognized. Nurses are not doctors, they do not take six years to qualify and they cannot diagnose, but they are recognized as providing a health service. They play a restricted part in providing a health service on the basis of the training they receive. Radiographers do the same: They provide a partial health service within their training limits. However, when it comes to chiropractors and homeopaths, they must qualify fully as doctors and we have to deny to those who use their services the right to do so.

The issue before us now is whether Parliament should consider this Bill. We believe that Parliament should consider this Bill, because if it does not, then it is destroying two professions which Parliament itself acknowledged, registered, gave a council to and told to put their house in order. They have done that; they have put their house in order. Now they ask that training courses should be started which will be recognized …

By whom?

By the council; the council which controls those two practices … courses which will be recognized so that chiropractors and homeopaths can be registered in future.

If we refuse to discuss this Bill and send it back to the standing committee we shall be arguing for the next 20 years. For more than a hundred years there has been a fight between doctors and chiropractors, and it will go on for another hundred years. Why should we argue about referring this Bill back to a standing committee when we know that no consensus can be reached? Let us bring it here to this House; let us debate it and let us take a decision as is our responsibility as the legislators in Parliament. Let us then consider the arguments which are advanced against this Bill on merit and not on the grounds of whether there was an unfair decision in regard to the hearing of evidence.

I support the recommendation of the committee that this matter should come before Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I wish for the information of the House to state that the attitude of this party to this Bill and to the report is one of a free vote. Members of our party are at liberty to follow their conscience in whatever they do. Hon members and the public outside should know this.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. He was criticized recently for being the dividing element in that party and he has once again been the generally dividing element today because he has now informed us that that party will have a free vote. That means that the spokesman of that party does not even have the support of his party for the accusations which he levelled at me today. [Interjections.] However, I shall leave him and the hon the Chief Whip at that.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Chief Whip is very vociferous at the moment. Did the hon member not say that they were having a free vote? [Interjections.]

Attend to your post boxes.

Never mind, I shall yet force that hon member into a tin, let alone a post box. [Interjections.]

I should like to start with the hon member for Parktown. This legislation should not be exploited for cheap political gain by saying that I as Acting Minister and the NP have now turned our backs on the doctors. There are more sensible doctors outside this House than in it—I might as well say it today—and I include myself in that.

You are the last person to speak on behalf of the doctors.

There are also more sensible doctors than the hon member for Parktown. They will not believe his nonsensical statement that we are taking these steps now because we are turning our backs on the doctors. In any case that hon member does not speak on behalf of all the doctors; in fact, he does not even speak on behalf of his party. How then can he stand up here and say that he is speaking on behalf of the whole of the Medical Council? The hon member spoke after the hon member for Durban Central and said that he did not agree with everything that he had said.

When?

He said that in the first part of his speech.

Oh, really, you do not know what you are talking about.

The hon member did say that. I want to approach this matter objectively and I want to tell the hon member for Durban Point that he gave both members who spoke this afternoon a lesson on how a standing committee works. The discussion in a standing committee is not like a Second Reading debate. The hon member for Parktown put a number of questions to me notwithstanding the fact that he was present at the meetings of the standing committee. He did not ask one of those questions in the standing committee. He did not ask that the Minister be present so that he could take him to task before the members of the standing committee. He stands up here in this House and puts a number of questions to me such as, for example, whether chiropractors can be called doctors. The designation “doctor” which I and my colleague and the hon member on the other side use—although he is also a qualified specialist—is merely a convention. We have Bachelor degrees, not doctorates. The designation “doctor” is merely a convention; so much so that a surgeon does not want to be classified as a doctor and consequently calls himself “Mister”. That is how strange the situation is in the medical profession. Afterall, there is no sole right to the designation “doctor”, even though the hon member now seeks to imply that I am a doctor. I am a doctor by convention because I am in possession of a Bachelor degree in internal medicine and surgery. Does the hon member want to argue the point?

No.

Then why does the hon member argue so strongly against other people also being classified as doctors? Why should they not be regarded as being doctors? There is no sole right to the designation. [Interjections.]

I should like to return to the standing committee’s report. A system is being implemented here…

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

No, I do not want to answer any questions by the hon member now. If he was able to make a meaningful contribution to the debate, I would answer the question. However, he is unable to do so.

I just want to say that the standing committee which has been appointed, has to take certain factors regarding a Bill and a particular Bill itself into consideration. However, this afternoon the hon member for Parktown said something which was quite untrue. He stood up here and said that no memoranda had been submitted to the members.

No.

Yes, oh yes, he said that no written memoranda had been submitted to the members. We can check his Hansard.

He did not say that.

He spoke so disjointedly that I may be wrong, but I shall look up his Hansard for the Second Reading debate. Then we can debate it. I shall obtain the Hansard this afternoon. The hon member said “no written.” I asked him: “Written?” He then repeated it. Here is the documentation which was submitted to the members. This is the complete … [Interjections.] Then the hon member has it. The hon member has the full view, as the hon member for Durban Point in fact pointed out, of the SA Medical Association. Their’s was a very long story. The resolution adopted by the SA Medical and Dental Council was also submitted.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to answer a question?

No, I am not going to answer a question now. The hon member can say what he wants to say during the Second Reading debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Was it a long story?

Of course it was a long story! It is a long, written document. The hon member must not now infer that I am saying that it is not true. This is the document which they submitted …

It is not the documentation.

Oh well, the hon member can carry on talking …

Order! The hon member for Parktown has had an opportunity to speak. The hon the Minister may proceed.

You can leave him be, Sir. He is really of no use during a speech such as this because he believes that he is the only one who is right. Then he tries to drag the hon member for Pietersburg along with him. According to him no one else is right. He thinks that because he is medically qualified he has the franchise to all knowledge so far as the treatment of the sick in this country is concerned. He labours under an illusion of superiority because he is one of the best heart surgeons in the country. However, that does not make him a useful member of this House. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to some other things he said which are also totally untrue. One cannot tell untruths in this House and get away with it. He said that the Acting Minister had issued instructions to prevent MASA being given a hearing. That is totally untrue! In actual fact it is so untrue that it borders on a lie. It is almost a lie. It is not true that I had anything to do with the standing committee. They put their own case there. Memoranda were submitted to them, and if they did not want to allow the hon member to persuade them in favour of the SA Medical Association and the SA Medical and Dental Council, that is their own affair.

I want to tell the hon members for Durban Point, Parktown and Pietersburg that although we have not succeeded in reaching consensus here, it has been reached in the other two Houses. The debate on this report has already been completed there. Are hon members aware of that?

Yes, it was completed beforehand …

The Bill was approved as it stands. Do hon members know how it was approved? This report of the standing committee was presented to the House of Delegates and they approved it by majority vote. Only two hon members recorded their dissenting vote. The majority of the hon members first of all voted that the report be rejected and then voted to have the Second Reading. I then made my Second Reading speech and after a number of other speeches the Bill was read a second time and approved. Once again only two hon members recorded their dissenting vote. In actual fact I am certain of only one hon member who asked that it be recorded. I am not sure whether the other hon member did in fact ask that his dissenting vote be recorded. Both parties—the Solidarity Party, that is the Official Opposition Party, as well as the NPP—supported the Bill. That House disposed of the matter. I want to point this out to the hon member for Pietersburg because it appeared to me almost though as he was trying to hide behind the attitude of the Indian members.

No.

Yes, the hon member said that the standing committee’s report was presented in spite of their attitude. That is a requirement. It must be presented here whether consensus has been reached or not. Then this House decides. However, one does not make a Second Reading speech when the approval of the standing committee’s report is being discussed. I was not there—I was not invited. He kept on saying that there had been efforts to prevent the submission of written representations. Parliamentary procedure provides that when a Bill has been approved, the department in question must send it to the Secretary to Parliament. Mr Speaker then places it on the Order Paper. Thereafter it is submitted to the standing committee for comment. The standing committee then meets—and the hon member was present. The hon member also inferred that I knew of the chiropractors who had met for information purposes. I was not aware of that at all and I also did not organize it. However, the hon member know of it, because he attended it. The hon member also put a few questions there. I learnt later than the hon member had been there. Then he left the meeting. However, he attended it initially because he also wanted some more information on chiropractors.

The hon member put a number of questions to me. All I can say to him is that he must put these questions again during the Second Reading debate. He should have asked them on the standing committee because then he would have received his answers there. In this debate we have to decide whether we are going to accept the standing committee’s resolution. Therefore these questions have nothing to do with the matter. This is something he can raise again during the Second Reading debate, however, one question which I do want to answer is where they are being trained throughout the world. The Department of National Education in America recognizes them. They have their training programmes and their curriculum. I made enquiries in America.

That is not what I asked.

Then it appears to me that the hon member does not understand. We shall have to consult Hansard to see what the hon member’s question was. The hon member must go and read his own Hansard—then he will remember what he said. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg also simply repeated the view of the Medical Association and the Medical Council. However, I must say something to these two members today. The hon member for Durban Point referred to it. During my term of office as Minister I approached the Medical Council on this matter. A moment ago the hon member admitted here that it was a supplementary medical profession. He admitted that.

Yes.

That hon member says that he rejects it completely. Therefore the two hon members cannot even agree on that. I agree with the hon member for Pietersburg that it is a supplementary medical service in the sense that it is a profession for which the public have a need. The HSRC proved this in a very voluminous report—the hon member has probably read it.

The public also want faith healers.

I beg your pardon?

The public also want faith healers.

No, I cannot hear what the hon member is saying, but the HSRC published a report after doing a survey on the question of whether this profession had any value and whether people should go to those who practised this profession. They also mentioned the percentage of people who went to chiropractors, how many went to them before consulting a medical doctor and how many went after consulting a medical doctor. They also reported on how many people benefited from it and how many did not. The importance of the report lies in the fact that that type of profession is in fact necessary. In addition I referred the matter to the Medical Council in my original decision and asked them to take these people under their wing as a supplementary profession, just like the nurses and others. What happened, however? The Medical Council itself was not sure of the matter. They decided against it by 17 votes to 16.

However, I now want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that there are 29 members on the Medical Council. Does the hon member know that 24 of them are either doctors or dentists? Twenty-four of them are medical men—not ten as the hon member said a moment ago.

Ten were elected.

Only ten were elected, but others were appointed. The Medical Council must after all take care of matters for which the Act makes provision.

I want to say something else to the hon member. This Parliament made the Associated Health Service Professions Board a statutory body which is not subservient to the Medical Council. To my mind there is no distinction to be drawn between the Medical Council and the chiropractors. I as Minister have a duty to two councils and, as far as this matter is concerned, the Medical Council is not at issue. What is in fact at issue is the Associated Health Service Professions Board made a certain request. Legislation was drawn up and referred to the Medical Council and the Medical Association. Comments by these two bodies were submitted to the standing committee. The standing committee passed certain resolutions, namely that they were of the opinion that this legislation should be discussed in a Second Reading debate. Surely the hon member did not expect me to stand up here and say that I was going to withdraw the legislation because there were two members in this House who, when they discovered that they were in the minority, felt that they wanted to continue the fight. However, those hon members have the right to do so, but my appeal to the House this afternoon is to accept this report of the standing committee the members of which are all colleagues in this House. Hon members must not try to belittle them as if they do not know what is going on, or contend that they simply wanted to push through legislation or that they are the lackeys of the chiropractors. They can then also accuse hon members of being the lackeys of the medical profession.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is what they can accuse the hon member of. [Interjections.] No, the hon member need not feel heavy-hearted like Genis. The hon member must accept it because we are busy with a debate.

The hon member for Durban Point delivered a very good speech. I think he made it very clear that this House is the highest body. We instituted the SA Associated Health Service Professions Board and made them comply with certain conditions. We will consider this legislation in the same way as we consider other legislation.

Mr Speaker, seeing that the hon the Minister has just referred to the hon member for Durban Point and praised his speech, does he agree with the hon member for Durban Point that the medical profession is involved in creating a closed shop situation in South Africa? [Interjections.]

I do not want to comment on that because the medical profession cannot create a closed shop situation no matter what they do. However, the hon member also said that if they want to keep other people out—that is how I understood him—then they are creating a closed shop situation. In any case, the medical profession cannot create a closed shop situation because there are pharmacists, nurses, physiotherapists and many other people all of whom practise their own professions.