Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

, as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Forest Amendment Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a special privilege to me to move the Second Reading of this University of Stellenbosch Amendment Bill, the most beautiful and best university in the Republic of South Africa! [Interjections.] On account of the vociferous commentary from my Transvaal colleagues, I just want to say that they have every reason to remember the name of this university. It is in fact the university which has 13 members, including official reserves, in the Western Province rugby team which, about two weeks ago, defeated the team of one of the northern provinces virtually single-handed. [Interjections.]

Order!

I just want to tell my hon. Transvaal colleagues that the Transvaal Rugby Union had better not send a team to play the Ikeys, for if they did so they would fare even worse. [Interjections.]

This amending Bill has become essential to provide for the circumstances caused by the large-scale expansion the University of Stellenbosch has undergone over the last few years, and in particular as a result of the increasing expansion to be undertaken shortly. Apart from the fact that the university is situated at Stellenbosch, it has for quite some time also conducted university activities in the municipal areas of Bellville and Parow, in the magisterial districts of Vredenburg and Hopefield, and has also conducted university activities at the Cape College for Advanced Technical Education since 1977. The latter college is situated in the municipal area of Cape Town. Since 1978 the University of Stellenbosch also conducts university activities at the training colleges of Paarl, Wellington and Oudtshoorn, in terms of the Advanced Technical Education Act—Act No. 40 of 1967—and the Financial Relations Act—Act No. 38 of 1945.

The first important objective of the Bill is the amendment of section 3 of the principal Act in order to provide for the conduct of university activities in the municipal area of Durbanville, where the satellite campus of the University of Stellenbosch is now to be located on a site of 220,8 ha and where, according to present planning, the first academic activities will commence in 1981. The development of this satellite campus will be carried out in phases, and in the planning, provision will be made space-wise for all foreseeable phases up to the possible eventual development of a fully fledged university of approximately 10 000 to 12 000 students, of whom about 40% will ultimately be accommodated on the campus.

During 1975 and 1976 the university, by means of a very interesting questionnaire survey among prospective first-year students who live in the northern suburbs, had them answer the question whether they would prefer to attend the university at Stellenbosch or the university campus of Durbanville after the ultimate completion of the accommodation, academic and sporting facilities at Durbanville. The interesting result was that 65% of the prospective first-year students resident in the northern suburbs indicated that they would prefer the campus at Durbanville, mainly because of its greater accessibility, their proximity to their homes, and particularly because of the financial savings it would entail. The northern suburbs, including Durbanville, Kraaifontein, Brackenfell and Kuilsriver are among the most rapid growing residential complexes in the Republic of South Africa and numerous potential students who would otherwise have been lost to tertiary education, are now being afforded a golden opportunity to study at the satellite campus during the day and particularly after hours.

In this way the University of Stellenbosch is fulfilling a national task. In this way an enormous contribution will at the same time be made to the cultural and social life, not only of the northern suburbs, but of the whole of South Africa. Initially the university will establish five faculties at the satellite campus at Durbanville, viz. arts, commerce and administration, natural sciences, education and law, which will involve approximately 40 faculty departments including the extra-mural section and the post-graduate management school which will be moved from Bellville to Durbanville. As the need arises, the courses of study will be expanded, while degrees and diplomas will of course be conferred at all times by the University of Stellenbosch. It may also be noted that the proposed new section 3 of the principal Act provides for the appointment, under certain circumstances of satellite hospitals and satellite hospital departments for the purposes of medical training under the medical faculty of the university.

The second important purpose of the Bill is to render the management and administration of the university more efficient and streamlined. Apart from the satellite campus which is being established, the number of students has tripled in less than 20 years to the present total of almost 11 000 intramural and extramural students and the annual expenditure of the university has increased over the past ten years from less than R4 million to more than R25 million. Consequently the proposed amendment to section 4 of the principal Act provides for the statutory recognition of the recently instituted post of vice rector in the constitution of the university and the same applies in the case of non-teaching members of staff, viz. administrative, research and technical staff. In this way the university will also be able to appoint more vice-rectors when necessary, while the amendments to section 8(1) of the principal Act provide a seat on the university council for the vice-rector or vice-rectors. A variety of activities which fall directly under the council, are placed under the jurisdiction of the vice-rector, who will also, in the absence of the rector, act in his stead. Furthermore, the amendment of section 10 of the principal Act provides for the inclusion of the vice-rector as a member of the convocation of the university, since it could happen that a vice-rector might not qualify in accordance with one of the existing sections or subsections of the principal Act to act as a member of the convocation, and it would indeed be unimaginable for the vice-rector or vice-rectors of the university not to be members of the convocation.

The amendment of section 8(8)(a) and (b) of the principal Act has a dual aim, firstly to provide for the appointment, from their own ranks, of an executive committee for the council with specific functions, by which the procedures and decisions according to which council activities are conducted, are given effect to. Disposing of urgent matters and the advising of the council on matters of policy are functions which for years have been handled by the vice-chancellor’s committee and this is now being afforded statutory recognition. The second aim is to provide for the appointment of committees of the council, which could consist of council members with or without non-council members to investigate specific matters and make recommendations to the council which, in turn, can delegate powers to officials or committees consisting of council members with executive powers. The executive committee of the senate is now also afforded statutory status, and in terms of the insertion of the new section 9(7)(a) and (b) the senate is afforded basically the same powers within senate jurisdiction as in the case of the council just referred to. Therefore the senate, just like the council, can now delegate some of its functions and powers to an executive committee and other committees appointed by the senate and consisting of its own members with executive powers. Although the senate is bigger and, through its members, represents all the academic disciplines, it is also in the interests of the most effective execution of its functions that outside members should be involved in its committees, for example from the staff of the research institutes, the library and even the administration, to whom matters for inquiry and recommendation can be referred. The amendment of section 9(3) of the principal Act implies that the senate, subject to the financial control of the council, exercises full and final control over all the academic and research activities of the university.

Finally, the amending Bill provides for some smaller and obvious amendments, and section 12(2) of the principal Act is deleted because the procedure it prescribes has become unnecessary and the Minister no longer requires the names of appointed lecturers and professors to be submitted to him.

Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Durbanville. This, of course, also applies to his remark on the quality of the University of Stellenbosch. As the hon. member has said, this measure has become necessary as a result of the expansion of the activities of the university, as well as of the need in the northern areas of the Cape area for campus closer to the homes of those who want to study from there than the campuses at Stellenbosch and Bellville. The only question I should like to put to the hon. member is whether the extension of the campus of the University of Stellenbosch to Durbanville has already been approved or recommended by the Advisory Council on Universities. According to my information it has not yet been approved there, but it might well have happened in the meantime. The recommendation of that advisory council should reach the Minister before he can give his final approval to the extension. According to the rector of the University of Stellenbosch academic training there will begin in 1981, as the hon. member has also pointed out. It is hoped that opportunities will then be created for 910 students in the first year. This is a considerable extension of the functions and the number of students of the University of Stellenbosch, and therefore it can be understood why most of the amendments embodied in this Bill have become necessary. Here I think, for instance, of the appointment of a vice-rector or vice-rectors and the establishment of a type of management committee for the council as well as for the senate. When the council or the senate is not sitting, that body can dispose of urgent matters. Preparatory work with regard to policy and other matters can be dealt with by this body as well when such matters are before the council or the senate. Therefore it is a pleasure and an honour for me to give this Bill my sincere support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durbanville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North agree that the University of Stellenbosch is the best university.

Definitely.

The hon. member says “definitely”. I want to tell the hon. member that it is perhaps prophetic that we deal with the amendment of the University of Stellenbosch before we come to the main amendment, i.e. the next Order of the Day, in connection with the University of Potchefstroom. [Interjections.] I shall leave the matter at that. The Commission of Inquiry into Universities, known to everyone as the Van Wyk de Vries Commission, recommended with regard to the future development of the universities that there should be constant revision of the internal administration of universities in order to bring about the highest degree of effectiveness. In this regard reference was made to the management and administrative control. A considerable portion of this legislation does, in fact, deal with better administrative control. Provision is also being made for this. Apparentzy the university is, therefore, only implementing these proposals. The changes will not harm the existing rights of students and other people. As such the New Republic Party supports the legislation, because it is our premise that universities should have the autonomy to be able to decide fully on their own internal administration.

Another important point deals with the acceptance and implementation of another recommendation of the Van Wyk De Vries Commission. This commission found that the existing universities would be able, during the next three or four decades, to meet the demands of South Africa by simply being expanded, and that it is therefore not necessary for entirely new universities to be established. For this reason it is a good thing that the university has decided to expand.

The university, too, has our support for this, because we believe it is wise to expand on the multi-campus basis or the multi-college basis. It is as a result of that that this legislation is before us and that special reference is made to the Durbanville district. It is basically a good principle which is being implemented here. We have already, on previous occasions, given this our support. It is, therefore, a great privilege to me to support the Second Reading of this legislation on behalf of the New Republic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to thank the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Durban Central sincerely for their support of this amendment Bill. To the hon. member for Johannesburg North I merely want to say that the establishment of this satellite campus has already gained such momentum that it is already clear at this stage that it will not start with 910 students at the beginning of 1981, but with 1 500 students.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North is quite correct. The final approval to which he referred has not yet been given. The approval is being obtained at the moment and it is expected to be finalized soon. With reference to that I can only say that good progress has already been made with the planning of that campus, and when approval is obtained, it will presumably be possible to proceed at once with the development. Obviously it depends on the making available of the necessary finances.

I am grateful to hear that the alma mater of the hon. member for Durban Central is achieving good academic results. The only difference between the two is that the University of Stellenbosch is achieving great results in sport and especially in rugby. [Interjections.]

Finally, I only want to say that it is very clear to me that the idea of a satellite campus is the beginning of a new era and that it will open up new prospects for a great number of students who could otherwise not have afforded to study away from their homes. On the other hand it creates a vast number of new opportunities for working people to qualify themselves further after hours, and for this reason it is being envisaged to offer a large number of lectures in the evenings.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before I motivate the amendments, I should just like to place on record that the only reason I am introducing this legislation is that the MP for Potchefstroom, the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior, is not considered an ordinary member of the House in terms of the rules of the House and cannot therefore introduce a measure such as this one in the House. Permit me to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have just had the curtain-raiser and that we are now coming to the main match. [Interjections.] I do not begrudge my colleague, the hon. member for Durbanville, all the rugby that the Maties can play. However, I just want to draw his attention to the fact that it was the Free State and Northern Transvaal who played in the final Currie Cup match last year. Potchefstroom also beat the Free State in last year’s intervarsity. The hon. member must just take note of that.

On the occasion of his inaugural address as fifth rector of the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys, on 10 February 1978, Prof. Tjaart van der Walt described the university as follows: “Onvoor-waardelik Christelik, onbeskaand Afrikaans; ’n akademiese diensgemeenskap met durf vir die toekoms.” The nobility of our university is expressed in its name: “vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys”. This is our own unique character, our right to exist, our vocation and our joie de vivre.

The spirit and character of our university has never been that of a colourless neutrality, a clinical, impersonal objectivity. It was for this that our forefathers struggled for decades against the conscience clauses in the laws of the country that wanted to neutralize universities in particular. Instead of this obligatory neutralization, section 31(1) of the private Act on our university provides as follows—

I think it is essential for us to draw attention once again to this characteristic nature of the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys.

In order to indicate how tremendously the university had grown—it is as a result of this very growth that this amending Bill is before the House—I should like to quote the following statistics. Ten years ago there were than double the number enrolled in 1957, i.e. 1 374. In 1977, this figure more than doubled once again to 6 560. Over the past 20 years, the number of students at the university was therefore increased nearly fivefold. What is very interesting, and definitely noticeable, is that 23% of the enrolled students are postgraduate students. The university has issued, on average, 1 100 degrees and diplomas annually over the past decade. In 1976, 1 407 students completed their studies, and in 1977, altogether 1 630. Nearly half the students, i.e. 1 243 of them, 1 910 of whom are women, live in the university’s residences. There are nine women’s residences and eight men’s residences. The White staff of the university numbers 1 177. 506 of them are lecturing staff, 121 are administrative staff, 63 are library staff, 53 are residence staff while the rest are technical, maintenance and departmental clerical staff. Together with the principal there are 100 professors on the establishment of the university, while 108 members of the staff enjoy the rank of senior lecturer and 156 the rank of lecturer. The university has a very favourable student/ lecturer ratio, viz. 13 to 1. The home language of the majority of the students at the university is Afrikaans; only about 200 are English-speaking, 37 have German as their home language and 25 speak other languages at home. Contrary to what is generally accepted, students belonging to the Reformed Church are in the minority. The largest number of students, viz. 75%, are members of the DR Church while those who belong to the Reformed Church, comprise scarcely 20% of the total. Mr. Speaker, I think there are hon. members in this House who would like to improve on this figure. The university has fixed assets to the value of nearly R35 million, while an amount of R27 million has been spent on capital assets over the past 10 years. The running expenditure of the university has increased from R1,6 million in 1967 to R11,3 million in 1976.

There are six faculties of the university, with 80 departments and 27 institutes. Student enrolments for the faculties are as follows—

It seems as if the PU vir CHO has the largest law faculty in the country at the moment.

In contrast to the University of Stellenbosch, the PU vir CHO already has a branch, viz. the Vaal River branch. In 1966, at the request of the community, lectures were commenced in the Vaal Triangle, chiefly in the economic sciences. In 1976 a building was purchased at Vanderbijlpark and transformed into a lecture venue which could accommodate 2 300 students. Since 1977, lectures have been presented on a fulltime basis. Fifty-five first-year students registered in the first year, and together with the extramural students, the number of students amounted to 570 in 1977. This year 80 first-year students have enrolled. There was also a breakthrough in the presentation of part-time training in chemical and electro-technical engineering. Twenty-six students have registered for this course. There is therefore a total of 106 new students. If the extramural students are included, there are altogether 625 students at the Vaal River branch. Twelve lecturing members of staff have been transferred to the branch as well as a liaison officer, an administrative officer and a librarian. The following courses are offered: B.Com., B.A., B.Sc., as well as the honours degree in industrial administration and industrial accounting. Approximately 135 students have received either the B.Com. or B.A. degrees at the Vaal River branch. With a view to future expansion, 88 ha of land has been purchased along the Vaal River.

The requirements of the PU vir CHO for developing its service to the community to its full potential, are often overlooked. However, we have not donned sackcloth and ashes, but instead have tried to expand our services and to ensure that the existing facilities are utilized to their optimum capacity. I should like to mention a few examples. We have been denied a faculty of agriculture for some years, but in the meantime we have developed our service by establishing allied departments as well as institutes, for instance for soil science, co-operatives and botanical research. So far, we have not been allotted a full-fledged engineering faculty. In any event, we adopted the premise that we should actively expand our services and made provision for such a requirement in the Vaal Triangle in order to create opportunities for in-service training of engineers. In the third place, we have not yet been allotted a medical faculty. In the light of the exodus of so many medical practitioners from the country, the temptation is very great today to ask the Government to give us a medical faculty at the Potchefstroomse Universiteit so that medical practitioners can be provided who will not leave South Africa.

If we look at the Bill before us, we find that clauses 1 and 2 provide for the appointment of one or more vice-principal. This has become necessary for the administration of the university. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for the amending of the composition of the council and the senate of the university as well as the university itself. It follows that if a principal or one or more vice-principals are appointed, it affects the composition of the council and the senate of the university.

Clause 5 provides for the amendment to the composition of the convocation, chiefly to provide for representation for certain officials of the university on the convocation as well. Clause 6 of the legislation provides for the appointment of one or more registrars or one or more deputy registrars, as well as for the appointment of one or more assistant registrars. These measures are of a purely administrative nature. Clauses 7 and 8 are consequential amendments and deal with the preamble of the original Act as well as providing for other matters.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much to add to what the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke said about the Potchefstroomse Universiteit, except of course that there can be no comparison between that university and the University of Stellenbosch. The administrative amendments which are being made here, encompass the appointment of vice principals, as is the case with the University of Stellenbosch, as well as the appointment of deputy registrars and assistant registrars where necessary.

The Potchefstroomse Universiteit plays a very important role in the public and academic life in South Africa in more than one respect and it is therefore an honour for me to support the Second Reading of the legislation on behalf of my party.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me, too, to be able to say on behalf of the NRP that we support the amending Bill. The strong point of the PU vir CHO, as we all know, lies in the fact that its character is traditionally based on its specific, characteristic outlook, and that it has never tried to hide this.

Why did you go so far astray?

An hon. member wants to know if I went astray. I would say it is because I have such a sound outlook that I stand here today … [Interjections.] I may have different ideas on specific aspects, but the outlook which a university like this gives one, is something for which one can be grateful.

The amendments we are dealing with here also aim at better, more effective administration of the university. The amendments here chiefly concern the appointment of vice-principals and the appointment of additional registrars. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke quite correctly referred to the fact that the Potchefstroomse Universiteit has long been putting into effect the idea of multi-campuses. In reality, this university was involved in this even before the Van Wyk De Vries Commission made a recommendation in this regard. Since specific reference is made here to the appointment of a vice-principal, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the person who was appointed vice-principal of the university, Prof. J. S. du Plessis. We want to wish him everything of the best for the future. He has not been in the limelight very much over the years, but he has nevertheless made a tremendous and weighty contribution to the general welfare of the PU vir CHO, and we hope that he will continue to do so. I just want to point out in passing that Prof, du Plessis’ doctoral thesis dealt with the constitutional development of the Voortrekkers. As hon. members know, this development ultimately resulted in the establishment of a model republic with a model constitution, viz. the Republic of the Orange Free State. I think it is perhaps fitting to consider the fact that at this stage, too, we are again involved in constitutional development in the twentieth century in South Africa, and I hope that whereas we are now trying to make history, we shall make it in such a way that someone like Prof, du Plessis will be able to write about this as model constitutional development.

I want to conclude by wishing the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir CHO all the best with the Aksie PUK-miljoen which they are engaged in at the moment. I think that we are setting other universities an example in this regard in “Woord en Daad”, as befits good Calvinists.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to thank the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Durban Central for their support of the Bill. I am pleased to see that our Doppers and Gatjaponders are so unanimous about the matter today. I appreciate what the hon. member for Durban Central said. We were fellow students. I cannot help it if he has strayed from the path. When the hon. member was a first-year student, we tried our best to set him on the right path, but he persevered in following the wrong path.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Monday, 24 April, I had indicated to the House that we in the NRP support the Second Reading of the Bill because we believed it to be an improvement on the existing legislation and the existing position. We had also indicated that the discretion of the courts was important. We had also mentioned that although the Bill made provision for the discretion of the courts as far as minimum sentences were concerned by abolishing minimum sentences, it applied only to dagga and that we in principle believed that it should apply to offences relating to other dependence-producing substances.

However, the effect of this legislation on the dagga situation is something which also has to be taken into consideration. We in these benches believe that legislation of this nature should always serve as a deterrent on those who are pushing or trafficking in dagga or who are in possession of dagga. We believe it is important to have legislation on our Statute Book which acts as a deterrent as we believe this is a serious problem in South Africa. We also believe that this problem cannot purely be dealt with by legislation alone. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has to ensure that legislation of this nature is backed up by preventive and rehabilitative measures. For this reason it is important to look at the effect which this legislation will have on the dagga situation. We have seen the statement which was made in the Transkeian Parliament in which it was even advocated that the production of dagga should be intensified and should be used as a means of boosting the Transkeian economy. When one realizes the enormous quantity of dagga which can be grown and manufactured outside the borders of South Africa, one also realizes that it means that the Police Force has to be vigilant in the control of this problem. In the Natal Mercury of 16 April 1978 there appeared an article indicating that dagga from Transkei to the value of more than R1 million had been seized by the Durban Narcotics Bureau at road blocks on the Natal south coast. This indicates the tremendous problem we have in South Africa as far as dagga is concerned. There are people who believe that dagga is not a dependence-producing drug which can be regarded in the same light as some of the other hard drugs. We agree with that and that is why we are supporting this proposed legislation. In this regard the hon. the Minister has seen fit to allow the discretion of the courts in imposing sentences on dagga offenders.

As I have indicated, we believe that dagga is a serious problem. We believe it is harmful. We do not agree with people who advocate that dagga should be freely available, even if it is only in their own possession or for their own use. We do not agree with them particularly where it concerns people who traffic and deal in a drug such as dagga. As far as the effects of dagga are concerned, I want to refer to some of the evidence which was placed before the S.A. International Conference on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence that was held here in Cape Town on 4 November 1974 and which I had the privilege of attending. There it became obvious that a good deal of research was being undertaken as far as dagga was concerned. In a paper presented by Col. Aubrey Levin, a psychiatrist at the Military Hospital of the S.A. Defence Force, he showed that in the case of dagga dependence the following disorders were diagnosed. 27% of the cases showed organic syndromes, 8% had functional psychosis, 15% had affected disorders and 33% had psychiatric disorders. This adds up to 83% of these people whose health was seriously affected as a result of smoking dagga heavily. I think this indicates the seriousness of the situation. There are large quantities of dagga destroyed from time to time. We know that various other research projects have been undertaken. When the Act of 1971 was introduced in this House, we had a long debate and discussion, particularly during the Committee Stage, on this issue. We must remember that that legislation really arose out of the findings of the Grobler Commission of Inquiry into the Abuse of Drugs. The question of dagga and alcohol, however, was not included in that inquiry, and the inquiry was mainly restricted to the White community in South Africa. As far as the tackling of this whole question is concerned, the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate the effects of dagga amongst all race groups in South Africa.

In its report the commission indicated that the dagga problem in the Republic was a serious one and was closely connected with the abuse of other drugs. In the Grobler report it was also indicated that the commission felt that it was desirable that the departments responsible for the other race groups should also conduct a comprehensive inquiry amongst those other race groups into the question of drug abuse, particularly as far as dagga was concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions will give serious attention to this particular aspect which is related to the preventive measures which must be taken. We regard this Bill as a constructive and realistic step and we intend to support the Second Reading. There are other measures which have to be taken to ensure the effectiveness of this proposed legislation, such as the educational aspects and the fact that the dangers of dagga have to be highlighted. We realize that field work must be undertaken by social workers of the hon. the Minister’s department, as well as by social workers of welfare organizations and agencies who are interested in the problem and who are doing magnificent work in this regard. We realize that there are many aspects to this question, but the whole position as far as rehabilitation is concerned has been a great disappointment, because when this legislation was introduced in 1971 there were high hopes that great emphasis would be placed on the rehabilitation of those persons who were using drugs, including dagga. It has been found in practice that it is not possible, for reasons of which we are not aware, for the department to give effect to those rehabilitative measures that were provided for in the 1971 Act. It is therefore hoped that the hon. the Minister can give some indication, when he replies to the debate today, as to what steps his department is taking to make this sort of legislation more effective. We agree in principle that no mercy should be shown to the person who is dealing in dagga, or any other drug, because there are the people who are behind this evil, which exists not only in South Africa but throughout the world. We realize that tremendous dangers are involved. We realize too, that the taking of dagga can often lead to the taking of more serious and hard-line drugs by young people. The future of our country obviously depends to a great extent on the youth of the country and this is a matter which causes a great deal of concern with people who have the future of South Africa at heart and who want to see our youth protected from those unscrupulous persons who push, peddle and traffic dagga and other hard drugs for their own financial benefit. That is why we believe that this legislation must be supported at Second Reading. We want to see legislation that is a deterrent, particularly to people dealing in dagga, and to people dealing in any other drugs. For this reason we give the hon. the Minister our full support in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his support for this legislation. In his usual dispassionate and responsible manner, he once again pointed out the dangers of dagga. I do not intend to elaborate on that. The hon. member for Pietersburg, as a physician, gave a brilliant exposition of these on behalf of our side. Even on the side of the PFP, the hon. member for Hillbrow—who is himself an authority on drugs—made the best speech which he has ever made in this House, except for the first part of his speech. I should like to congratulate him, too, on his sober view.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, we know, spoke from experience. He is a knowledgeable person, because he has himself had quite a lot to do with the fighting of this evil. That is why he took such a strong stand against dagga. This is not an attitude which he has only just adopted; it has been his attitude over the years. To emphasize his standpoint, he quoted in his speech from a book by one David Wilkerson, who said, amongst other things: “Dagga is the most dangerous drug on the market today.” I can also quote other extracts from his speech where he pointed out the dangers of dagga and how he regards it. In fact, I venture to say that I can recommend the second part of his speech to anyone who wants to use it whenever there is a discussion on the dangers of dagga. I should like not only to congratulate the hon. member for Hillbrow on that speech; I should like also to congratulate him on the courage which he displayed in standing up here and giving his honest, personal opinion. I want to congratulate him on the courage which he displayed, because he does not reflect the feeling of his party on the subject of dagga. He knows that the PFP is unconcerned, and, as far as this problem is concerned, absolutely without a policy in respect of dagga as a drug. Surely we know what the hon. member for Houghton said in this House on 11 October 1974. The hon. member for Houghton said on that occasion (Hansard, Vol. 52, col. 5154)—

That was still the Progressive Party—

So the PFP has no opinion, and therefore no policy either, on this matter. [Interjections.] Now I should like to know from the hon. member for Houghton whether she still holds the same view. Does she still believe that the possession of dagga for personal use should not be a punishable offence? That is what I ask the hon. member for Houghton. She need merely say “yes” or “no”. Does she still hold that same view? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, now there is no reply. Now the hon. member for Houghton is silent on that matter. [Interjections.]

I am going to make a half-hour speech on this issue!

If the hon. member for Houghton still holds the same view—and it seems to me that she does— namely that the possession of dagga for personal use should not be a punishable offence, I want to tell her that she is not being honest in the amendment of which she has already given notice. In clause 2 of the Bill, it is provided that the possession and the use of dagga shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years. In her intended amendment, the hon. member for Houghton wants the prescribed imprisonment to be reduced to a period not exceeding two years. But if the hon. member wants to be consistent in her view, and if she honestly wants to reflect the view of her party, then surely she ought to move that this clause be scrapped altogether. For that reason I believe that the task which the hon. member for Hillbrow had, was a particularly difficult one. The hon. member for Hillbrow had to perform a dual role here. On the one hand, he had to satisfy a part of the PFP, while on the other hand, he did not want to violate his own conscience. I doubt whether he has succeeded in doing that.

He is one of Harry’s people!

The hon. member for Hillbrow started his speech by paying tribute to the hon. member for Houghton. Among other things, he said (Hansard, 24 April 1978, col. 5480)—

Hear, hear!

That is quite correct. The hon. member for Houghton shouts, “Hear, hear!” That is why I say that the hon. member for Hillbrow initially had to use flattery for the benefit of a part of the PFP, while at the same time he did not want to violate his own conscience. Surely we know that at the time, he was personally in favour of this legislation. But when the hon. member for Hillbrow used these words, he was not speaking from his own inner conviction. He was not really convinced of what he was saying when he gave the hon. member for Houghton a feather in her cap. It is known, after all, that the hon. member for Hillbrow does not agree with the hon. member for Houghton in connection with the use of dagga.

In the debate in this House on Thursday, 14 June 1973, the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions had a set-to with the hon. member for Houghton about the desirability or otherwise of the possession of dagga being punishable. Then the hon. the Minister said the following, among other things (Hansard, Vol. 44, col. 9084)—

Mrs. H. Suzman: That is right.

That is the reply which she gave to the then Minister. But what happened after that? The hon. member for Hillbrow was a member of the Johannesburg city council at the time, and the question of dagga was discussed in a city council meeting. Here I have a clipping from Die Transvaler of 27 June 1973, with the heading: “Raad in beroering oor Helen en dagga”. I quote from the article on what the hon. member for Hillbrow said at the time: These are his own words—

It is the present hon. member for Hillbrow who said that. [Interjections.] This hon. member for Hillbrow was honest enough to give us his own honest opinion. Does he still stand by that statement of his? Does he still stand by that statement that Mrs. Helen Suzman is leading the youth astray? [Interjections.] He has now said he still stands by his statement that Mrs. Suzman is leading the youth of South Africa astray, and he wants to warn the youth against Mrs. Suzman. The hon. member for Hillbrow should stand up and again warn the youth of South Africa against Mrs. Suzman.

He has seen the light, just like you!

I wonder whether the hon. member for Hillbrow will do that. In the Third Reading debate on this measure, he will get an opportunity to do it. I shall make this newspaper clipping available to him. He can then repeat his own words. I am just wondering whether he would be willing to stand up and to say that Mrs. Suzman, the hon. member for Houghton, is encouraging our youth to take the wrong direction. I also want to hear from the hon. member for Houghton what her attitude is. When she gets a chance again, she can tell us what her attitude is about the statement which the hon. member for Hillbrow made, namely that she is leading the youth of South Africa astray. Or, Sir, has she perhaps changed her mind in the meantime? As I know her, I doubt whether that is the case. As I know the PFP, they are a party with dual standpoints on certain matters. When they have to speak in support of dagga, they quote from the speeches by the hon. member for Houghton. When they have to speak against dagga, on the other hand, they quote the speeches by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Then they say: “That is the standpoint of the PFP.”

You are a very silly man, and I shall tell you why in a few minutes.

Sir, there is really great division in that party about their attitude towards dagga. The PFP’s objection to the present Act is that compulsory minimum penalties are prescribed. What did the hon. member for Hillbrow say in his Second Reading speech in this connection? I quote from the hon. member’s unrevised Hansard—

Now I ask the hon. member for Hillbrow: What does he mean by that? He wants us to prescribe to the courts what the penalties for the possession of dagga cigarettes should be. He does not even mention the possibility of leaving the discretion to the courts. He simply says that for every cigarette which a man has in his possession, he should get five days’ imprisonment, and that for every additional ten cigarettes, he should get a further five days’ imprisonment. He says we should give guidance to our courts. It seems to me the hon. member for Hillbrow had forgotten about the hon. member for Houghton at that stage and simply unburdened his heart here, because he proposes that where there are no extenuating circumstances, the penalties should be prescribed to the courts: So many days for every cigarette and a further so many days for the possession of so many extra cigarettes. According to him there will then be a certain criterion for the courts. But I do not blame him at all for his equivocation, because I know that he spoke from conviction. It is not the feeling of the PFP which he voiced, because as the hon. member for Houghton has said, they are indifferent about this; they have no policy in this regard. It is a party—as she has indeed admitted—which feels that the use and possession of dagga should by no means be punishable.

I find the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, somewhat incomprehensible. The PFP is forever accusing us of discrimination. The members of this party are the people who discriminate against the Black people. They are the people who accuse us of being responsible for the fact that Black people live below the breadline. They are also the people who blame us for the fact that the Black people’s income is too low. But the PFP has moved an amendment which relates to the use and possession of dagga, an amendment which in fact discriminates in the most blatant way against the Black people. According to Hansard of 10 May 1971 (Vol. 34, col. 6351) the hon. member for Houghton said the following—

In other words, she implied by that that the majority of dagga smokers were Black people. As she indeed said, the prisons will be packed by them.

Was I wrong?

The present Act of course makes provision for a minimum period of imprisonment, but with the amendment, provision is only being made for a maximum penalty. Then the hon. member comes along with her amendment, which indicates that the maximum penalty for first offenders in connection with the possession and use of dagga should be two years, with a fine of R200. For subsequent offences, the maximum penalty should be five years, with a fine of R400. But I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Houghton. In terms of her statement that it is the Black people who are the dagga smokers, what group is now, according to her, going to produce the most offenders? Is it still going to be the Black people?

I shall answer you later.

Are the Black people not going to be the very ones who are still going to land in jail? Are these people not going to be the very ones in respect of whom she blames us for the fact that they are living below the breadline and are working for starvation wages? Are they not the people who will suffer in practice if this amendment is adopted? Will it not boil down to this, that the poor people who are not able to pay a fine will simply have to go to jail while the rich can smoke as much dagga as they like because they can pay the fines?

That is the same in respect of every sentence.

These are the double, standards they wish to apply. Now she comes along with this extremely discriminatory amendment which is directly aimed against the Black people, because they will not be able to pay the fine, while in the case of the dagga smokers in Houghton, Parktown and Johannesburg North, their parents will be able to pay the fine so that they will not have to go to prison. It is the Black people who can simply go to jail.

What about Boksburg?

If the hon. member for Houghton had been honest in her view, she would have proposed that that clause should be scrapped in its entirety.

If the amending Bill, as introduced by the hon. the Minister, is passed, I should like us as well as the people outside to understand quite clearly that this is not an admission by the Government that it made a mistake in laying down a minimum penalty in the original Act.

Not half!

Nor do we make any apology for that.

Read the old Hansard!

The attitude of the NP is the same as that of the hon. member for Hillbrow. It has always been the same, namely that drugs, and dagga in particular, are a danger to our young people. The Act of 1971, in its original form, was necessary because a wave of drug addiction worse than ever before had hit South Africa. The hon. member for Hillbrow gave advisable expression to this in his Second Reading speech, when he said, among other things (Hansard, 24 April 1978, col. 5486)—

Then he told the House how children had been murdered and he saw a link between this and the smoking of dagga. He went further and said—

That is what the hon. member for Hillbrow said—not before he came a Prog, but just the other day. I am convinced that the prescribed minimum sentences have had the desired effect. The statistics supplied by the hon. the Minister have shown that. The Government has also proved over and over again that it has the welfare of the youth at heart. We should also like to give our youth the assurance that we have not gone soft on this problem. We should like to give our youth the assurance that this amendment is not a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. Just as in the past, there will be a merciless clampdown on people who are unscrupulously responsible for other people’s misery. For that reason I want to endorse what was said by the hon. the Minister and also by the hon. member for Hillbrow: Our youth should be warned against the view of the hon. member for Houghton, because she is going to lead our young people astray.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it was really more than one could expect that the hon. member for Boksburg would treat this as a sociological problem which the House was trying to deal with in a sensible manner. That was, of course, expecting far too much from him. He is simply a petty party-politician and he cannot resist making every matter we discuss in the House a petty party-political matter. That is exactly what he tried to do this afternoon. He tried to show that there were differences of opinion between the hon. member for Hillbrow and myself on the question of drugs such as dagga.

Is there a difference of opinion between you?

Were you not trying to say that there was a difference of opinion between us?

You tell us: Is there a difference of opinion between you and the hon. member for Hillbrow?

I shall tell the hon. member what. He has spoken for half an hour; now he should just sit quietly and let me speak for half an hour. I want to tell that hon. member that there is a difference of opinion about the effects of marijuana throughout the medical profession in the entire world. That is the interesting thing about this subject. There are medical men who state that they do not think that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that it certainly is not as dangerous as alcohol for instance. They believe the use of it should be discouraged because it creates hallucinogenic symptoms and it is obviously bad for anyone to use that sort of drug. There are those who consider that it is one of the most dangerous drugs and that quite inevitably, anyone who uses marijuana goes on to heroin. I may say that that theory was disproved by the Nixon commission into drug abuse. That was hardly a wild-eyed, liberal organization of people and they spent over two years carefully examining all the effects of marijuana. They came to a very different conclusion. They came to the conclusion that just as anyone who takes a cocktail does not necessarily become an alcoholic, so anybody who tries a dagga cigarette does not necessarily become a user of heroin. I am simply using this example to prove that there is a tremendous controversy ranging throughout the whole world.

Do not try to convince us; try to convince the hon. member for Hillbrow.

If, therefore, the opinion of the hon. member for Hillbrow and my opinion about this particular matter are not exactly the same, it is of no importance whatsoever because I do not believe that matters such as this should be party political matters. I think they should be matters which should be discussed objectively and as far as possible, scientifically, and that the House should then come to its conclusion. It is interesting to note that one of the very few debates that we have had in this House which was left free of the Whip and which was not a party political decision, was whether or not to legalize the use of alcohol for Africans. Yet, if ever there is a drug problem in South Africa, it is alcohol. Every doctor in this country will agree that South Africa is one of the biggest users of alcohol in the world. That is a real problem for South Africa. However, because there were economic interests affected and because the wine farmers in the caucus of the NP could not agree with those who were looking at the matter from a moral standpoint, the whole matter was left to a free vote in this House.

There are other subjects which I believe are much more important that should be left to a free vote. Take, for instance, the question of whether we should legalize abortions and matters of that kind. I am not interested in this simple, silly party politicking of the hon. member for Boksburg.

Tell us about your opinion.

I will tell the hon. member my opinion. I will repeat for him the amendment that I moved in this House in 1971 when the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Bill, which we are today amending on the very lines I suggested in 1971, was introduced by the then hon. Minister of Social Welfare, Dr. Connie Mulder, who proudly boasted that he was introducing the harshest drug-abuse law in the world. I moved the following amendment at Second Reading and, in case the hon. member does not believe me, it appears in col. 6105 of Hansard of 6 May 1971—

I wonder what we are doing today except to re-establish and to re-introduce the discretion of the courts.

I am going to show how right I was in that prediction.

That is the amendment I introduced and those are exactly my views today.

On dagga?

On everything. On all drugs, but especially on dagga, because one of the main arguments that I used when I continued with my speech was that dagga ought to be separated from the hardline drugs. What are we doing today in this House? We are doing exactly that. We are separating dagga from the hardline drugs, or does the hon. member not know that? Was he so anxious to score a debating point about the difference of opinion between the hon. member for Hillbrow and myself—a difference which does not exist in principle— that he did not even bother to read the Bill? I suspect that the hon. member has not even bothered to read the Bill. What we are doing today, therefore, is to separate dagga from the hardline drugs and to re-introduce the discretion of the courts of law not only as far as the use and possession of dagga is concerned, but also as far as the sale, the peddling, of dagga is concerned. That is what is being done. I am not going to enter into any altercation with the hon. member for Umbilo. I am simply going to say to him that in 1971 his party voted with the Government on that Bill that removed the discretion of the courts and that put dagga together with the hardline drugs. Today the Government is changing that law and, I am glad to say, the hon. member for Umbilo and his party are supporting the changes which are changes I suggested in 1971. I do not want to go on to the theme of “I told you so”. That is not the idea of my speech today. I think, however, that it is the greatest pity that the then hon. Minister of Social Welfare and this House were so stubborn and that their minds were so closed to the question of drug abuse in 1971 and 1973. If their minds had not been so closed and if the amendments which we are going to adopt today, had been accepted when I suggested them seven years ago, I believe that the lives of many many thousands of young people would not have been blighted by prison sentences. I was absolutely right when I said that this would largely affect Black people and young people. The statistics in this regard have been absolutely conclusive, as I shall indicate. Thousands upon thousands of Black people and young people have gone to gaol and even if those sentences were suspended in so far as the use and possession of dagga is concerned, it means that there was a conviction against them, they have a criminal record which will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Why hon. members should have thought that that was a good thing to do in 1971, is beyond me. I am very glad to see, however, that they have at last changed their minds and have come round to what I would call a more intelligent viewpoint.

I do not think the hon. the Minister should be apologetic about this Bill and I do not think the hon. member for Boksburg should bother to apologize on behalf of the hon. the Minister and the NP in reassuring everybody that their attitude towards dagga is just as hard as it ever was. Does he find it necessary to do this because there has been trouble with the verkramptes in his caucus? They should be very pleased that they are taking a step in the right direction.

The hon. the Minister does not need to justify, as he tried to do during his Second Reading speech, what he is doing by telling us that the problem in regard to the use of dagga is so much less serious now than it was seven years ago “when the world was in turmoil”. I do not believe that for one minute, because there were still 14 000 convictions for the use and possession of dagga in the year 1976. There were also 7 050 convictions for the first six months of 1977. There were 3 092 convictions for dealing in dagga in 1976 and 1 630 convictions for dealing in dagga in the first six months of 1977. If anybody takes the trouble to look at the latest report by the Commissioner of Police, that is for the period from July 1976 to June 1977, they will find that there were 22 664 offences relating to drugs in that period. Not all of them were in relation to dagga, but a great many of them were.

The real reasons for this amending Bill are to be found elsewhere. They are to be found in our overcrowded gaols. The hon. member for Boksburg who wanted to hear my reply, has now buzzed off, because he does not want to hear my reply.

Here he is.

Tell him to sit down and listen, since I listened to him.

He happens to be a Whip.

He can at least have the courtesy, since I am replying to his speech, to sit down and listen to me instead of wandering around like a zombie conducting conversations along the way.

He is on a trip.

Yes. That is exactly what he is doing. The reasons for the amendments that are being introduced today are not due to me. I take no credit for this at all despite the kind remarks of the hon. member for Hillbrow. The reasons for this Bill are to be found elsewhere. They are to be found in our overcrowded gaols, which are bursting with drug abusers who have been sent there for minimum sentences of several years. The reasons also are to be found in the recommendations contained in the report of the Viljoen Commission on Penal Reform which I do not suppose the hon. member for Boksburg has ever looked at. However, if he looks at it he will find that there are strong recommendations in the report for the reinstitution of the discretion of the courts of law as far as the imposition of penalties for dagga users are concerned. That is what is being done today. The commission also recommended —and this is most important—the reinstitution of the discretion of the courts to suspend sentences for drug pedlars. That right of suspension was taken away in 1973. The hon. member for Umbilo and his party supported my opposition to that Bill.

We voted against it.

Correct, they opposed the Bill and voted against it. The Bill removed the discretion as far as suspension of sentences for dealing in drugs was concerned.

The reason for the Bill is also to be found in the numerous complaints that have been ringing out in the courts of law, uttered by magistrates and judges who have had to implement the law as it was passed in 1971 and amended in 1973. That is the reason why the hon. the Minister comes here today with an amending Bill. The reason for the Bill is also to be found in remarks such as the remarks made by Mr. Justice Steyn of NICRO, who talked about “this draconian law frustrating the application of rehabilitative techniques and inhibiting the re-socialization of the offender into the community”. The reason is further to be found in the remark made, for instance, by Mr. F. A. H. Johl, who retired from the Bench of the Cape Town magistrate’s court in April 1976 after 40 years in the Civil Service. He said that his worst memories were of the compulsory sentences he had been forced to impose under the drug laws. That is another reason for the change in the legislation. The reason for the change is also to be found in the memo submitted by the executive committee of the Association of Law Societies of South Africa complaining about the lack of discretion as far as sentences, more particularly for dagga, are concerned. Those are the reasons why some people have changed their minds and others, such as myself, have maintained the same attitude.

All in all the whole situation concerning dagga had got completely out of hand. As I have said the real drug problem which we have in South Africa is of course the alcohol problem. Most offenders under the drug laws who have been dragged into the courts and sentenced to gaol were, of course, not so much the dealers, but the users and possessors of dagga who were largely Black people. Let me tell the hon. member for Boksburg and the rest of the House who might be interested in this, some of the figures about people who have been convicted for drug offences over the years. In the period June 1972 to June 1973, 30 480 people were convicted for the use and possession of dagga. In 1974 the figure was 13 428; in 1975 it was 16 587; in 1976, 13 954 and for the period January to June 1977 it was 7 050. This makes a grand total of over 80 000 people in the five years since the drugs law was introduced. The legislation was only implemented in the beginning of 1972. So, in the period of just over five years since the legislation was implemented we have had 80 000 convictions for the use and possession of dagga. These offences are defined in the broadest possible way. A man can have one cigarette on him and can then be convicted of having dagga in his possession. He then has a criminal record for the rest of time. Even if that sentence is suspended, the offender has a criminal record against him and this can count against him for the rest of his life. Of this total number of 80 000 offenders the vast majority, of course, were Blacks. I want to give just one example. In 1976, out of 14 000 convictions, 9 000 were Africans and most of the remainder, except for a few hundred, were Coloureds and Indians. So, the vast majority were Black people. We have cluttered our gaols up with thousands upon thousands of these people. If one adds to this number the 10 000 people who were sentenced over these years to serve at least five years in prison for dealing in drugs, one can see that our gaols were very full indeed as a result of these laws.

Ironically enough, when this legislation was introduced, the then Minister took me to task because he said that I had ignored 75% of the Bill which was devoted to rehabilitation. If one counted the number of clauses in the Bill relating to rehabilitation, they represented, he said, 75% of the Bill. The interesting thing is that in not one single year since this Act has been on the Statute Book has the rehabilitation figure exceeded two figures. That is the extraordinary thing. In 1976, for instance, only 18 people were sent to rehabilitation centres although over 20 000 people were convicted for all drug offences relating to dagga and the other drugs. So much for the so-called 75% of the law which was supposed to be devoted to rehabilitation. Anyway, mirabile dictu, we are making a little progress in South Africa in our attitude as far as drugs are concerned. Apart from restoring the discretion to the courts regarding sentences relating to dagga and regarding the power to suspend sentences for dealing in dagga, we are drawing a clear and definite distinction between dagga, or marijuana, as it is known overseas, and the hard drugs, which, as I have said, is a distinction I pleaded for in vain in 1971. Although I do not approve of the use of dagga any more than I approve of the excessive use of alcohol, the tendency throughout the world has been to regard the use of this drug in a less harsh light and to say that it should be a misdemeanour rather than an actual crime. Indeed, in nine states of the United States of America they have already reduced all sentences as far as the use and possession of marijuana is concerned, to a misdemeanour rather than a crime. It means that one then does not have a criminal record. Peddling the drug does—and I believe should—remain a crime, because that is the way to discourage the widespread use of this drug. In America and other countries where the use of the drug has gradually tended to become more of a misdemeanour than a crime, peddling remains a crime and pedlars are sentenced to gaol by the courts in order to discourage its widespread use. Obviously one wants to discourage its use.

I believe the Bill has gone quite far as far as the reform of our anti-drug legislation is concerned. I believe—and indeed our amendments reflect this—that the guidelines i.v.o. penalties, however, have been left at too high a level. That is why we want to reduce the maximum penalty, and we shall argue that in detail when we come to the Committee Stage. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Hillbrow in his plea for fines in the case of pedlars—I think that is a very important matter—and even as an alternative sentence in the case of users. The hon. member for Boksburg made a great song and dance about this being discriminatory. It is not a minimum sentence, but a maximum sentence. The courts can impose a sentence of R1 on a poor Black man while they might perhaps impose a much higher sentence on somebody who they think is rich and can afford it; anything to keep these people out of gaol. The hon. member is evidently too silly to understand that. The maximum sentence we propose is a guideline, that is all. We think that in the case of pedlars, who are making money out of the sale of these drugs—we brought our amendment in line with the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission report—heavy fines are a very apt sentence. That is a recommendation contained in the report of the Viljoen Commission.

Having got that off my chest, I want to say that I should already have congratulated the hon. the Minister on introducing as his first measure in this House, a Bill which receives support from all sides of the House. This is something which he is unlikely to experience very often, so I want to congratulate him on introducing such a measure as his first measure as the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I am very glad that he has seen fit to take note of the many expressions of disapproval about the original harsh anti-drug legislation which was introduced in this House in 1971 and in 1973. We shall have more to say to the hon. the Minister when we come to the Committee Stage. What we really need in South Africa is a widely organized campaign against all harmful drugs, in our schools, hostels and over the media, particularly television. We need a really good campaign against the dangers of all drugs. There I include not only dagga, not only the hardline drugs, not only tobacco, but alcohol as well. This is what we badly need in South Africa to make young people aware of the long-term harmful effect of such drugs. However, we do not want to turn drug addicts into criminals. In this respect I hope that the hon. the Minister will one day come around to the modern way of thinking in the Western World, namely that people who are drug addicts should not be treated as criminals. They should be treated as sick people because drug addiction is indeed a sickness. The rehabilitation side of the whole drugs problem in South Africa, be it alcoholism, the use of hardline drugs or habitual dagga smoking— all of which are sicknesses—has been sadly neglected. I may not be here to see it in this House, but I hope that this House will one day come around to what I believe is the modern viewpoint on drug addiction, i.e. to treat drug addiction as a sickness and not a crime. I wish to add to the words of the hon. member for Hillbrow our support for the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Houghton in the congratulations she extended to the hon. the Minister on the introduction of this his first amending Bill as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in this House. But, it is more or less at this point where our paths separate. I cannot understand how an apparently intelligent woman like the hon. member for Houghton, in spite of the findings of congresses, can disregard what has been done in the scientific sphere throughout the world over the past number of years in connection with research into the use and abuse and the exact nature of dagga. In the USA, for instance, people speak of marijuana and hashish. She grouped them with dagga in a single word, whereas the said three are not at all the same. Dagga, marijuana, hashish, cannabis and hemp are not identical, but differ from one another a great deal.

After the feather had been plucked from her cap as a result of the remarks made by the hon. member for Germiston District, after the hon. member for Hillbrow had patted her on the back and said that she was to be given the credit for this so-called concession on the part of the Government, the hon. member for Houghton in actual fact reacted as did the clergyman who was not very well prepared for his sermon. He made notes in the margin of his written sermon, and wrote in at one place “Argument weak, shout like hell’’! This was the impression I gained when she stood up and commenced her speech. Actually, she was completely off the point.

Then you should start shouting now!

I had the privilege of reading papers at three consecutive international congresses on drugs. The first was the international congress which was held in Quebec, Canada, and the next two were congresses in Jerusalem. I also had the privilege of attending two other congresses; one in Sydney, Australia, and the other in Washington, USA, on Alcoholism and Drugs. The strongest impression one gains when one attends congresses of this nature, is that a tremendous amount is being done in the field of research. Consequently, one cannot make such sweeping statements as those made by the hon. member for Houghton with regard to certain matters on which finality has not yet been reached. I contest very strongly the statement that South Africa is the country in the world which has the strictest legislation as regards this matter. A Commissioner of Police in Bangkok, Thailand, showed me photographs which prove the contrary. The photographs told the story of a person apprehended by the Thailand police for manufacturing his own heroin. The first photograph showed the police arresting him. The second photograph, which was taken about 10 minutes later, showed the offender sitting at a table and drawing up his will. The third photograph showed him tied blindfolded to a pole, and the fourth photograph showed him a lifeless heap at the foot of the pole. If the hon. member for Houghton does not believe me, all she has to do is listen to this. I quote from a very informative document, dated 26 June 1974—

Now, it has also been alleged that South Africa is the only country which prescribed a minimum penalty for offences of this nature. However, what happens in Nigeria? In Nigeria, the penalty for the possession of dagga is imprisonment for a minimum period of 10 years. I am able to quote many more examples in support of this argument of mine. However, I think it is sufficient to take cognizance of the role which the Press has already played, of the debates which have taken place in this House and of what experts have said about this matter. Some of their opinions have already been quoted in this debate.

I looked up the statistics in this regard for the past six or seven years, as published in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police which were tabled in this House. I took particular note of certain aspects thereof. The number of offences reported in which dagga was involved in one way or another, showed a gradual decrease between 1970 and 1975. In the case of Asians, the number dropped from 1 511 in 1970-’71 to 898 in 1975-’76. As far as the Whites are concerned, the number dropped during the same period from 2 876 to 1 755. In the case of the Coloureds, the number dropped from 8 676 to 5 091 between 1970-’71 and 1975-’76, while in the case of the Bantu throughout the Republic the number dropped from 28 985 in 1970-’71 to 15 067 in 1975-’76. In other words, it is clear that there has been a gradual decrease. The gradual increase in comparison with the population growth has not been taken into account here.

The quantity of dagga seized by the Police in the Cape Province decreased from 38 000 kg—I am giving the round figures—to 14 000 kg. In Natal it decreased from 3 million kg to 141 000 kg, while it remained constant at 6 000 kg in the Orange Free State. As far as the Republic as a whole is concerned—I am giving a round figure only—the quantity of dagga seized by the Police, decreased from 4 218 215 kg in 1970-’71 to 163 000 kg in 1975-’76.

The value of this dagga, calculated at R0-25 per 28 gram, the normal weight of a “zoll” of dagga, amounted to R37 663 000 in the year 1970-’71, as against the value of approximately R13 million in the year 1974-’75. Therefore, as far as value is concerned, there has also been a drop. As far as the matter of convictions are concerned, I want to summarize this, without my mentioning all the figures, by saying that a gradual increase occurred in all population groups. Since the enactment of the relevant legislation, however, this increase has been in line with the normal population increase. If one wants to go about this demographically, one must look at that aspect as well.

This afternoon it is very important to me, however, that we see dagga, within the wider set-up or framework of the whole complexity of drugs, as part of that phenomenon. If we do so, we must ask ourselves: What are we dealing with? In this regard I should like to suggest a definition: “A drug is any chemical substance (prepared naturally or synthetically) which is capable of doing three things in particular, i.e. to change one’s mood, to change one’s perception and to change one’s consciousness, if it is abused to the extent that it can influence and affect not only the person, but also the culture or sub-culture within which he moves. In addition all these substances have in common the ability to create a mental state in some individuals which can be described as physical dependence. ’ ’

It is essential to refer to the sub-cultures so as to gain a better understanding of the person and the substance. The hon. member for Pietersburg referred to this very adequately, as did the hon. member for Hillbrow. Therefore I should just like to add a single idea which is applicable when one looks at the person and the substance. The environment in which it is used, the expectations cherished by the person who use it and the situation in which the person finds himself, often have more of an effect than the substance itself. One can imagine a situation of a few young people in a dimly lit room in Hillbrow with its psychedelic background music and flashing lights. It has been proved that it is true that the expectations which they cherish and the situation in which they find themselves have more of an effect than the substance which they use.

We must accept that there are different types of drugs. I am going to exclude one so to prevent us from getting carried away. The drug I want to refer to, is alcohol to which reference has already been made this afternoon. Pharmacologically and clinically speaking, alcohol is drug No. 1. If it had been discovered today, it would have been banned by the Government at once. Why is it not banned? For two very simple reasons, the first of which is that alcohol is part of the normal culture in which we are living, a highly developed culture. The second reason is that the Bible gives us a very clear guideline as regards the use of alcohol. It is not a sin to use it, but to abuse it is. If we can grasp these two basic concepts and take them as our guideline, there need never be any argument about these matters and farmers, now that I have said that alcohol is drug No. 1, need not uproot all their vines. That is why I say that I exclude alcohol from the drug culture milieu.

There are various drugs and if I may deal with them in large, broad categories, there are, in the first place, the opiates, including the so-called narcotics or hard drugs. The opiates are processed from the poppy somniferum which is cultivated particularly in the East. Morphine and heroin are derivatives thereof. In this regard I just want to say in brief that these substances are used most fruitfully in the medical field. When a person has been involved in a serious accident or is suffering severe pain—in this regard I am thinking of cancer patients for instance—or when a person has suffered a coronary thrombosis, the doctor can give the person concerned an injection of morphine, omnopon or heroin.

This takes away the pain immediately. It is a tremendous analgesic. However, what is even more important, is that it counteracts the persons concern. He knows that he has lost an arm or that his leg is broken, but he is not concerned about it. It is not painful and consequently it does not worry him. The same holds good for the first few hours after a person has suffered a coronary thrombosis. He is concerned about the fact that he has had a heart attack and he wonders whether he is going to die or not. After the injections the person’s concern is counteracted and the pain is taken away. Therefore, with these God-given substances medical men have done patients a wonderful service. However, my time is running out fast.

Therefore, I also want to refer to the barbiturates, the so-called sedatives. There are also the amphetamines, the so-called “pep-ups”. Then there are also the tranquillizers. All these substances are used medically in one way or another, particularly in psychiatric hospitals and institutions. These substances have brought about revolutionary changes in psychiatric institutions, especially since 1960. People who could not be resocialized previously, can conduct themselves as re-socialized people in society today because of treatment they have been given.

However, I must also say that any of the aforementioned substances are dangerous when they are used extra-medically, i.e. without medical prescription, when self-medication occurs, when they are abused or when they are used sub-culturally, and I explained earlier on that in that case the expectations actually have more of an effect, than the substance itself.

Now I come to the hallucinogenic substances, amongst which dagga, hashish, cannabis, hemp and the others can be classified. Actually I want to mention only two of these hallucinogenic substances. I am referring to LSD and dagga. I should say that the use of LSD is on a part with playing Russian roulette, and I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton, that dagga is the little brother or little sister of LSD. It affects one’s central nervous system. One’s reflexes become hyperactive and euphoric effects are obtained. There are changes in consciousness and one’s chromosomes are influenced, etc.

Research is one of the most important aspects which must be mentioned when we talk about this subject. A great deal of progress has been made on the road of research. I want to mention two things, however, and it is extremely important that we should take cognizance of them today. Science has taken cognizance of the pharmacology of the substances to a large extent, but science still knows very little today about the mechanisms of the substances. I want to quote from a publication of the D.R. Church in connection with this matter. I quote (page 68)—

(Vgl. Referaat: Dr. J. P. Grobler, in genoemde publikasie.)

To summarize, I want to say that the serious request which emnated from all the discussions on this matter at the congresses at Quebec, Jerusalem, Washington, Sydney and elsewhere, to which I have referred, and which I attended, and at which papers were read on the subject, is that there should be research into the etiology of the problem, the pharmacology of it, the biochemistry of it, the psychology of it, the religious aspects, the sociology of it as well as into the sub-cultures and primeval cultures connected therewith. Therefore, it must cover a very wide field. We in the Republic of South Africa have not lagged behind in the field of research. Valuable research work has been done in Potchefstroom, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and everywhere else. I want to ask, however, that research be directed specifically at dagga. The Republic has not only the best dagga in the world, but also the cheapest. That is why it has become a national problem for us.

Reference has already been made to the committee of inquiry which was appointed in 1970 by the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. The committee’s report was tabled in Parliament in 1971. That committee received clear terms of reference which were defined as follows: “Do not give any attention to alcohol or to dagga.’’ I was a member of that committee and I know that the path of these substances crossed the path of dagga. We complied with the terms of reference, but we still have to contend with the dagga problem. The last investigation conducted into dagga in this country, took place in 1952, i.e. 26 years ago. It was merely an interdepartmental investigation. The Grobler Committee recommended the following in Chapter VII on page 9 of its report, paragraph 564—reference has already been made to this recommendation, but for the record I just want to quote it again—

I ask the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to implementing this recommendation of the commission of inquiry. In asking this, I know that he is well-informed, also with regard to this specific matter. As far as the amending Bill before us is concerned, I want to say I believe that hon. members on this side of the House will all give it their wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up the line of argument of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but I respect the comments he, as a medically qualified member of the House, had to make. I think it would be in order for us of the NRP to add to the congratulations extended to the hon. the Minister as this is the first Bill he is introducing in the House. I want to warn him, however, that he has disturbed a hornet’s nest here. If one goes into the history of this legislation in Hansard in the years 1971 and 1973 and one reads between the lines, one rather imagines that some of those debates were more exciting than the debae we have had this afternoon. I cannot guarantee that I will not add a little bit of excitement in the course of what I have to say.

I want to refer to the plea made by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon that this Bill should be discussed in a non-party-political way. Referring to the Hansard of those years again, all I can say is “Ha, ha!” In 1971, in 1973 and, indeed, consistently over the years the hon. member for Houghton played party-politics with this legislation up and down the country. At political meetings, in this House and at every possible opportunity she played party-politics with this. She committed the sin of which we on this side of the House in these days are often accused. She mainly attacked the Official Opposition of those days, the UP. Very little of her muted comments were kept back for the Government for introducing the legislation.

You were in your cradle in those days.

I was not in my cradle. I was a qualified pharmacist. I can think back to 1968 when I sat in on international symposia on drug problems. I think the hon. member for Houghton should wake up. I was fortunate that I was able to follow the debates by means of Hansard. I saw to it that I had it in my possession. I have news for this hon. member. I have some quite pungent comments to make to her this afternoon. [Interjections.] I want to tell her too …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, if she continues to twitter and chirp like this, I am going to have to bring bird-seed into the House so that I can get a little quiet and have my say as well.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal firstly with the comments of some of the hon. members of the PFP and then I am going to come back to some of the comments made by the hon. the Minister at that time. If one looks through Hansard one finds a very interesting story developing. I would like to start off by saying that I have read the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow with some interest as he has a lot of knowledge on this subject. However, I also want to refer to the comments of the hon. member for Boksburg and that is the comments at the very beginning of the hon. member for Hillbrow’s speech …

He has gone out again.

… where he the member for Hillbrow says that “it is a pity that the existing Act was put on the Statute Book in the first place. Had hon. members listened to her—the hon. member for Houghton—in 1971 they would never have gone ahead with it.” Let us apply our minds to the implications if they had never gone ahead with it. This would seem to be what the hon. member for Hillbrow wants, namely that we should not have gone ahead with that legislation, because he does not qualify his stand by saying how it should be proceeded with, amended or otherwise. I would like us to think what the position would have been in this country today if we had not gone ahead with that legislation. Let us just cast our minds around and think what the situation in this country could have been today if we had not gone ahead with that legislation. The hon. member for Houghton sits there …

The hon. member for Houghton was referring to that particular Act.

No, you listen to me for a little while.

You are talking absolute tripe.

Just listen for a while and you might understand it.

Why do you not read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton?

I have read her amendment. The hon. member made a great play of the 80 000 offenders who have been convicted over-the last few years. If I had to choose between 80 000 people being convicted of offences—which many of them knew of and most of them were offences under the law—or the possibility of a large number of young South Africans becoming drug addicts, there is no doubt in my mind that I would choose that the people who had committed offences go to gaol. That would be the choice that I would prefer to make.

Then you may end up as …

The hon. member for Houghton has had her say and we listened to her with great patience and did not interrupt her. Perhaps she can give us the same opportunity this afternoon. I want to ask her some questions just now and perhaps she can give us some answers to those questions. Some of the comments she made in this House have been read out by the hon. member for Boksburg. I would also like to refer to Hansard, col. 9084 of 14 June 1973. In that instance the hon. member for Houghton said—

I wonder if the hon. member for Houghton could tell us whether this is still her attitude?

Of course, I will say it again. It is simply a misdemeanour.

She says it is simply a misdemeanour and not an offence.

The USA has made it that.

So that people should be able to possess dagga for personal use? Is that it? Am I correct?

It is a misdemeanour. It should be fined like a traffic offence is.

In other words, people should be able to possess dagga for personal use and be fined in the same way as for a traffic offence?

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue like this to go on.

Right, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me very clear that the hon. member for Houghton is saying that her policy still is that the penalty for the possession of dagga for personal use should be on a par with a traffic fine. That is a rather interesting comment. She did indeed refer to some of the states in the USA where they have made the penalties very very small, similar to those for traffic offences. The following is a headline which appeared in The Natal Mercury of 27 March this year: “Dagga smokers sacked.” The following is then stated—

How interesting!—

The footnote at the end of the article reads—

If the hon. member for Houghton would therefore like to see prosecutors in this country sacked for …

Come on!

The hon. member should not run away from the implications, because if they are going to reduce the penalty to the equivalent of a traffic fine—this is what is happening overseas—there is a fair bet that it will happen here as well. If that is what hon. members want to see here …

One can get sacked for being drunk as well.

That is interesting, but it is a whole different ball game.

You ought to know about that.

I think we have a fairly clear exhibition of where the hon. member stands in this regard. I would now like to ask the hon. member for Sandton whether he agrees with this position in regard to the possession of dagga for personal use.

Anything you say I disagree with.

So you disagree with this as well?

Yes. I disagree with anything you have to say—unqualified! [Interjections.]

Why did he seek nomination in 1974?

I am so glad that the hon. member for Durban Central raised this issue, because the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Yeoville all sought nomination on the basis of opposition to what the hon. member for Houghton had to say in this respect.

In opposition to the Government.

No. These three hon. members were all vry much opposed to the possession of dagga for personal use and they sought nomination for a party that based its whole election campaign in 1974 on this opposition …

The whole election campaign?

I am glad the hon. member for Houghton confirms this, because I had the idea that they might be turning around to say …

I am asking you whether it was their whole election campaign.

The hon. member does not wish to ask a full question. The whole election campaign was based on it …

That is untrue.

So the hon. member does disagree with the hon. member for Houghton … [Interjections.] This is what happens time and time again: they have a caucus, but they still do not have a policy. [Interjections.] I can quote from Hansard of 1974. Just before the no-confidence debat…

I think you should go back to your Natal circus.

No. This is not a circus. The hon. member for Sandton must answer some home-truths and I cannot help it if he squeals and does not like it. On Friday, 8 February 1974, the hon. member for Houghton said: “There is no party policy on that; it is my personal view.” Those were of course the days when the hon. member for Houghton sat in splendid isolation here and was not responsible to a caucus …

I made perfect fools out of you.

Did she? Perhaps we can today reverse the tables by making perfect fools out of you and at the moment it looks as if we are. I do not think those hon. members have any answers for any of the issues that have been raised today. The hon. members who sit here with the hon. member for Houghton today must tell me: Is there still no party policy on the possession of dagga for personal use?

There are five different policies.

Are there five different policies? Does the hon. member for Sandton have a policy on the possession of dagga for personal use?

Does your party have a policy or was it decided upon at a congress meeting?

Perhaps the hon. member for Bryanston can tell us whether he has a policy on the possession of dagga for personal use. [Interjections.] Yes, we have. [Interjections.] I do not resort to personal, petty nonsense.

Order! The hon. member must continue with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I will do so. I think we have made our point very clearly that the PFP has no policy in this regard, that there are in fact 17 different opinions on the possession of dagga for personal use. I think it is coming through very clearly.

Mummy will give you a lollipop for that. [Interjections.]

That is unworthy of you!

I think so too. I want to make one final comment in this regard. When considering the PFP’s policy on dagga for personal use I cannot help thinking of some of the possible interesting sales columns, especially the horticultural columns, in the Rand Daily Mail. I am thinking of expressions such as: “Houghton specials; sturdy seedlings; low strength for beginners; try one in your kitchen” and “pretty potplants for permissive Progressives”—that is PFP with two extra “P’s”, if you see what I mean. [Interjections.] The connotations are limitless, but I will obey your ruling, Sir, and come back to the Bill itself.

I think some comments on the actual approach of the Government would be worthwhile, because it is legislation which they introduced that we are amending today. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister who will be replying to this debate that we are pleased to have this amending legislation. I have the hon. the Minister’s Hansard here. We have noted some of his comments with interest. He said, for instance—

A little later on he said—

In regard to this last comment my question is: Why did it take seven years to get this amending legislation if the Government has seen dagga in a different light all this time? In this regard I could perhaps make a final comment on the attitude of the PFP, especially on the comment of the hon. member for Hillbrow. He said that we could thank the hon. member for Houghton for the fact that the Bill is being amended today. I do not agree with that at all. I think we can thank the hon. member for Houghton for the fact that it has taken so long for the Bill to be amended, because if we had not had the hysterical opposition to the Bill over the years, it might well have happened that the Government came to its senses a little bit earlier and amended the Bill without wasting seven years. I should like to go back to the comments of the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions who in the Second Reading debate of the Bill then before the House said—

We have here the old, “kragdadige” fist. A little later on in the debate he said—

I think this shows very clearly the dichotomy in the House. One has on the one hand people of one extreme and on the other hand people of another extreme. There is another comment which deals specifically with this. I again want to quote the then hon. Minister who in the same debate said—

It is so simple—you either have Black or White. However, it is not quite as simple as that. One has the Government’s idea and somebody else’s idea, and very often there is a compromise somewhere in between. Perhaps if the hon. the Minister had listened to the Official Opposition of those days which, I might add before we get anymore comments from the hon. member for Sandton, was a real Opposition and not a shortsighted, weak-kneed, flatfooted, polyglot of political mavericks, but a real Opposition …

What happened to it? [Interjections.]

If the Government had listened to that Opposition it might not have been necessary to come with drastic amendments to the legislation today. I do not want to antagonize the hon. the Minister too far because I want to refer to what he said in regard to his willingness to look at this legislation. He said—

I want to say that we appreciate this because I believe we will require further amendments to this legislation and I am going to remind the hon. the Minister of his comments if he is not prepared to consider reasonable amendments which might be moved by the NRP.

Finally, I should like to say that I think the question concerning the rehabilitation and education of these people have been reasonably well dealt with. I want to make another plea to the hon. the Minister in this regard, ile we welcome his amending Bill we want to ask him to use his influence strongly and see to it that the growing of dagga is controlled as strongly as possible. We ask him to use his influence in the Cabinet to see to it that top-level negotiations are conducted with the Governments of the homelands, because this is where vast quantities of dagga are being grown and where the problem starts.

The South African Police end up with the problem of having to try to stop this dagga once it has crossed the border into South Africa. They have a never-ending problem, a tremendously hard job and, I might add, an almost impossible task to stop this, because when one sees the answers to questions about how much dagga has been confiscated already this year on roads leading from the homelands, one realizes the scope of the problem one is up against. I therefore make an urgent plea to the hon. the Minister to use his influence at the highest level to see to it that the homelands Governments do something to stop the cultivation of dagga.

I do not think I need add anything concerning the rehabilitation aspect, because my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, has dealt with that very adequately. The question of education, which has also been raised, is an important one. It is always essential that young people, who are open to the temptation of experimenting with drugs, be made fully aware of the implications through whatever media are available. We would therefore naturally support that type of approach. Sir, we have indicated our acceptance of the amendment Bill before the House and we are pleased to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I expected the “I-told-you-so” attitude from the PFP, the attitude adopted by the hon. members for Hillbrow and Houghton. I am quite happy to allow them a little bit of spite and fun and I hope the hon. members for Hillbrow and Houghton enjoyed their little bit of fun and spite. However, I think it is important that we should stick to the facts in this regard and retain our perspective with regard to the differences which have existed in the past and which now exist between our two parties in this regard.

There is no question of the NP now accepting the views of the hon. member for Houghton as expressed at an earlier stage or of the NP abandoning its own views. There is still this very basic and important difference in approach between her party and my party. Her party, with her at the helm in this regard, tends to underplay the danger of the possession and use of dagga. While they are prepared to support heavy penalties for peddling, they feel, in accordance with their general, permissive philosophy, that every individual should be allowed to do his own thing. Proof of this is to be found in Hansard. We have heard quotes in that regard. I just want to repeat one short portion of what the hon. member for Houghton said in 1973. When the then hon. Minister asked her a few questions in his Third Reading speech she replied by way of interjection (Hansard, 14 June 1973, col. 9337)—

The hon. member for Hillbrow also climbed onto this very same bandwagon. Like the hon. member for Houghton today, he also pleaded for a sort of fixed schedule of light sentences for the possession of dagga. In his Second Reading speech he said (Hansard, 24 April 1978, col. 5490)—

This easier attitude, this soft approach on the part of the two main speakers of the Official Opposition on this issue stands in direct contrast to the approach of the NP. We on this side of the House are of the opinion that possession of dagga is but the threshold to peddling and dealing in dagga. We believe that possession is truly dangerous for the possessor and for his or her friends. We believe further that the threat of dagga can only be countered by, inter alia, also making the possession of dagga subject to heavy penalties, unless extenuating circumstances can be proved in special cases.

While I therefore express my appreciation for the support of this Bill at Second Reading, I should like to emphasize the considerable difference in approach between us on this side of the House and the Official Opposition.

Turning to the various points raised by hon. members, I should first like to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow. One finds in his speech a curious contradiction repeating itself. On the one hand he made out a strong case for the very real dangers of dagga to be acknowledged and therefore basically supports the heavy maximum penalties provided for in the Bill. But on the other hand, he compares, as I have just quoted, the possession of dagga with contravention of speed limits and pleads for light sentences on a fixed sliding scale. Once again, with regard to another aspect, we find that on the one hand he expresses his confidence in the courts while, on the other hand, he is not satisfied with the restoration of the court’s discretion. He wants to prescribe to the court in detail how many days a person should get for having cigarettes in his possession. I suggest that the hon. member must make a choice. If he, as we do, regards dagga as dangerous—which he apparently does—then he must support the heavy maximum sentences as an indicator of the legislature’s intention in this regard. If he believes in the competence of the courts, as we do, to decide upon sentence, now that the situation is contained to a more respectable level, then he must indeed trust the courts and refrain from advocating prescribed sentences.

In other words, you did not trust the courts before?

Hon. members of the PFP say that they are and were against the minimum sentence. But now the hon. member for Hillbrow suggests a light minimum sentence in his amendment and in the submissions which he makes. He therefore now pleads for minimum sentences and for hampering the discretion of the courts. All the examples the hon. member mentioned in support of the necessity for differentiation in sentences can adequately be met by the courts in the application of their discretion. The same applies to his plea that the definition of “dealing”, as opposed to possession, is too wide. I contend that with the restoration of the court’s discretion the distinction between the big dealer and the small pedlar can be fully accommodated in differentiation in sentence by the courts themselves. If one trusts the courts, one must submit to their discretion. One cannot on the one hand say that the courts must be given discretion and on the other hand prescribe to the courts in terms of one’s philosophy.

The hon. member for Hillbrow quoted the Viljoen Commission, but even the Viljoen Commission supports the retention of the definition of “dealing” as it now stands. They argue that if the court has a discretion— this is what this Bill is about—then there will be this automatic distinction between the heavy pedlar and the light pedlar, if one can coin these two phrases. Having said all this about the hon. member for Hillbrow, I should nonetheless like to thank him for his fairly positive and interesting contribution. He has evidently made a careful study of the phenomenon of dagga and of the drug problem generally and has supplied some very interesting facts to the House.

The next speaker was the hon. member for Umbilo as the main spokesman of the NRP. I want to thank him for his and his party’s support of this Bill. The hon. member put a few questions to me. Firstly he suggested that the abolition of minimum sentences should not be limited to dagga offences only. In this regard I would like to stress what I said earlier, viz. that we believe there is a very real difference between dagga and other drugs. This was borne out by technical contributions we had from the hon. member for Pietersburg and by the hon. member for Brits. Moreover, whichever sources I have consulted tend to draw the same distinction. So I do not think we have reached the stage yet where we can consider that request. However, should there be a dramatic change with regard to the drug situation, of course, as I said earlier, we will look at the matter again.

The hon. member for Umbilo secondly requested that I should ensure that legislation is backed up by preventive measures and by rehabilitation. Although I am not saying that the Government and the private sector cannot do better in this regard, I think we should take note of the fact that quite a lot is being done. I would like to give the hon. member a few statistics. The number of State-governed rehabilitation centres amount to four with a total of 512 beds. With regard to dagga alone, the admittance figure to these centres was, in 1975 alone, 20 people. In 1976, 23 people were allowed and in 1977 a total of 31 people. From this we can see that the number tends to increase gradually. I do admit, however, that the number of admissions does not compare favourably with the number of convictions, but that in itself should not be used to minimize the important work which is being done. The numbers I have quoted pertain only to the four State-governed centres. In addition to those we also have private rehabilitation centres numbering 17 with a total of 734 beds and with an increase in the admission of dagga cases from 10 in 1975 to 26 in 1976 and to 31 in 1977. There are two such centres for Coloureds. The one is called De Novo. The other centre is situated in Worcester and is administered by the N.G. Kerk. The number of patients admitted to these two centres also shows a tendency to increase.

For Blacks we have one centre at the moment, the centre called Madadeni. This centre has 150 beds available. In the two centres for Coloureds there are a total of 280 beds.

How many patients have been admitted to those two institutions?

The total number of patients the centres can take is 280 in the case of Coloureds and 150 for Blacks at this stage. Unfortunately I cannot give the exact numbers of patients being treated for dagga problems at the moment.

Well, I can. [Interjections.]

I think this is a problem which the Government and the private sector must tackle jointly and with proper co-ordination. The moment we have established our new organizational machinery in terms of legislation which is still to be introduced, we will be able to look at this real problem in a concerted effort and on the basis of co-operation.

This brings me to another request by the hon. member for Umbilo. That is that a committee should be appointed to investigate the effect of dagga on all race groups, and specifically steps with regard to prevention. I give the hon. member the undertaking that I will seriously consider this. I will look at the full implications thereof. At this stage I cannot make any promises, and I must stress it that I do not believe in investigations just for the sake of investigating. I shall, however, look into the matter and with the help of the private sector and by means of proper discussions I shall, if I should find it necessary, instigate such an investigation.

Once again with regard to prevention, I think we ought to take note of the wonderful work which is being done in this regard. The hon. member makes specific mention of what he feels to be a threat posed by Transkei. I have some information in this regard and it is interesting to note that very recently—as a matter of fact, I think it flows from the very incident to which he has referred—11 vehicles were attached, 30 persons arrested and 347 kg dagga confiscated. On another occasion a further 850 kg dagga was confiscated. This amount of dagga came from ten buses which travelled from Transkei to the Republic of South Africa. Our police are aware of this danger, they are working very hard and they are doing a good job. Prevention, however, is not merely accomplished by means of police action in this regard. Prevention, as the hon. member for Hillbrow so ably pointed out, is also achieved through educating our young people. I want to appeal to the teachers and parents of Sbuth Africa to avail themselves of the available knowledge on the dangers of drugs such as dagga in particular. They should then apply such knowledge in educating our children so that they become aware of the very real danger and the very important threat which drugs such as dagga pose for their future.

The hon. member for Houghton listed a large number of “I told you so’s”.

I did not.

Oh yes, she did. I want to start with the congratulations she addressed to me for having started with the Bill. Apart from thanking her for trying to be kind to me, I want to state that I voted for the Bill introduced in 1973 which now appears as an Act in our Statute Book. I voted for it because I considered the introduction of such a Bill necessary. I am now introducing this Bill because I believe circumstances have changed.

So there is a lot of hope for you.

In her long list of “I told you so’s” the hon. member claims that she stood alone in 1973 when she suggested that there should be a differentiation between dagga and other drugs. This, however, is not the position. I want to quote her a portion of the speech of the then hon. Minister—

There he acknowledged the difference. He then continued—

But that has changed.

Yes, now the circumstances have changed and we can once again restore the discretion of the courts.

In what way have they changed?

I quoted figures in that regard in my introductory speech and the hon. member is welcome to read it. [Interjections.] There was a dramatic drop in the number of convictions and the minimum sentences imposed since 1973 served their purpose of really acting as a deterrent because the young people now realize that this is a serious matter. We have now reached the stage where this danger in particular is underlined, where we have had tremendous success with regard to the whole campaign and where we can now, because the greater purpose has been served to a large extent, once again turn around to look at the few unfortunate exceptions. What the hon. member who interjected, must remember, however, is that we are still, contrary to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Houghton, maintaining very high maximum sentences as an indication of how seriously we regard this. Where there are no special or extenuating circumstances which the court would, in terms of its normal procedures, be inclined to take into account, heavy prison sentences are imposed because in our eyes this remains a very serious crime indeed.

The hon. member for Houghton said I need not be apologetic. She also asked whether there had been pressures from the “ver-kramptes” in the NP caucus and wanted to know if that was the reason why we were doing so much explaining in this regard. That is, of course, a typically political argument. I could likewise ask her why she changed her mind.

I have not changed my mind.

Oh, yes, the hon. member has. In 1972 she was totally opposed to any sentences for mere possession, but now, apparently under the influence of the hon. member for Hillbrow—is he the “verkramp-te” in their caucus?—she, of all people, proposes a two-year sentence. The proposal of a two-year sentence by the hon. member for Houghton …

Maximum, or a fine.

… is totally in contradiction to her point of view in 1972.

Or a fine.

I do not blame her for that, however. I am glad she has apparently opened her eyes to the dangers of dagga.

No such luck!

With horror the hon. member quoted a very astounding figure to the House. She said there had been 80 000 convictions in the five years since 1972. I also want to quote her a figure. In the year before the Act was passed, in 1971, in that one year alone, there were 40 935 convictions. Spread over five years, that would total 200 000 convictions as against the actual 80 000. That is why we say that there has been a dramatic change in the factual situation and that we can now consider this.

What does the “sheriff” say?

I find you guilty!

The gist of the hon. member for Houghton’s argument was that the real reason behind this Bill is the overcrowded gaols in South Africa. I just want to tell her, however, that it does not automatically follow that there will be a significant drop in the number of persons convicted of dagga offences as a result of the amendment we are now introducing. To assume that because of this amendment the courts will now adopt her view is merely the type of mixed-up thinking we expect from her.

We are restoring discretion to the court— nothing less, nothing more. This Bill is not an instruction to the courts now suddenly to stop sending people to gaol for this serious crime. It is not an invitation to the courts to regard this crime, contrary to the belief of the legislator, as an unimportant crime. The instruction to the courts from this House, if this Bill is accepted, is that the possession of dagga and dealing in dagga are important crimes and should be regarded as such, and only where extenuating circumstances are found should leniency be applied.

*This Bill has to do with the exceptional case, that case which deserves sympathy, and there are such cases. We have always recognized this and we recognize it now. With the passing of this Bill we hope that the balance between reprieve for those who deserve reprieve and firm steps against those who are endangering our youth by their habits and the passing on of those habits to others, will be maintained. As far as this instruction to the courts is concerned, we have confidence in the courts and we know that we shall be able, as always, to rely on their able handling of this important matter.

†The hon. member for Berea addressed himself mainly to the PFP. I think he did it as reasonably as one can expect from a NRP member. I felt slightly like a spectator at a tennis match. However, in the end he did actually refer to the Bill. He asked me why it took us seven years. Well, we needed those seven years to get the problem in hand. Having reached that stage, we took the first opportunity of introducing the Bill. He also asked me whether I would consider further amendments. My reply is that it depends on the factual situation. We on this side of the House will always have an open mind in respect of any change in the factual situation.

In conclusion he said that the growing of dagga should be controlled as strictly as possible. He was particularly worried about what may be happening in the various homelands in this regard. I think he will realize that it is necessary to draw a distinction between independent countries on or within our borders and homelands with which we still have ties in a different constitutional set-up. As regards independent countries, we can only negotiate and warn. If we do not get the necessary co-operation, I can give hon. members my assurance that we shall obviously step up our border measures for the control of dagga coming into South Africa. With regard to the homelands, as with regard to independent countries, whether we gave them independence or whether they became independent as a result of something else, we will maintain discussion and we will try to ensure that they adopt the same strong views as we do on the control and prevention of the dagga problem.

*I should like to thank the hon. members on this side of the House for their wholehearted support. I want to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for a very interesting contribution in which he has given us the benefit of his specialized technical knowledge as a medical man. The hon. member for Boksburg effectively exposed the dualism within the PFP. As an hon. member behind me said by way of interjection, he literally smoked the Progs out. We only want to warn the hon. member that he must be careful what he smokes. The hon. member for Brits, like the hon. member for Pietersburg, made a fine scientific contribution, for which we congratulate and thank him.

Finally, my thanks to all the hon. members who were friendly to me while I was dealing for the first time with legislation in the House in my new capacity. Thank you for the fairly good spirit in which this debate was conducted. I want to express the hope that through the implementation of this legislation, which is so important for the youth of South Africa, we can rely on their co-operation as well.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, as far as the basic principle of this clause is concerned, there is a lot of agreement in this House. An attempt has been made to draw a distinction in approach and to introduce political arguments in an attempt to separate members on a political party basis. These attempts do not do justice to the Bill before us. The hon. member for Boksburg must have been severely disappointed when he failed to anticipate the speech which the hon. member for Houghton made. He, in fact, sought divisions and dug out particulars from as far back as 1971. As I have said, he must have been very disappointed to hear the speech of the hon. member for Houghton today, to which he obviously had nothing to say. Members who subsequently took part in the debate tried to draw a distinction in the approach of the hon. member for Houghton and myself. It is curious to note that in seeking contradictions in my speech and that of the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. the Minister himself has, in fact, contradicted the hon. member for Boksburg. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Boksburg holds the hon. member for Houghton to a speech she made and to her approach in this regard in the past. However, the hon. the Minister has, in fact, alleged that the hon. member for Houghton has changed her mind. Which of the two is correct? There we have a complete contradiction in itself. As far as my own approach is concerned, let me say that I have been consistent. I would remind the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman, that I said very clearly in my speech, and I repeat—

Never at any stage have we contradicted ourselves. Let me quote from my speech again—

I quoted what was done in the United States where the question of possession and the question of dealing is taken into account, and the sentence is imposed on the basis of the quantity of drugs in the possession of the accused. I think we should give a lead in this direction because it is iniquitous to impose a sentence of say five years’ imprisonment on a person for dealing in a small quantity of drugs whereas the same sentence is passed on a person who has dealt with 5 000 dagga cigarettes. This argument also applies to the possession of drugs. The parallel that I drew was that a precedent does in fact exist in our law because as far as traffic regulations are concerned, the sentences increase with the speed. Hon. members on that side are not against that principle, are they? I have not heard hon. members on that side say that the sentence for exceeding the speed limit by 30 km/h should be the same as that for exceeding that limit by 60 km/h. Therefore, the distinctions that are being drawn do not exist at all.

I want to clear up one other point. When I congratulated the hon. member for Houghton I said it was a pity that this Act should be on the Statute Book. Hon. members could have been misled by my statement and I apologize for that. My intention was clearly to say that the removal of the discretionary powers of the court was what we were opposed to, and that we are also opposed to that now. In that respect we have been consistent. The part of the Act which I referred to in that instance related to the discretionary powers of the courts. People have been trying to play politics in regard to that statement of mine. I have no quarrel with what the hon. member for Houghton said. Hon. members are disappointed now, but the hon. member for Houghton has, in fact, emphasized that a drug addict must be treated as an addict and not as a criminal. We stand fully by that principal and our approach supports that principle.

My amendments to this clause appear on page 183 of the Order Paper and concern section 2 of the Act. They relate to the question of dealing in dagga and provide for sentences in the case of a first offence and also for sentences in the case of a second or subsequent offence. We support the sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 15 years in the case of a first offence. However, we are suggesting an alternative of a fine not exceeding R10 000 or both such fine and imprisonment. Likewise, when we come to the question of a second offence, we suggest that the court should have a discretion to impose a fine not exceeding R30 000 or both such fine and imprisonment. The court will therefore still have complete discretion as it can impose a fine or imprisonment. Furthermore, it can suspend the sentence or it can suspend the fine and it has a clear discretion in doing so. The motivation is firstly contained on page 89 of the report of the Viljoen Commission into the penal system of the Republic of South Africa. I quote from par. 5.1.4.3.72—

Further on in paragraph 5.1.4.3.74 it states—

My amendment is accordingly in line with penal reform as proposed by the Viljoen Commission. I think these measures are very necessary—I think the hon. the Minister will agree—particularly in the light of the offence that we are now discussing, i.e. dealing in a dependence-producing substance, which in this case is removed from the schedule, and dealt with separately. I may say that this amending provision is dealt with in a rather clever way in that the other drugs which need not be discussed at the moment are left out.

The difficulty that is experienced in relation to the question of dealing to my mind lies in the interpretation of “dealing”. In this regard I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to the case of The State v. Gibson, an Appellate Division case, which is quoted on page 478 of the S.A. Law Reports of 1974, Vol. 4. This case served before Justice Holmes, Justice Wessels and Justice Rabie of the Appellate division. The following is reported—

We then find the following—

This relates to the example that I mentioned, where A, B and C are sitting in a circle. If A has a dagga cigarette, passes it on to B and B passes it on to C, and at that moment the Police enter, B is in fact guilty of “dealing in” in terms of the Act and C is guilty of possession in terms of the Act while A gets off scot-free. The way in which the definition of “dealing” is worded, should merit the attention of the House at this stage. We are happy about the fact that a distinction can be drawn by the court—this relates to the very circumstances that I have described—in the light of how much dagga the person has who is being accused of having dealt in the substance itself. It is therefore clear that these people should be treated differently. The discretion of the court can now be invoked as to what kind of sentence can be imposed upon such a person. To my mind there is, however, one overriding factor in this regard and that is the provisions of sections 29 and 30 of the principal Act which refer to the dealer in the substance as being an addict. These provisions deal with the case where a person is dealing in the substance for the reason that he has become addicted to the drug. Such a person cannot work any longer, cannot get a job and needs the drug because he has become dependent on the substance itself. Such a person therefore acts as a go-between for those people who are making the money. He acts as a go-between the dealer and those people who are actually purchasing the drug for themselves. In those circumstances it is the dealer, the one who remains hidden, who should really be punished. If the person in between is therefore caught for doing the job of dealing purely because he is addicted to the drug, he should not receive those heavy penalties. With the imposition of the very heavy fines that we are proposing now, I think the person who is in fact the main dealer will have to find the funds in order to rescue that person he has placed in jeopardy while that person was dealing on his behalf.

Taking all these aspects into consideration I think there is a very strong case for my amendments. The hon. the Minister has supported the idea of discretion and it is normal in the course of justice that there is almost invariably an alternative in the powers of punishment that a court has. Such an alternative is usually a fine. In these circumstances there is therefore no reason why the court should not have that alternative, and I accordingly move my amendments, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 14, after “years” to insert:
   or to a fine not exceeding R10 000, or to both such fine and such imprisonment
2. (2) on page 3, in line 17, after “years” to insert:
   or to a fine not exceeding R30 000, or to both such fine and such imprisonment

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the initial egg dance which the hon. member performed by way of introducing his amendments. He evidently tried to reconcile his point of view with that of the hon. member for Houghton. After that, he supplied the motivation for his amendment and at the end, he again came up with a few clever moves. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he really agrees with the amendment to clause 1 moved by the hon. member for Houghton—an amendment whereby she wishes to limit the penalties in respect of contraventions mentioned in paragraph (a) to imprisonment for a period of two years or a fine not exceeding R200, and in the second case to imprisonment for a period of five years or a fine not exceeding R400. I ask the hon. member that because in 1973, according to a report in Die Transvaler of 27 June 1973, he said the following about the hon. member for Houghton—

I want to ask the hon. member, in the light of this—I could quote much more from this report if necessary—whether he agrees with that. If he has changed his mind, he should tell us. Does he agree with the amendment moved by his hon. colleague and fellow party member to clause 1?

I agree with the amendment.

Does the hon. member agree with the hon. member for Houghton? [Interjections.] I find it interesting that this hon. member agrees with the absolutely ridiculous minimal penalty which the hon. member for Houghton proposes in her amendment to clause 1. A sentence of two years or a fine not exceeding R200 for the possession of dagga is surely child’s play these days. What is R200 these days for a person who is in possession of dagga? Surely it is absolutely nothing! When I look at what the hon. member said in his Second Reading speech in respect of the seriousness of the drug problem as we have experienced it in South Africa during the past few years, I find it surprising that the hon. member agrees with this amendment. I am not going to quote from the hon. member’s Second Reading speech now. I shall simply say to the hon. member that I find his amendment somewhat curious. The person who deals in dagga is the greatest criminal of all. He is the one who accumulates the money, and if one takes into account what vast amounts are involved in drug and dagga trading, it surprises me that the hon. member wants to prescribe a maximum penalty, namely not exceeding R10 000, to the courts. I find that surprising. I think it is unnecessary. The dealer, the great magnate and the man who is probably associated with international organizations, cannot be deterred by maximum fines of a few thousand rand.

Or both!

Yes, both the fine and the imprisonment can be imposed. But I feel that a maximum penalty should not be prescribed, but that the question of discretion does not matter so much.

Are you opposed to discretion?

No, I am not opposed to discretion. But I do feel that Parliament considers the offence so serious in this case that it unequivocally prescribes a particular sentence without the option of a fine.

Not a maximum sentence?

A maximum sentence all right, but no option of a fine in this case. That is all we want to say about this. In the case of a second conviction, the hon. member again wants to give an option. It is a very large amount which he prescribes. That type of operator can only be deterred in one way, namely by imprisonment and nothing else.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to clause 1 standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 21, to omit “ten
   years” and to substitute: two years or to a fine not exceeding R200
2. (2) on page 3, in lines 23 and 24, to omit “fifteen years” and to substitute:
   five years or to a fine not exceeding R400, or to both such fine and such imprisonment

These amendments refer to the users, unlike the amendments of the hon. member for Hillbrow, which refer to the pedlars. The objective is very clear. The idea is to reduce the maximum penalty. We already have no minimum penalty and for that we are duly grateful. However, we now wish to reduce the maximum penalty from 10 years to two years and to give the option of a fine up to a maximum amount—and not a minimum amount—of R200 for a first offence. For a second offence, again for using or possessing, we want to omit the maximum penalty of 15 years and reduce it to five years, and to include a fine not exceeding R400. The reason for this is obvious. We believe that the guideline the hon. the Minister is trying to set is too high for this particular misdemeanour, as I prefer to call it. I want to be quite frank. Anybody in this House is entitled to disagree with me on this issue. I have said before and I say again that the medical profession itself has been arguing this point to this very day. For every quotation hon. members can produce about the gravity of the crime of the use of dagga, I can produce equally authoritative sources who say they consider this to have been overrated in the past. It is obviously not recommended, any more than alcohol is recommended, but there are many who say that it is not, in fact, as dangerous as had been thought in previous years. Incidentally, the American Medical Association has come to this conclusion as well. Also I have here an article from the District of Columbia Medical Society which says there should be no criminal sanctions for possessing small amounts of marijuana, but that users should be held fully responsible for their behaviour while under the influence of the drug. I believe that is absolutely right. Dagga is like alcohol. If one drives a motorcar under the influence of alcohol and kills somebody, one must be held responsible. However, using alcohol is not a criminal offence. Misusing it is a misdemeanour and one is punished for that. That is correct. However, I am not going to continue in that vein. I do not care whether people disagree with me on this issue. It is not a party political issue as far as I am concerned, but a medical issue. As I have said, the doctors themselves are divided on this although the weight of opinion is certainly towards regarding marijuana in a less serious light than previously. Of course, however, they do not say that it should be legalized entirely or that it has no harmful effects whatsoever. There are many things we imbibe which have harmful effects, but we do not commit a criminal offence in doing so. However, it is not an important issue and it really does not matter. The hon. member for Boksburg, Berea …

Hillbrow!

… and even Hillbrow know it is a medical matter and not a political one. It should never be a political matter any more than the granting of permission to Africans to have liquor was regarded by the Government as a political matter. It was left to an open vote. That is how I believe these things should be considered by the House, and not as a political matter out of which the hon. member for Waterkloof thinks he can gain a little political capital. The issue is that we should consider the lives of the people affected by the laws which we pass in this country. The hon. the Minister did not even know how many people were in the rehabilitation centres. I can tell him, and it is not my figure; it is the figure given to me in this House in reply to a question. The latest reply that I got was that out of all the thousands of people who have been convicted for using dagga, 18 people, of whom two were Africans—only two in Madadeni, which can hold 150 people—were committed for treatment in a rehabilitation centre! This sort of thing should not be discussed, as I say, as a political measure. We should have regard to the effects on the lives of the people concerned.

Was that your approach in 1971?

Yes, that was my approach.

Are your Whips on or off on this issue?

We are in fact at one here, but we differ as far as regarding the seriousness of this as a crime is concerned. That is all. That is also exactly the attitude of the medical profession. They differ as regards the seriousness of the effect of dagga.

That is your point.

It is not my point.

It is your point.

It is the point of the American Medical Association, and of nine States of the USA which have decriminalized use of dagga. It was the recommendation of the Nixon commission into the use of marijuana. It was the recommendation of the Wootton commission in Great Britain. It was also the recommendation of the Ledain Commission in Canada. None of these things comes out of the top of my head; I have studied them. I wonder why we send people to gaol for using dagga. Why do we not send alcohol users to gaol? There would not be enough gaols in the entire country for alcohol users from one town, let alone the whole country. But we do not send people to gaol for using alcohol. However, we do send people to gaol for this less damaging drug— as I see it, anyway—because alcohol is a drug too and a very dangerous drug at that. I can assure hon. members that more people are killed on the roads by drivers who have been misusing alcohol than have been smoking dagga.

There are penalties for those people.

Yes, but not for just having a glass of whisky in your hand when the police come into your house. But if you are in your house with one dagga cigarette you could … [Interjections.] When hon. members are finished arguing amongst themselves I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that if he were in his house with a glass of whisky in his hand and the police came in he would not be committing a crime.

That is not the point.

It is the point, because if the hon. the Minister were sitting in his house with a dagga cigarette in his hand he would be committing a crime. In that case he could have gone to gaol for a minimum of two years, and I say that was ridiculous.

You are comparing apples with pears.

There are 80 000 people with criminal convictions against them for this so-called crime. It is a misdemeanour. It should be discouraged, just as the use of alcohol should be discouraged. And one might say, at a lower level, since one is only harming oneself, that this applies also to the use of tobacco. The use of tobacco should be discouraged. These are all bad things. I should like to see a bit of sanity brought into this issue.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider seeing whether anything can be done about those people who are presently in gaol under the old law. At the moment, I understand—I am not 100% sure about this because I have not checked it and perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell me— that no remission of sentence is given for drug users. Remission is given for most other crimes, but not as far as this crime is concerned. If that is the case, will the hon. the Minister use his influence with the Department of Prisons to see that parole or remission is also given to people who were sent to gaol for a minimum sentence of two years for the crime of using dagga? I am not talking about peddling now, although that can now also be considered, because there was never a proper definition of “dealing” and a lot of people went to gaol for the minimum sentence of five years, which could not be suspended, who are not being granted remission of sentence. Will the hon. the Minister consider looking into that matter, because I can tell him that there are thousands of people presently in gaol under the old law which he is now amending today.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the views of the hon. member for Houghton both in the Second Reading and now again in the Committee Stage. I can understand her approach. Her approach is clearly that of the permissive society’s point of view. The hon. member for Houghton says that she does not care what any other person’s views are or what any other hon. member’s views are. This is her view. She does not even care what her party’s views are.

That is not what I said.

That is precisely what the hon. member for Houghton said. She said it was not a political issue and that she literally could not care about the attitude of members on her side of the House or, in particular, about the attitude of the hon. member for Hillbrow. However, the hon. member for Houghton forgets one thing. In all the minority reports from which she quotes …

Majority reports!

No, minority reports.

Majority reports!

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must contain herself.

The hon. member for Houghton has been cackling all afternoon. She has been talking such tripe! [Interjections.]

And you are talking such utter nonsense! [Interjections.]

There we now also have a chirrup from the hon. nest of Bryanston. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton fails to recognize one point. That is that in every other Western country this has been recognized for many years as a national problem. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned this is a problem which has been met with a challenge. I now want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether her point of view in regard to this type of legislation has been consistent for as long as she has been in this House. The hon. member for Houghton has had a lot to say this afternoon. She has been responsible for many interruptions. I am asking the hon. member for Houghton again whether her point of view with regard to drug abuse has been consistent over all the years she has been in this House.

You tell me!

The hon. member for Houghton indicates that she does not know. When we listened to all the things the hon. member for Houghton has to say, it is very interesting to note that there was at least a time—that was before she became so much influenced by the point of view of the permissive society—that she did hold the view in this House that when it came to dagga offences there should be no option of a fine. The hon. member for Houghton in fact went so far to support amendments moved here to the effect that there should be no option of a fine for dagga offences.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I recall very well an amendment to the old Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of some 20 years ago, in 1957. An amendment dealing with dagga offences was introduced by the then Official Opposition, an amendment which had the full support of the hon. member for Houghton. She agreed that, in the case of dagga offences, there should be no option of a fine. The hon. member for Houghton even contended that not only should a fine not be allowed, but that the court should not be given any discretion. She supported the idea that, in cases of people convicted on charges of possessing or trading in dagga, the courts should have no alternative but to pass a prison sentence. The hon. member for Houghton fully supported that.

Of what party were you a member then?

I was a member of the same party to which the hon. member for Houghton belonged at the time—the United Party, the then Official Opposition.

And now?

I have never changed my point of view. That is the difference between the hon. member for Houghton and myself. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton reveals a completely different point of view here today. She reveals the attitude of the permissive society, the attitude that dagga is not a drug at all, that it is something that one can enjoy like a glass of whiskey. Yet every report and every bit of evidence ever being placed before this House bears out the fact that all forms of drug addiction started with the use of dagga. That is so in every single case. Our courts have been littered with cases of assault, robbery, etc., as a result of the use of dagga. Yet the hon. member for Houghton says that we should adopt the attitude in South African society that enjoying a glass of whiskey and enjoying a dagga cigarette are two similar things. That is precisely her point of view. I think the public outside should be informed, the mothers of South Africa should be informed that the only female member of this hon. House adopts that attitude. Even hon. members of her own party sit there this afternoon supporting her in this attitude.

However, I want to return to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member to give me the sources to substantiate his statement that every single authority says what he has been saying about dagga? [Interjections.] I have given the sources to substantiate every single thing I have said and the hon. member should now kindly give his sources.

I need not take a better authority in regard to the effects of dagga than the speech which the hon. member for Hillbrow made during the Second Reading …

No. We want the authority for the nonsense you are talking.

Order!

I shall quote an example. The hon. member quoted certain medical associations in the USA who expressed certain points of view in regard to dagga. One can do precisely the same by saying that certain medical associations in the USA have preached that if one should eat two eggs a day, one would inevitably suffer from thrombosis. It has, however, been proved over and over that such a point of view is utter nonsense.

But we want your sources …

The fact that the Government of the USA, as the hon. member for Hillbrow has pointed out, recognizes the threat of dagga and the effects it can have in undermining society in the USA just as this Government recognizes the threat of dagga and the effects which it can have in under-mining the youth of South Africa, should be proof enough. In fact, the effects have been proven over and over.

Order! Hon. members must realize that you cannot have two consulting physicians for the same patient.

Mr. Chairman, I am accustomed to the poppycock the hon. member for Bryanston dishes up from time to time.

You were obviously talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Bryanston is not by any chance under the influence of a “reefer”?

The hon. member for Bryanston should contain himself.

Ask him whether he is still a smoker!

Well, he gives me the impression that he has enjoyed a “reefer”. However, I do not know.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member surely cannot make statements to the effect that an hon. member on this side has enjoyed a “reefer”.

Order! What did the hon. member for Von Brandis say?

Mr. Chairman, I said I was under the impression that the hon. member for Bryanston could have enjoyed a “reefer”. I understood that during the afternoon in the course of a debate …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “enjoyed a reefer”.

I withdraw that remark. I should like to come to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think the hon. member made a very good speech during the Second Reading debate.

His speech shows that he must have made a study of dagga. What puzzles me, however, about the speech of the hon. member is that whilst the major portion of it deals with the evil of the dagga user, he has said very little about the main cause of the use of dagga in South Africa. The main cause is the dagga dealer and it has been shown in every other country in the Western world that the dagga dealer is the real danger, the real underminer in the sense that he causes the public to smoke dagga. I should like to ask the hon. member why, if he believes in what he said a few moments ago about the real cause of the growth in the use of dagga in the ’sixties—a growth which the present Act curtailed—he introduces an amendment which is going to give the courts a discretionary right when they deal with the real source of the trouble. The dagga dealer, the man who sits behind the scenes. The reason why we have had a decline in the use of habit-forming drugs is the fear of the pedlar that the dealer will not be able to find clients or, to put it more correctly, a pusher of dagga. That is the reason why there has been a decline. People are no longer prepared to take the risks one has to take should one wish to become a pusher. In the olden days the pusher used to be assured by the dealer that, should he get caught, the dealer would pay the fine. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to discussing the clause. At this stage the Committee has to consider two amendments and I feel that we on these benches should express our opinion as far as these amendments are concerned. The hon. member for Hillbrow has moved his first amendment with the view to enabling the courts to impose, for a first offence, a fine of R10 000 or both a fine and a term of imprisonment and, for a subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding R30 000 or both a fine and imprisonment. This is the situation concerning a person who is convicted of dealing in dagga. We cannot support the amendment because we believe that dealing in dagga is perhaps the most serious of all crimes in so far as this legislation is concerned. The person who is a dealer is a person who involves himself with large sums of money, amounts sometimes running into millions of rand. Sometimes dealers are also members of vast international syndicates dealing in dagga or marijuana or whatever name it is given in other parts of the world. We feel that this type of offence is one that has to be viewed with the greatest degree of severity. Indeed, if there are circumstances involving the discretion of the courts, clause 2 does have a proviso relating to the position in regard to suspension, postponement of sentence, discharge with a caution or reprimand. Therefore the discretion of the courts, as far as this is concerned, still goes unfettered. We feel that dealers should be handled with the utmost severity and we therefore cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

The second amendment, which was moved by the hon. member for Houghton, of course deals with the possession of dagga. I do realize that in this instance there is a differentiation between the dealer and the person in possession of dagga. However, we in these benches do not share her view, which she apparently approves of, that in other parts of the world dagga has been proven to be harmless.

I never said that, you know.

The hon. member indicated that there had been investigations and research which indicated that dagga was harmless. I wrote down what the hon. member said as she was speaking. She used the word “harmless”.

I said it is less harmful than alcohol.

The hon. member states that she said it is less harmful than alcohol. Well, I doubt whether that would stand up to any great degree of research. The question of alcohol is, of course, a very important one. In fact, it is a vitally important one. At this stage the Committee is not, however, dealing with the question of alcohol. We are dealing with an amendment to the Act relating, in particular, to dagga. Alcohol, of course, does have its restrictions. We have had free votes in this House, and I have no need to say that on many occasions I have opposed a great many pieces of legislation making alcohol more freely available. I am sure the hon. member for Houghton realizes that. There are restrictions, however, in the sale of alcohol to persons under the age of 18 years, even though there are unfortunately many instances when this is not adhered to. There is nevertheless such provision made. The dagga pedlar, however, is subject to no age restrictions. The trafficker in dagga will sell dagga to any person regardless of whether such person is over or under 18 years of age. I believe that this is one of the greatest dangers. Indeed, when I had the privilege of organizing a youth organization, the ruination of the club came about as a result of people peddling dagga and getting to the young people of 14 and 15 years of age, people who, under the influence of dagga, caused a great deal of difficulty in that youth club, so much so that it had to be closed down by the police. One can therefore realize the dangers involved when a person is peddling dagga amongst our young people. I believe that this is a very serious matter. When I spoke during the Second Reading debate I did, in fact, quote an authority who indicated the dangers of dagga and the effects on a person who smokes dagga. I mentioned the fact that 83% of the people in a relevant survey were found to have psychiatric disorders. So there is medical evidence for this. The hon. member for Pietersburg also indicated, from a medical point of view, the harmful effects of dagga. Therefore we cannot agree with the hon. member for Houghton who said that it is not an offence but a misdemeanour. That is her point of view and she is entitled to it. She indicated that there are perhaps people sitting on her party’s benches who do not share that point of view, and that is quite possibly so. I do not wish, however, to develop a petty argument, because obviously the hon. member sitting next to her supported all this legislation in 1971 when he was a member of the UP, the then Official Opposition.

So did you, Geoff.

Of course I did, and I make no excuse whatsoever for having supported that legislation. I indicated, at the time, that we believed that stringent steps had to be taken. The hon. the Minister, in replying to the debate this afternoon, said that after seven years they had decided that certain steps would have to be taken, and the provision in clause 1 is one of the steps now being taken, and we are supporting it. We do not see any reason, however, why the amendments of the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Houghton should be accepted. They believe that they are, by their amendments, making a further concession, because the only way I can interpret these amendments is that they are trying to find some other ways and means of softening the attitude to dagga. We on these benches believe that there are sufficient steps that can be taken by the courts at their discretion to impose a punishment that can act as a deterrent for others. I do not think it should merely be judged by the fine, the monetary punishment, that can be imposed. On the basis of finding ways and means of deterring persons, on conviction, not only from dealing in dagga but also from being in possession of dagga, I believe that the clause as it now stands should be accepted by the Committee as a provision which goes a long way towards meeting a situation where dagga is dealt with on a different basis to the other hard-line drugs while at the same time still acting as a deterrent for those persons who might wish to deal in dagga and for those persons who are found to be in possession of dagga.

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for the support which we are getting from the hon. members of the NRP through the hon. member for Umbilo. We appreciate it that they support these very important amendments.

As I was listening to the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon, something struck me which I should like to bring to her notice. I should be pleased if she would tell us what her standpoint is about the matter. She objected this afternoon to the fact that we did not mention alcohol and dagga in the same breath. I cannot quite understand that. She does not request that action should also be taken against the people who are promoting the liquor trade in South Africa; nevertheless, she intimated this afternoon that she had no objection to our imposing heavy sentences on dagga pedlars. I simply cannot reconcile these attitudes of hers.

Perhaps she has an interest in the liquor trade.

I do not know whether the hon. member has interests in that—I should rather leave it at that.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has moved an amendment with which we cannot agree at all. It concerns the imposition of penalties. If I understood the hon. member for Hillbrow correctly, he intimated in his Second Reading speech that the penalty imposed for the use of a serious and dangerous drug like dagga—he said it was dangerous and I shall presently show just how dangerous it is—should be brought into line with the penalty imposed for a speeding offence. I really think, to put it mildly, that it is a ludicrous comparison which the hon. member tried to draw. He also quoted the case of the State v. Gibson. I agree with him that there may be tragic cases where a man may land in trouble and where we sympathize with him about that. If the amendments envisaged by the Minister are introduced, the court will, however, have a discretion and will therefore be able to keep an offender out of gaol by not imposing a heavy penalty.

Anyway, he should not sup with the devil.

It is a very interesting remark which the hon. member makes there. One should use a long spoon when one sups with the devil; in fact, one should rather not sup with him at all. The hon. member wants us to get hold of the actual dealer, the man who supplies the drugs, and in that respect we agree with him. But I cannot agree with him that we will catch that man by inserting a fine into the sentence. I really cannot understand how it will help to expose this man if we amend the provision by providing that a fine may be imposed.

As I have said, we are concerned here with the penalty to be imposed. The amendments which we are considering today deal with the possession, use, making available and supply of dagga. We heard the reasons for the amendments in the Second Reading speech by the hon. the Minister. In deciding on a suitable penalty for offences of this nature, we as legislators surely look at different aspects of this problem. One of the most important considerations, in my view, is the seriousness with which we approach this matter. Naturally, this in turn is closely associated with the proportions which this problem with which we are dealing has already assumed in our society and in our community. In South Africa, fortunately, the possession, the use and the making available of dagga have always been viewed in a very serious light. One reads that, for example, in a report by the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters. I refer to page 10 of that report. I am not going to quote verbatim, because the hon. members can go and read it for themselves. There is justification for viewing it in this light, and there are several good reasons for that. One reason is that one of the stronger dagga types, namely cannabis sativa, is found in South Africa. According to all available evidence, the use of and traffic in this dangerous drug in South Africa are still assuming serious proportions today. We have heard evidence today of the number of offences committed in which dagga was involved.

During 1971-’72 there were 38 000 such offences, and although the figure had declined to 21 900 in 1975-’76, it still remains a disquieting number of cases of this nature. Of all the dependence-producing substances which the Police confiscate every year, dagga represents by far the largest proportion. During 1971-’72 it was more than 2 million kg. In 1974-’75 it had declined to 525 000 kg. The speeches made by one speaker after another today—for example, the hon. member for Berea, the hon. member for Umbilo, the hon. member for Brits and even the figures which the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Hillbrow quoted—contained evidence which made the seriousness of the matter abundantly clear. But the hon. member for Hougton ignores the seriousness of the situation, the seriousness of the figures which she herself quoted to us. However, this is the factual situation as we encounter it in South Africa. Since 1971, when heavier penalties were introduced and when heavier sentences were prescribed for this offence, the number of offences has declined by 40,4%. In spite of that, the danger of drug abuse in South Africa is by no means over. We must be awake to it. The recognition of the danger must—that is what we believe on this side of the House—also be reflected in the penalties we prescribe. We must show society how we feel about this matter. We must show in what a serious light we regard this matter.

However, the hon. member for Hillbrow has now moved an amendment with regard to supplying and dealing in dagga. As I have said, we cannot support it. The hon. member for Waterkloof asked him what his views were in respect of the proposals by the hon. member for Houghton about the penalties— the light penalties—which she wants imposed for the use or possession of dagga. I do not know whether the hon. member has replied to that. He can get a turn to speak after this and then he can tell us whether or not he agrees with that, especially in the light of his speech which he made in this House, from which I quote the following (Hansard, 24 April 1978)—

He went on to say that a certain Mr. T. D. Read, a senior magistrate in Pretoria, had published the book, and said further—

He goes on to make the following important statement—

He alleges that Wilkerson said the following—

In the light of the seriousness of this matter, I should like to know from the hon. member for Hillbrow how he feels about it. Does he still want us to adopt the proposal by the hon. member for Houghton—her proposal that the penalties should be reduced? The main motivation of the hon. member for Hillbrow for the amendment which he wants to effect is based on the report by the Viljoen Commission. He said so in his Second Reading speech. What does the report actually say? It is a long paragraph. I do not want to read it all now, but I should like to summarize it by saying that the general idea it conveys in respect of this matter is that the prescribed minimum penalties have apparently not had the deterrent value which had been wished for. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was absent from the House when I spoke and indicated, in reaction to questions across the floor of the House by the hon. member for Waterkloof, that I agreed with the hon. member for Houghton on the issue of alternative fines. I agree with her on the basis that we are in fact increasing the discretion given to the courts. I have stated earlier that we stand completely for the discretion of the courts so that they can deal with each case, as cases differ from one to the other. At all stages the court should have a discretion to deal with a matter as it is before it. The hon. member for Von Brandis quoted the 1957 law. I think he should look at it again, because the 1957 law did not impose a minimum sentence for a first offence. It was only for the second offence that it was imposed. I therefore do not believe that the hon. member can make any political capital out of that. I want to ask the hon. members for Verwoerdburg, Von Brandis and Waterkloof whether they disagree with the findings of the Viljoen Commission on penal reform. If they do, they must say so and tell us on what grounds they reject the recommendations. Our motivation, as stated by the hon. member for Houghton, myself and later on by the hon. member for Bryanston, is based on the recommendations of that commission.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg took one sentence out of the report and based his argument upon that. To indicate to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg exactly what we are basing our claim on, I want to quote from page 89 of the report of the Viljoen Commission—

We are dealing with dealers in this regard and, dealing with dealers as well, the Commission has the following to say on the same page—

What we are therefore doing in this regard is that we are getting, in terms of the commission’s recommendations on penal reform, at the dealer. We are not minimizing the discretion of the courts to deal with the dealer; we are in fact increasing that discretion. We have not suggested that the maximum sentence, as laid down in the Act, should be altered. We leave the maximum sentence as it stands. All we are doing through the amendment which I have moved, is that we are giving the courts the right not only to impose the maximum sentence, but in addition to that to impose a fine or both. It therefore goes further. In sentencing a person the courts now have the discretion to get at the real dealer. If they therefore get a case before them where they know they have the middleman before them and that he has to be punished—if he is not an addict—for being the middleman, they should impose a prison sentence, a fine or both on this man in order to get to the man who is making the real profit. Part of this middleman’s sentence can be suspended and the question is whether this man will squeal and whether the fine is going to be paid for him. This man is not going to be left in gaol. This is a recommendation of the Viljoen Commission, and I ask hon. members: Do they reject the commission’s findings? If so, they should get up and say that the Viljoen Commission’s recommendations on penal reform are wrong. To illustrate that we are dealing with the case of the dealer, I quoted the case of the State v. Gibson where the question of dealing, and of one “reefer” came in. However, dealing goes beyond that. Dealing can be cultivating; one can cultivate large masses of dagga. Dealing means the importing of large amounts of dagga, and it means the possession for the purpose of sale if it is over the prescribed two ounces. These are all different facets of dealing. What we are very simply asking for in this regard is to increase the discretion of the court to deal freely with each case as it comes before it. That is our submission.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. member that we on this side of the House are in no way objecting to the findings of the Viljoen Commission. But the hon. member once again failed to read far enough. Towards the end of my previous speech I was busy saying that the penalties had apparently not had the deterrent effect which we had hoped they would have. This is, however, largely a matter of speculation. That is also admitted by the Viljoen Commission. Paragraph 5.1.4.3.73 on page 89 of the report reads—

I mention this specifically because the commission was here really concerned with the reinstatement of the discretion of the court. We do not find fault with that, and that is precisely what we are now doing by means of this clause. We are reinstating the discretion of the court. Let us leave it to the court to decide what should be done in such a case. The hon. the Minister has told us that the time had now come for us to leave it to the courts to exercise a discretion. But it is very clear indeed that we cannot ignore the seriousness of the situation. The hon. member wants high fines imposed. Why does one impose a fine? I think there is much authority for the viewpoint that the choice of a fine should be there to keep people out of prison. But do we want to keep a dealer, who has made a lot of money, out of prison? I do not think we do. There are many aspects of this matter about which we can argue. One can argue that the fine imposed should be such that it is commensurate with what the person can pay so that he can be kept out of prison. But there is no method whatsoever according to which the court can ascertain …

There is.

The hon. member should please listen a little now. There is absolutely no method by which the court can ascertain or determine what amount of money the man has already made out of committing this crime. For this reason I am totally unable to agree with the hon. member that the dealer who is found guilty, should have an option of a fine. We leave it in the discretion of the court to decide for itself what must be done with these people.

In the few minutes still at my disposal, I should like to have a word with the hon. member for Houghton. She has proposed that we should drastically decrease the penalties for the possession and use of dagga. As I understand her—she must correct me if I am wrong—her reason for this is that these offences should no longer be regarded in such a serious light. She says it should be regarded as a “misdemeanour” and not as an offence. I have read over the evidence which her colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow, has submitted to the House—evidence showing that dagga is one of the most dangerous drugs to be found on the market today. We on this side of the House naturally regard dagga as a very dangerous drug. We regard the use of dagga as a serious offence and not merely as an act of misdemeanour. We do not want the public at large to get the impression that we have now become soft on the use of drugs and drug addiction. I am convinced that if we adopt the light punishment which the hon. member for Houghton proposes, it will be thought that we on this side of the House no longer regard this matter in a very serious light. We should therefore continue to regard the use of dagga as a serious evil and try to combat it on that basis. I agree with the hon. member that we must try to fight this evil and that we should rehabilitate addicts as far as possible. We are also very sorry for those who have become addicted to these substances. But the solution does not lie therein that we should decrease the penalties. We shall certainly fail to fight the evil that way. We have to fight it with all the means at our disposal, or else we must have the courage of our convictions and say that we are prepared to allow it in our society. That we on this side of the House are not prepared to do.

In 1971, the hon. member for Houghton was prepared to say that dagga should be legalized in South Africa. I think that is what the hon. member said. I ask her now whether she has changed her mind in the meantime. She cannot sit on two stools in regard to this matter. She must either say that she regards it in a serious light and that we should fight it with all the means at our disposal, or she must say that we should legalize it so that it can then be dealt with on a different basis.

I am convinced that the mild punishments will not help, because the fact of the matter is that in the years when the fines did not exceed R1 000 and the imprisonment did not exceed five years, dagga offences rocketed. Since 1971, when heavier penalties were introduced, the offences declined considerably by 40%. Does the hon. member for Houghton want us to bring about the previous situation in South Africa again by again introducing lighter penalties at this point? The hon. member has pointed out that in 1971, we sent 40 000 people to prison in this regard. That means that during the period of five years after that, 200 000 people could have landed in prison. According to her own testimony, however, only 80 000 people were convicted of that offence during those five years.

We regard the possession and use of and trade in this drug, this destroyer of our young people, in a very serious light. We regard it as such a serious offence that we should like to leave the public at large under no illusions as to the serious light in which we regard the matter. For this reason we try to fight it by all means at our disposal and we prove that we are in earnest about this by means of this legislation. Whilst we are trying to be humane towards the really tragic cases, we try at the same time to show that we are in earnest by saying that we are not prepared to accept lighter penalties. We are not prepared to leave the people in any doubt as to how seriously we regard this matter. For that reason we really cannot support the amendments moved by the hon. members of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, after I have replied to the hon. member who has just sat down, I want to address one or two words to the hon. member for Von Brandis. I want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that the way to discourage the use of dagga and other dangerous substances, is not by heavy criminal penalties, but by a campaign to make the young people of the country aware of the dangers of over-use of alcohol and all forms of dangerous, addiction-forming substances, including dagga. I want to quote to him the words of Dr. De Miranda, the chairman of the S.A. National Council for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. He has more experience than the hon. member or myself in treating people who are addicted to drugs. He believes, and I quote—

That is the sort of thing which is happening. The hon. member seems to think that by punishing people one stops them from taking drugs. That is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to educate them as to the dangers of drugs. If they are addicts, one treats them as patients.

Again I wish to quote Dr. De Miranda—

Believe me, he is right. He goes on to say—

That is precisely the point I have tried to make: do not send people to gaol for drug addiction, but treat them, and educate young people as to the dangers of drugs.

I now come to the hon. member for Von Brandis. He was the hon. member for Turffontein on this side of the House when he made a speech in 1957 about drug abuse. That hon. member has the nerve to ask me whether I have changed my views. This is really a joke.

You supported me.

And you are now sitting on the Nationalist side, so let us not talk about that. In fact, I did not open my tiny mouth on that subject. However, I will say to the hon. member that I do not remember having any particular positive views on the subject.

But you voted for it.

The question was simply put without a vote being taken. I do not know whether I was there or not, but I honestly do not remember what I thought about in 1957 as far as the drug situation was concerned. I do not think I really ever applied my mind to it. I was busy with other subjects. However, I can tell the hon. member that I think it is a joke when he says that I now, 20 years later, support the premissive society— twenty years later when I am a very old lady and a grandmother! That is really a very interesting thing for him to say. However, the interesting thing is that one must look at the hon. member. If anybody has changed his mind, it is that hon. member. [Interjections.] In 1957, when the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Bill was under discussion—the Bill to which the hon. member referred—the then hon. Minister of Health had to plead with him not to be so drastic in his views. The hon. member proposed an amendment which would make imprisonment compulsory, for a first offence.

That is correct.

The hon. member says that that is correct. Now he sits on that side of the House and he is voting for the discretion of the courts, to remove compulsory imprisonment for subsequent offences, yet alone a first offence.

My point is that you supported all that.

That does not matter. I had no views on the subject then, but that hon. member had very definite views. Listen to what the hon. the Minister of Health said at that time. He said (Hansard, Vol. 93, col. 1150)—

He was referring to that hon. member’s amendment, viz. compulsory imprisonment for a first trivial offence. He had very fixed views then. I do not know what views I held then. I do not think I held any views in those days on that subject. However, that hon. member held fixed views. Today he is voting for the removal of a compulsory sentence of imprisonment on first, second and subsequent offences for peddling drugs. What do hon. members think about that?

Why does he not cross the floor?

Why is the hon. member worried whether I have changed my mind? He should look into his own addled mind to try and find out why he has changed his mind. It is just possible, of course, because he is sitting on the other side of the House where the Whip is very strictly applied on all issues of any sort whatsoever. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it is fitting that I should react to the debate at this stage, because the hon. member for Houghton has already started referring to her age, and just now she is going to tell us how old she really is. One should really separate these two amendments, because the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow proceeds from the standpoint that a heavy punishment is justified. His motion really amounts to this, that instead of a high maximum term of imprisonment, a high maximum fine should also be permitted.

Or both.

He wants to see a connection between the two. On the other hand, the hon. member for Houghton, although she asks for a fine or imprisonment, or both, also wants to see a radical reduction in the punishment which the law prescribes at present. For that reason I should like to address myself in my reply firstly to the hon. member for Hillbrow and his amendment. The figures which the hon. member mentions, of R10 000 for the first offence and R30 000 for a later offence, appear tremendously impressive at first sight. It is however a general principle as regards the imposition of fines that the ability of the accused to pay, is a determining factor in the determination of the amount, i.e. how large or how small the fine should be. In practice, therefore, the vast majority of offenders convicted will not have such heavy fines imposed on them. In relation to the R10 000 and R30 000 which the hon. member proposes, relatively lower fines will be imposed because few people fall in a very high category of income. Therefore, in the normal course, the average fines will be relatively low. Of course, the opposite could also occur. That is that such heavy fines will be imposed that nobody will be able to pay them, in which case the proposal by the hon. member for Hillbrow will be counterproductive. If the fine is beyond the means of the offender, he has to go to prison in any case. For that reason, the logical conclusion must be that the fines were comparatively low in relation to the high maximum amount which the hon. member for Hillbrow has proposed here as an impressive amount.

A fact which we should also take into account, is that where there is a fine as an alternative punishment, the crime in question is always regarded in a less serious light. We all know that nobody can be fined for murder. For murder a person can be hanged, or he can be imprisoned for life, and it can even be that a totally suspended sentence is imposed upon him. But a murderer cannot be fined, while someone who has been found guilty of culpable homicide—which is a less serious offence—can be fined. Why does our common law—not Parliament—draw this distinction between the two concepts and methods of punishment? A suspended sentence for murder is surely also a light punishment. In appropriate circumstances it is perhaps an even lighter sentence than a fine of R300. This distinction is made because the common law took cognizance of the fact that imprisonment as such without the option of a fine has a psychological effect whereby the seriousness of the offence is stressed and underlined. That is the most important reason why I do not see my way clear to accepting this amendment. I cannot accept the amendment because I fear that the introduction of the option of a fine, however impressive the amount, is going to have the effect that the public—all who are involved—will come to the conclusion that this offence is now regarded in a less serious light. That is not the intention of the Bill. Nor is it the intention of the Government. We still regard the offence in a very serious light and we continue to regard it in the same serious light.

That is the only way in which the legislature, in giving the court discretion, can express what it wishes to stress, namely by saying that it is a very serious offence and that only imprisonment is to be imposed. There are, however, other arguments as well. Let us take the big seller, someone against whom the hon. member for Hillbrow is also very strongly opposed, someone whom he in fact would like to see brought to book—a man who is really the brains behind everything, who makes big money out of dagga sales and who uses those who are already enslaved in his selling activities. Say, for example, he is brought to book and a fine of, say, R10 000 is imposed upon him. Is that going to make him stop committing that offence, or is he merely going to expand his activities in order to recoup the R10 000? A logical conclusion is also that the price of dagga will rise because fines are now going to be calculated as an “occupational hazard”.

Therefore it is important that if that man is exposed, he must be prevented from continuing with his activities. He must be removed from the community; his hands must be tied completely so that he cannot continue with his unholy activities and his structure, organization and channels of distribution are disrupted and collapse.

There are the cases which are deserving of sympathy. The hon. member is not the only one who is entitled to be sympathetic to those who deserve sympathy. We have emphasized this from our side. In my Second Reading speech I said that it was true that there were more reprehensible and less reprehensible cases. Because this is so, the judge will now be able to suspend a person’s whole sentence. Surely that is light enough. The judge in such a case now has the ability to impose a light penalty in the deserving case. The insertion of a fine will confuse the whole issue, however, and disrupt and detract from the psychological deterrent which is provided by the sentence of imprisonment.

When we come to the discretion of the courts which is being restored, I think we should tell one another what the consideration is which counts in our courts in such a case. The hon. member for Johannesburg North may not agree with the summary of a previous colleague of his, but I think it is a fairly generally accepted summary. I am referring to the summary which was once given by Mr. Justice Hiemstra, when he basically said the following—

1. (a) Die vonnis moet uitdrukking gee aan die wetsgehoorsame gemeenskap se gevoel van verontwaardiging oor die daad. Dit is die element van vergelding wat nie met wraakneming verwar moet word nie.
2. (b) Dit moet daartoe meewerk om te verseker dat dieselfde persoon nie sy daad sal herhaal of weer ’n ander misdaad sal pleeg nie.

This is an important reason why I am in favour of imprisonment without the option of a fine—

1. (c) Dit moet andere tot ’n voorbeeld strek en hulle sodoende van die misdade afskrik.
2. (d) Indien tot gevangenisstraf oorgegaan word, moet die doel daarvan wees om die misdadiger deur middel van dissipline en arbeidsaamheid te rehabiliteer.
3. (e) Die gemeenskap moet beskerm word teen misdadigers deur hulle uit die gemeenskap te verwyder indien dit uit ’n beskermingsoogpunt genoodsaak word.

With the sound guidelines summarized above, we can trust the courts, where they have absolute discretion, to be judicious in their use of imprisonment as the only penalty.

Perhaps I should interrupt myself at this stage. During the second reading debate, the hon. member for Houghton spoke about the question of rehabilitation. In the course of the Committee Stage, she has twice said that not enough is being done about rehabilitation. I agree with her that more could be done. It is typical of her, however, that she disregards all rehabilitation done in the prison itself. After all, prisons in South Africa are not places where people are simply locked up in a dark hole. In modern South Africa, a prison is a place in which expert psychologists are employed. It is a place in which follow-up work is done if someone is released on parole. My department talks to accused persons and tries to help them. We try to help identify and solve their social problems. To be imprisoned in South Africa, therefore, is part of the process of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is not only done outside the prison, but inside as well.

The hon. member for Houghton wants to reduce the penalty. I think we had better agree to differ, for when I review her record as it has been spelt out again by several speakers, it appears that she makes little of the danger of dagga. She admitted this again this afternoon and I am not saying it to disparage her. For the sake of the argument, however, I think she was very inconsistent, because she is obviously very concerned about the dangers of alcohol. She has a long parliamentary career behind her, but I have never heard her introduce a motion here asking for steps to be taken against the use of alcohol. Has it ever been her platform in Houghton that stronger steps should be taken against the danger of alcohol? For arguments sake, however, she makes a fuss here about the dangers of alcohol. I belong to this generation and I inherited alcohol and ordinary tobacco, which can both be harmful, as things which became part of society in the times of our ancestors. As another speaker said earlier on, with the knowledge we have now, if tobacco or alcohol had been discovered at this stage, we would perhaps have taken up a different attitude towards them. The fact is, however, that as far as dagga is concerned, we are faced with something which is rapidly gaining ground, which involves serious danger, and I suppose I also have the right to say that there are other experts who hold a different view. However, I have never found anyone among the experts who equates these things. They all say that the real disadvantages of dagga are in fact much more fundamental, that it affects one’s entire system and can cause various extremely serious disorders. We have come to the conclusion, therefore, that dagga is a really dangerous and harmful substance. We have also come to the conclusion that possession cannot be described as a minor crime. We believe this because it is often difficult to prove that people have been dealing in dagga and because one may obtain a conviction of possession while one has in fact got hold of a dealer as well. It is true that there may be aggravating circumstances under which one may be in possession of dagga and that there are also more deserving cases towards which one is sympathetically disposed, and for the sake of the cases with aggravating circumstances, there has to be the heavy maximum penalty, while, for the sake of those cases which are really deserving of sympathy, the court has to be given the discretion even to give such persons suspended sentences only.

I think this is a reasonable Bill and I want to ask hon. members to accept it and to enable us to show, in maintaining imprisonment as the only prescribed penalty, that we condemn possession of, use of or dealing in dagga, but that we leave it to the courts to accommodate, within the limits of their discretion, the truly deserving cases which call for our pity.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words with reference to this clause. I am not going to object to it; we agree with it. The effect of the clause is to allow for the suspension of sentences as far as dealers are concerned, which was of course removed by the amendment of 1973. I simply want to say that we are very much in favour of this because, as the hon. the Minister himself tacitly admitted, there are cases where this crime is less serious than in other cases. Therefore the discretion of the courts must be restored. There are many comments by judges stating that they have been put in an impossible position by having to impose a minimum sentence of five years for a first conviction and much more for subsequent convictions in cases where they would like to have suspended a sentence or imposed a less heavy sentence. Consequently I want to say that we are very much in favour of this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in lines 4 and 5, to omit “of, use of or dealing in” and to substitute “or use of”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 7, to omit “fifteen years” and to substitute:

1. (3) on page 5, in lines 9 and 10, to omit “twenty-five years” and to substitute:

1. (4) on page 5, after line 10, to add:

1. (i) in the case of a first conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding fifteen years or to a fine not exceeding R10 000, or to both such fine and such imprisonment;
2. (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 25 years or to a fine not exceeding R30 000, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Section 6 of the principal Act provides that, if the owner, occupier or manager of a place of entertainment becomes aware of any person possessing, using or dealing in a drug, he should report that occurrence to the Police. If he should fail to report such an occurrence to the police, he is subject to certain penalties as set out in section 6 of the principal Act. The amendment being introduced once again follows the principle applicable to the whole amending Bill, viz. to separate dagga from other drugs. The amendment provides that in the case of dagga certain penalties can be imposed in the case of a first and second conviction under the circumstances to which I have referred.

What we aim to achieve by our amendments to clause 3 is to make a clear distinction between people who possess or use dagga at a place of entertainment where the owner, occupier or manager is subject to this provision, and those persons who are found to be dealing in dagga at such a place of entertainment. By way of our amendments we should like to suggest that, where the provision applies to either the possession or the use of dagga, the period of imprisonment should be reduced from 15 years in the case of a first conviction to two years as the maximum period of imprisonment or that a fine not exceeding R200 can be imposed or that both such fine and such imprisonment should be applied; that in the case of a second conviction the period of imprisonment should be reduced from 25 years to five years with the option of a fine not exceeding R400 or of both a fine and imprisonment; and that, in the case where the offence is that a person has been found to be dealing in dagga at a place of entertainment, the original period of imprisonment envisaged in the Bill should continue to apply, viz. a period not exceeding 15 years in the case of a first conviction and a period not exceeding 25 years in the case of a second conviction, but that in addition there should in the case of a first conviction be an optional fine not exceeding R10 000 or both the fine and the imprisonment and in the case of a second conviction an optional fine not exceeding R30 000 or both the fine and the imprisonment.

Many of the arguments that have been advanced today from the side of the Government appear to be based on the belief that members on this side of the House do not have the same fears in respect of the problems of drug abuse, that they do not feel as strongly about the ravages caused by drug abuse to the population of our country and that they do not want to deal with the problem as effectively as the Government does. That is not true. We are as concerned and we wish the problem to be dealt with as effectively, but there is a difference in approach. We believe that more success could be achieved through the approach we have been trying to suggest to the Government.

The hon. the Minister has said that he accepts that judges will apply discretion in regard to the period of imprisonment and that they will apply that discretion with good sense and intelligence. If he believes that, surely it is not beyond his capabilities to believe as well that if one gives to the judges not only the discretion of applying a maximum period of imprisonment, but one gives them the additional discretion of applying, as an alternative, a very heavy fine or the imprisonment and the fine, one has actually given the judge …

You make provision for a fine of only R200.

If the hon. member will look at the amendments, he will see that I am talking about the full spectrum of fines and periods of imprisonment that are set out there. We then provide the judges not only with a discretion in regard to a term of imprisonment, but also with an additional discretion. One accordingly provides the courts with the means of treating the different and differing cases before them in different ways because they in their discretion will decide, in each case, what the most effective means will be, firstly, either to put a stop to the use of drugs or the possession of drugs or, secondly, to put a stop to the dealing in drugs. The judge can assess each particular case and the circumstances of the persons who are charged to decide how he can most effectively apply either a prison sentence or a fine, or a prison sentence and a fine, to combat the crime of drug abuse or drug dealing and put a stop to that crime. It is not a matter of making the provisions of this Bill less effective in this particular case or making it potentially less effective. The giving of this discretion to the judge is an attempt to make it possible for the judge to be more effective in combating the crime and to be more effective in acting against the persons who either possess, use or, particularly, the persons who deal with the drugs. We are aiming at giving the judge greater discretion and putting greater means at his disposal in terms of the circumstances that he will find in each particular case to be more effective to put a stop to the crime and to be more effective in dealing with the people who are responsible for drug abuse taking place.

If the hon. the Minister would just for a moment believe that we are as concerned as he is about the problem, that we are as determined as he is that effective steps must be taken to put an end to this problem and that this is the genuine motivation of hon. members on this side of the House, he will then possibly be able to accept that what we are proposing are ways and means of providing our judiciary with ways and means to be more effective in combating the crime and dealing with those persons who are responsible for the crime.

Mr. Chairman, I am not doubting the bona fides of the hon. members of the PFP. I accept that they are as concerned as we are. However, they are as concerned within a particular philosophy and framework of thought. Their evaluation of the seriousness of the danger of dagga is obviously a different evaluation from ours.

*Mr. Chairman, if this was not so, surely the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Bryanston, would not have suggested that the maximum period of imprisonment for the possession of dagga should be two years. Therefore, it is not a matter of their bona fides. It is more a matter of their evaluation of the situation. Theirs is totally different from ours. That is the first point.

Secondly, the hon. member says that the discretion of the courts would be more flexible if they could impose fines as well. From a certain point of view, I think he has a point in making that statement. On the other hand, in our law it does mean something when there is the option of a fine. It means, in fact, that one is dealing with a crime which is not regarded in such a serious light. In cases of rape I am not aware of an accused having any option of a fine. In cases of assault, however, there is such an option. As I said earlier on, no such option exists in the case of murder, but it does in the case of culpable homicide. Our standpoint is that the drug problem and the danger of drug abuse, which includes dagga, are so serious that we do not want them to rank with the lesser crimes, those crimes where there is the option of a fine.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I have virtually completed my argument and I just want to conclude by telling the hon. member for Bryanston that up to now this section has presented very few problems in practice. I have not been able to trace many offences reported in terms of that section. Basically the provisions of the section is aimed at nightclubs in which many iniquities can take place. According to the evidence of the Viljoen Commission, the Commission, too, could not really determine whether the section had any impact or not. However, the section appears on the Statute Book and the fact that there have been few prosecutions in terms of it, is an indication of a fair possibility existing that it may be regarded as an effective deterrent. In the light of the previous arguments against the reduction of the penalties for possession and as a result of imprisonment being preferable to the alternatives offered by those hon. members, i.e. a choice between imprisonment and a fine, it is better, in my opinion, to keep the clause as it stands, and for that reason I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendments.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (4) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived and amendment (3) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a most interesting and satisfying debate on the question of the penalties provided for in the Bill. There has in fact been no difference of opinion between any hon. members of the House with regard to the removal of the minimum penalties as prescribed by law, with regard to the reinstating of a discretion to the courts of law, a discretion which magistrates and Supreme Court judges should have when dealing with cases, or with regard to the separation of dagga from the other drugs listed in the schedule of dependence-producing substances. It is a pity that hon. members tried to seek political capital and to look for divisions rather than to deal with the merits of the case that we were discussing in the House. I do not believe that any satisfaction was given to the House or to the country while hon. members were trying to dig up statements made in 1973 or to compare them to statements that were now made in trying to accentuate political division and to exploit those divisions. I do not believe that is in the interests of justice or in the interests of what we are trying to achieve here.

We have been dealing with dagga, but dagga is not the only drug; there are also a host of others. Discussion has today centred around the question of cigarettes and alcohol. I do not subscribe to either cigarettes or to alcohol, but one has to recognize actual differences that exist. One cannot simply say that one is against smoking, alcohol and everything else. One has to examine it and put it in its true light. A person may smoke cigarettes up to an age of 99 years and live very healthily, whereas another person may smoke cigarettes up to the age of 30 and not survive. The position is the same with alcohol. Alcohol is a drug. There are something like 15 million alcoholics in the United States today. A common denominator has developed on the whole question of drug abuse generally. There is namely a modern trend that the more people use a particular drug, the higher is the incidence of people that become independent on it.

Figures show that in the United States, Holland, Belgium and other parts of Europe, between 6% and 8% of people who imbibe alcohol become alcoholics. However, it is also a question of degree, a question as to whether it is taken in moderation or whether it is taken in excess.

When one comes to the question of drugs, in particular dagga, it is to a large extent a question either of throwing one’s hands up in the air and saying that one should not touch it at all, or of investigating the matter to see to what degree it harms a person. The hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members have referred to the Shafer Commission, an American National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. I had the pleasure of giving evidence before that commission. The commission was appointed by Pres. Nixon and came out to South Africa to investigate the position here. It learnt a lot about the dagga problem in South Africa. After a year of taking evidence in various parts of the world it issued a report to Pres. Nixon, a report which he did not accept in the end. The commission came to a number of findings and I should like to refer to page 55 of the report which deals with the different types of users of drugs. I think this summarizes the differences which exist. According to the report experimenters in and intermittent users of marijuana, or dagga as we know it, have little or no psychological dependence. The second category to which the report refers is that of moderate users. According to the commission these users have moderate psychological dependence, increasing with duration of use. They also display behavioural effects which are minimal in stable personalities, but greater in those with emotional instability. The report thirdly refers to heavy users, the so-called American “pot-heads” who have a strong psychological dependence and detectable behaviour changes. Organ injury is possible, and there are effects which are more easily demonstrable with long-term use. The last category is the very heavy users. According to the report people in this category are users in countries where the use of cannabis has been indigenous for centuries. Further characteristics are: Very strong psychological dependence to a point of compulsive drug seeking and use, clear-cut behavioural changes, and greater incidence of associated organ injury.

Order! I have allowed a very wide discussion on drugs and drug taking in the Second Reading debate, but in this debate I want hon. members to discuss the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend going further into the question. I merely wanted to illustrate some aspects of the problem.

Hon. members on the other side have stated that they have not changed their attitude at all and remain implacably opposed to dagga. We in these benches also remain implacably opposed to it. We do not encourage the use of dagga for anyone in South Africa. As far as I am concerned, I have stated categorically that the removal of a bad law does not make dagga a good drug, and I stand by that. However, what we have to do is to see it in its correct perspective. We have to examine certain aspects because now that we have taken away the minimum penalty and have amended the Act as far as sentences are concerned, I do not believe we can purely leave it at that. We may have differed in the House in regard to the discretion of the courts. We, in fact, tried to give the courts more discretion and I think it is clear from the refusal of the hon. the Minister to accept our amendments, that the Government do not want to give the courts the full discretion. They have limited the discretion of the courts in not allowing the usual discretion allowed to a Supreme Court or to a magistrate dealing with a case to impose a fine. We are now in a situation where the law has to be applied in South Africa. If a person of mature age indulges in drugs, I think he is old enough to accept the responsibility for it, but what hurts us and the country, is the abuse of drugs by youngsters in the category eight to 14 or even 18 years of age. That is what we must guard against. Having reduced the penalties, let us embark upon a programme in South Africa to ensure that it will not be necessary to have those children or drug dependents appearing before courts of law to have these sentences imposed on them. One of the clearest aspects emerging from the Shafer Report is the question of availability, and therefore we must make the drug unavailable.

By doing so we must take every step at all times to see that the drug is not available. Availability does lead to drug abuse. Secondly, we must embark upon a very heavy programme of education. In the USA they start to educate the children at the age of six years with regard to drugs, their consumption and effects. After that we must embark upon the problem of rehabilitation. For many years I have been very closely connected with a rehabilitation centre concerning drug abuse in particular. I have seen these people. I am no expert as far as medical or paramedical matters are concerned, but I have been with them, spoken to them and tried to help them in some small way with the assistance of properly trained medical and paramedical personnel at the clinic with which I have been very closely associated for many years. These youngsters, who come from good homes and broken homes, enter society and are lost to the future of South Africa. This is a very sad thing. Therefore the rehabilitation centres must not be placed of refuge to which they are sent by courts of law instead of being sent to gaol. We must have a centre where they can be rehabilitated.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the viewpoint of the hon. member for Houghton when she says that she believes that dagga should be legally made available in South Africa for personal use?

I am sorry the hon. member for East London North was not in the House—he was obviously in the Other Place—when the matter was discussed. The question was discussed ad nauseam in the House. The hon. member for Houghton has replied in the debate and has stated her view very pointedly. I have stated our views. Where there happens to be any difference of opinion, we have agreed to differ.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I am not going to allow that discussion again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Having now advanced to the stage in which hon. members opposite may have changed their minds with regard to the penalties and their view concerning dagga, perhaps we may have a look at the way in which the problem is developing in this country. I believe it is our duty as a Parliament, seeing that we have these penalties which are going to be imposed in terms of the legislation we are proposing now, to keep abreast of the situation with regard to the consumption of dagga and its effects. It is no good having laws unless one keeps one’s finger on the pulse and controls the situation. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider having an international symposium in South Africa of international experts to be chosen from different parts of the world so that we can concentrate on the consumption of dagga, the dependence upon it and its effects. Let us then use the information we can obtain from an international symposium of that nature to assist us and this country in dealing with this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am very glad indeed to be present in the House this evening to support this Bill, a Bill which goes a considerable way to meeting the many objections that I had to the original Bill when it was passed in 1971, and the even greater objections that I had to the amending Bill which was passed in 1973. Those were measures which resulted in thousands upon thousands of people being convicted for the use and possession of dagga, many of them serving long prison sentences as a result of those convictions. When the hon. the Minister replies I should like to have an answer to the question I put to him earlier today about whether he would use his influence to see whether parole or remission of sentence could be granted to some of the thousands of people who are presently serving sentences which were inflicted upon them under the old 1971 and 1973 Acts.

I believe that since the House is finally taking a step in the right direction and adopting a modern attitude to the whole question of drug abuse, i.e. that there should be a discretion by the courts in pronouncing sentence and that drug addicts should rather be treated as sick people instead of criminals, it would be a further step in the right direction if the hon. the Minister could use his influence on his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Prisons, to try to get a change in the parole and remission regulations as far as persons convicted of drug offences are concerned.

I must take advantage of this opportunity to say that I wish that the hon. the Minister had in some respects gone further than he has gone in this measure. I should like to ask him to re-examine the provisions of section 13, which are not contained in this measure, to see whether he cannot do something about the solitary confinement provisions relating to people suspected of knowing something about drug dealing. I would like to inform the hon. the Minister that in 1977 something like 245 people were held in solitary confinement, with no access to them other than a judge who could see them every other week, for some considerable period of time. I believe that this is an infringement of the normal rule of law in South Africa and one which has no place in the drugs legislation, or anywhere else for that matter, in the laws of South Africa. With those few words I shall again tell the hon. the Minister that I am glad to be here to support the first measure that he has introduced in this House.

Mr. Speaker, now that we have reached the stage where we have accepted the principle of this Bill, I think all members will agree with me that it is really a feather in the NP’s cap, in view of the fact that we have had such an effective Act, one which has proved to such an extent that it has achieved the desired effect, that we have been able to effect the necessary changes to the penal provisions. I am also grateful to say that there seems to me to be a more responsible attitude on the part of the Opposition tonight with regard to drugs and to dagga in particular. I believe the hon. member for Hillbrow has had a wholesome effect in that regard. May that be the case. He said, “how a responsible member of Parliament like the hon. member for Houghton can call dagga innocuous, is beyond my understanding”. I hope it will not be necessary for the hon. member for Hillbrow to use those words of his again.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister that we use these penal provisions only by way of experiment. If necessary, if there should be an increase in the use of dagga, he must not hesitate to apply more stringent measures once again so as to get to grips with this problem as we have been doing in the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, I begin with the hon. member for Boksburg. I want to assure him that since we depart from the point of view that if the factual situation were to change, we shall take another look at the Act, we shall probably be obliged, if the factual situation were to change negatively, to see what measures should be introduced in order to restore the successes which have already been achieved. Therefore the hon. member may rest assured that if there is going to be any misunderstanding as a result of this and if people perhaps start thinking that we are now going to deal leniently with dagga offences and this results in an increased crime rate, we shall definitely consider introducing more stringent steps once again.

The hon. member for Hillbrow agrees with us in such a way that it is very difficult to feel satisfied about it. The hon. member once again made two statements which oblige me to answer him briefly. Now his only concern seems to be about young people smoking dagga. However, an old man using dagga is as much of a danger to the community. [Interjections.] It is from the old man smoking dagga that the young people acquire this habit. Consequently we have to deal as strictly with the old man as the young man. [Interjections.] Moreover, the hon. member tried to put it in a subtle way that they—he and his party—while we are trying to restore the discretion of the courts, still favour an even wider discretion being granted to the courts. I think the hon. member did not understand my valid legal argument. It is, to be more specific, that when the court is granted a discretion, the court may exercise it, but it still remains the prerogative of Parliament to indicate the seriousness of a crime.

The deletion of the alternative of a fine is the prerogative which Parliament exercises to indicate to the court that a crime falls in the category of more serious crimes, the category of crimes from which one cannot buy oneself out and for which one has to serve a heavier punishment.

In addition the hon. member made three important statements. I think he summarized the matter accurately when he said that the implementation of this legislation and the successful combating of the dagga threat is very intimately bound up with the availability of dagga, with the guidance with a view to the prevention of dagga offences, and with the process of rehabilitation. As far as the availability of dagga is concerned, surely this is basically a matter for the police and the crime fighters to handle. In reply to the appeal by the hon. member, I want to say nevertheless that in respect of guidance and rehabilitation, I see the private sector as playing a special role. We are living in times when hon. members of the PFP feel themselves at liberty to question the Government’s willingness to co-operate with the private sector, and often insinuate that we are moving in the direction of a welfare state, in the direction of a State take-over of this or that. We should like to say to the PFP that they have the opportunity at this point—and I extend the invitation to them here and now— to use their influence with the private sector so that the latter can play its role in the process of rehabilitation and guidance. If they display that willingness, I can give them the assurance on behalf of the Government that there would be the most cordial co-operation and that we should welcome the private sector as partners in the battle against and the combating of the drug threat.

The hon. member made a very constructive suggestion in connection with a symposium. I shall consider his proposal together with the request of the hon. member for Umbilo for a commission of inquiry into this matter. A symposium has certain implications, however. Whether national or international, it remains my conviction that such a symposium must be so formed as to lead to practical action, otherwise it would be a waste of time and money. However, I shall definitely consider this constructive proposal.

The hon. member for Houghton requested that I should reply to her question which, due to an oversight, I failed to reply to. It concerns the effect of this Bill on people who have already been convicted for dagga offences. The functions of the Department of Prisons are completely separated from those of my department in this regard.

You can use your influence there.

In the first place, I think she can find some consolation in the fact that it is the policy, as I understand it, of the Department of Prisons to release large numbers of people convicted in terms of this Act. Unfortunately, I do not have the details at the moment of how many were released but I do know that 1 032 people were released on parole in 1976.

On remission?

No, on parole. It is a fair percentage. Even though the percentage is not high, it is still a significant percentage of our total prison population. She can also be sure that among them there were many people who had been found guilty of dagga offences. I can make her no promises but I want to suggest that she raises the matter during the Vote of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Prisons. I can point out to her once more—in fact I can give her the assurance in this regard—that our prisons are not merely places where people are punished; our prisons should also be regarded as rehabilitation centres. Cases deserving of parole or remission on grounds of good conduct, are very fairly evaluated by the Department of Prisons.

The hon. member also requested me to take another look at section 13. She quoted statistics to show the vast proportions which this crime is assuming. She told us that since 1972, 80 000 people have been convicted in connection with dagga alone. I have already pointed out to her that in the one year prior to 1972, more than 40 000 people were found guilty. The only logical conclusion to be deduced from that, is that we are dealing with a crime of tremendous scope which is therefore very difficult to combat. We on this side regard section 13 as essential for effectively dealing with the drug threat in general and the dangers of dagga for our young people in particular. For that reason I have no positive news for her in this regard.

I thank hon. members for their co-operation. I am glad that I could pilot the Bill through the House in such a relatively good spirit.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is the first of a trilogy of Bills, two of which have already been read a First Time and all of which will receive the attention of this House during the present session.

The third Bill had also been read a First Time, but I withdrew the Bill this afternoon and gave notice of the introduction of a new Bill. Hon. members should not draw any particular conclusions from this, except that quite a number of amendments to the original Fund-raising Bill will be contained in the new Bill which will be tabled tomorrow. However, it remains basically the same Bill although, as I have said, it will contain quite a number of relevant amendments.

The history of the Bill we are now dealing with dates back to before 1947. Prior to that year legislation relating to welfare organizations had existed since 1919 in the Cape Province; since 1926 in the Transvaal; and since 1932 in Natal. As hon. members know the Welfare Organizations Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1947. However, this Act was repealed in 1965 and replaced by the National Welfare Act of that year. The latter Act still exists and in fact covers the entire field with which the three aforementioned Bills, the trilogy, are concerned.

The Bill under discussion does not, like its immediate predecessor, also try to regulate the raising of funds and the registration of social workers. However, it still has a lot in common with the 1965 Act, and traces of that Act are unmistakable perceptible in it. As in the previous Act, provision is also being made in this Bill for the establishment of a council which will take stock of welfare matters on a national level, for the establishment of regional welfare boards and for the registration of welfare organizations. Therefore, in spite of the splitting up of the existing Act into three new Bills, there is no drastic departure from the dispensation we have had up to now. I should also like to give hon. members the assurance that there has been no over-hasty change-over to the new dispensation. In fact, the principles underlying the Bills which we are now introducing have been receiving serious attention since 1971.

As hon. members have probably observed, the underlying philosophy of this Bill seeks to have the planning and co-ordination of our welfare services revert, to a greater extent than before, to the communities where the needs exist This is being done because experience has shown that welfare work may best be carried out if it is planned and executed on a community-orientated basis. The community ought therefore to be involved to an ever-increasing extent in the welfare work of the community itself.

I am aware of the opposition that has been generated in some quarters to the new legislation, particularly after it was published for comment in July last year, and also until quite recently. In fact, my department and I have received a considerable number of representations, and I myself, in the short period since assuming office on 3 April, have had quite a number of interviews with reasonably representative delegations. Some of the comment received over the months was undoubtedly based on a misunderstanding. I can also testify to the fact that we succeeded in many cases in clearing up the misunderstandings. Other proposals were constructive and contributed to the improvement of the Bill, and then, too, there was the purely negative reaction, a reaction which was based on mistrust and suspicion-mongering.

I should very much like to express my sincere thanks this evening to all who made representations, whether or not they received comprehensive replies, for the trouble which they took to react and, whether asked to do so or of their own volition, to state their views in writing or to submit them orally to the department and to me. I want to assure them that quite a number of their representations resulted in amendments to the Bills and that in my opinion the Bills are, as a result of their efforts, more polished and ought to be more acceptable to the entire welfare community.

I want to qualify “more acceptable’’ immediately by saying that in my opinion they ought to be fully acceptable because we now have a trilogy of laws which I think will fulfil the highest ideals which the welfare effort should have as its objective. I want to give the assurance, moreover, that it is our aim and endeavour to involve the community to an ever greater extent in its own welfare work and also, in the process, to give it an ever greater say. We proceed on the assumption that regional welfare boards find themselves in a particularly favourable position not only to gauge the welfare needs of the community, but also to influence and to help determine the feelings and views of the community on the rendering of welfare services. Because such a regional board is drawn from the community itself, it is best equipped to evaluate local conditions.

The 1965 Act also provided that regional welfare boards should be held responsible for the co-ordination and planning of welfare services in their respective regions. Therefore, this is no new principle. Unfortunately nothing much came of it over the years, owing to various reasons, the most important of which was perhaps that there was no direct liaison between the regional welfare boards and the department. The National Welfare Board, to which the regional boards were accountable in terms of the 1965 Act, did not have the kind of executive powers that would enable it to finalize matters.

The idea of regional planning and regional orientation also found expression in the Van Rooyen Commission of Inquiry, about which I shall have more to say when I deal with the other two Bills. This commission expressed itself strongly in favour of regional development and forward planning on a basis of co-operation, as envisaged by this Bill.

Furthermore, I can fortunately assure hon. members that we have come to this House today with a tried and tested measure. We tested the philosophy underlying this Bill in practice. For this purpose an area consisting of Vanderbijlpark, Meyerton, Vereeniging, and Sasolburg was chosen—this was before I became Minister and as MP for Vereeniging I had nothing to do with it—and a committee consisting of an official of the department and representatives of the various welfare organizations and of the relevant town councils and schools in this area was convened to determine, and devise plans for, the welfare needs of the area. The committee represented a very wide diversity of interests and it was impressed upon the committee from the outset that it should represent the interests of the entire community instead of the interests of specific groups.

What caught the attention first in this connection was how little the members of the committee were in fact aware of one another’s activities and of the welfare services that were already available in their area. What is more, it was very soon apparent that the committee members, and therefore the organizations which they represented and to which they were attached, were not always fully conversant with the welfare needs and welfare potential of their area. What had given rise to this was apparently the existing system whereby welfare needs and welfare services were determined and planned on an ad hoc basis rather than in a co-ordinated and orderly way.

Let me furnish a few examples of what this little pilot committee found, and brought into existence. In this way an interesting investigation of the need for crèches in the area, an investigation which was instituted with enthusiastic support from the schools and the local authorities, brought to light important and hitherto unknown facts. It revealed in particular what a tremendous potential of womanpower could be made available if proper care could be taken of the children of working mothers.

What is also important is that the committee’s active involvement with the welfare affairs of the area are not only brought to light existing needs, but indeed also demonstrated that certain supposed needs did not really exist.

For example it was disclosed that the need for a place of care for unmarried mothers, a need which the committee initially thought existed, did not really exist at all and that one such place of care in this region had in fact to close down owing to a lack of demand for its services. In this way the unnecessary expenditure of energy and capital on a project for which there was no real need could be avoided and this energy and capital could be utilized for other important objectives.

On the other hand the committee’s activities and its involvement in the welfare affairs of its area, disclosed urgent needs which might otherwise not have received attention in time.

The important fact is that as a result of this experiment the community’s own people were in fact dealing with affairs of local interest. We found that this stimulated the enthusiasm and interest of the community to such an extent that new life was breathed into services which had previously lacked the necessary support What is more, it gave sparkling and pulsing momentum to the welfare work of the area.

The co-ordinated and planned action which emanated from the committee in this experiment, also achieved what the department had hoped would be achieved by the new dispensation, namely to generate and maintain the active participation of the community in the welfare matters of the community. Consequently this participation not only redounded to the credit of the community concerned, but also demonstrated in a striking way that it is possible to generate that vitality which our welfare effort needs if it wants to develop a dynamic service to the community.

Authorities who observed this experiment agree that the trial run of the committee was crowned with success. In fact, some bodies have already reproached the department for not having proceeded to take similar steps in their areas. The cordial co-operation of the organizations that participated in the activities of the committee augur well for the future.

Consequently I want to convey on this occasion the sincere gratitude and appreciation of my department and myself to every member of the pilot committee, as well as to every organization which participated in it. I believe that through their willing co-operation and unstinting service they did pioneering work and demonstrated beyond any doubt that the course which we intend adopting in this Bill can be followed with confidence and optimism.

I am also confident that the experiment which we carried out demonstrated that it is and remains our firm intention to undertake and to perform our welfare work in this country in the closest co-operation with welfare bodies in the private sector. We do not in the least intend to deviate from the course taken or to establish a welfare State, such as that for which some hysterical critics are at present asking. In our ordering of affairs there is, and there will always be, a full and equal place for voluntary welfare organizations, and the traditional ties of co-operation linking State, church and private enterprise will be maintained as long as we retain among ourselves the will to do so. That will is indeed present in my department and in me, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it to be also present in the private sector and the churches. That is why I believe that we shall be able to continue on the cordial basis of co-operation of the past in a more orderly and co-ordinated way in future, to the benefit of our entire society.

I do not want to elaborate in full on the particulars of the various provisions of the Bill. It is a reasonably simple Bill, and therefore I am going to limit my elucidation to a few aspects, where I think this is called for.

In the first instance I want to refer to the establishment of a South African Welfare Council, as contemplated in clause 2, read in conjunction with an amendment which will appear on tomorrow’s Order Paper. In this connection I want to apologize to hon. members of the Opposition.

The intention was that they would receive them earlier, but owing to the long weekend they were somewhat delayed. Early this morning, when I realized that the amendments had not appeared on the Order Paper, I made an effort to furnish them with the amendments, and I take it that they have in fact received them. I have no reason to believe that the provisions of the clause which establishes a South African Welfare Council will present hon. members with any problems. But there are certain members who already want to know whether this council is going to be a multinational council, and precisely how the council will be constituted. Naturally it is still too early to speculate on details. The fact of the matter is that this Bill places no obstacle in the way of a multinational South African Welfare Council. A discussion of the matter will still have to be entered into with interested parties, and only then will the Government be able to reach a final decision. For that reason I do not want to say anything further about this matter, except to content myself with saying that there is no obstacle in the way to this South African Welfare Council being a multinational welfare council.

The functions of the envisaged council are set out in clause 3. I think that those functions cover a particularly wide field and that there need be no fear that the council will not be granted sufficient freedom of movement in the performance of its work.

I am aware that there are certain bodies which have advocated that, in addition to this council, another national council be established between the S.A. Welfare Council and the various regional boards. Unfortunately I cannot support this school of thought, for I believe that the council which is to be established in terms of clause 2 is able to meet all our needs in this regard and that there is no additional benefit to be derived from a municipality of councils. We are confident that the S.A. Welfare Board which is being envisaged will be able to do the work that is expected of it and that with the machinery which is now being established it will be possible for all aspects of our welfare service to receive proper attention. Under these circumstances I do not think there is any need for another council.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the present National Welfare Board, under the chairmanship of Prof. Jannie Pieterse. This board has over many years distinguished itself as a board which has done good work and as one which deserves our highest appreciation. We want to say to all the members of the board that his or her contribution did not go unnoticed and that we have over the years taken cognizance of the great task which they have been performing successfully in the interests of our people.

Apart from our thanks to the members of the National Welfare Board, we must also convey our thanks to the members of the 10 regional welfare boards and to the members of the Commission for Welfare Organizations, the Commission for Social Work, the Commission for Family Life and the Commission for Welfare Planning, for the important work which they have done over a long period. Without the individual and collective dedicated contributions from the members of the National Welfare Board and those of the regional welfare boards and commissions we would in all probability not have made the progress in the field of welfare which we have in fact made, and we would probably not have been able to enter a new phase today. They helped to pave the way and create the climate in which our welfare effort could flourish. We take leave of them in the knowledge that their individual services need not necessarily be lost to us through this legislation.

As far as the constitution of the new S.A. Welfare Council is concerned, I think that the procedure which is being envisaged creates for us the opportunity of constituting a board of experts in the sphere of welfare. There are certainly various ways in which such a council may be constituted, something which we can and which we most probably will discuss in the course of this debate. At this stage, however, I do not think that one specific method is so much more advantageous than another that a change in this respect is called for.

As it is, the designation of the members of the council will take place on the highest level and we shall be able to ensure in that way that it will be a balanced council on which the best brains are concentrated. The method of appointment of the existing National Welfare Board, i.e. by way of nomination, will probably be held up to us as a preferable method, but in this connection I should like to point out that this could give rise to problems in the case of a multinational council where all the population groups will not easily be able to participate in the nomination procedure. The structure of the Bill, if one views it as a whole, does not lend itself to a nomination system either.

Apart from the S.A. Welfare Council— hon. members must be able to percieve this— the Bill makes provision for regional welfare boards. The constitution of these regional welfare boards follows the old traditional pattern as laid down in the existing National Welfare Act. Since these boards are going to be the mouthpieces, as it were, of their respective communities, we think that the procedure which is being prescribed will be the best under the circumstances.

There is no intention, and in my opinion no need either, to constitute regional welfare boards on a multinational basis. [Interjections.] In this connection I want to refer briefly to the provisions of clause 22 of the Bill in terms of which the implementation of the Act may be entrusted to various Ministers. I want to state unequivocally that, since the S.A. Welfare Council may be constituted on a multinational basis, it is the intention that the respective peoples of the country will establish their own regional welfare boards. [Interjections.] This is so because we believe that the welfare of each community may best be served by the community concerned.

That is not true.

Since regional welfare boards will in reality function on the local level…

That is duplication.

Please note, these boards will function on the local level, and it is in my opinion only sound policy that each community should plan and accept primary responsibility for its own members. [Interjections.] The interjections from hon. members opposite compel me to depart from my written speech.

This debate will be a test for the PFP, a test to establish whether they are in earnest when they say that they also stand for the maintenance and recognition of identity.

What has this to do with identity?

Welfare, like education, is most closely concerned with identity in the community. We shall listen carefully to the contributions of the hon. members and if they propose full integration in this sphere as well, as we in fact expect them to do, we shall know that the words in regard to identity which appear in their programme of principles are not worth the paper on which they are written. [Interjections.]

In accordance with the Bill, the regional welfare boards receive … [Interjections.] The hon. members may as well calm down now. We still have a lot of time in which to become angry. I am simply trying to bring clarity to the confused ranks of the Opposition. In the Bill the regional welfare boards are being given the important function of drawing up welfare programmes.

I do not want to analyse the provisions of clause 12 in detail because in reality they are self-explanatory. It is hoped that the drawing up of a welfare programme for each region will contribute to focussing attention on the needs and resources of the regions, to ensuring that all aspects of the welfare work in a specific region will receive positive attention and—this is perhaps most important of all—to successfully involving the community as a whole in welfare efforts.

I want to come now to the registration of welfare organizations. In this connection I want to point out—this is important—that no welfare organization is compelled to register. I am aware that registration for welfare organizations is not without significance and indeed is not without advantages either. They are not compelled to register, but if they were to register, that would undoubtedly enable them to achieve a joint say in the welfare milieu of the community in question. I would seriously urge all organizations, whether they are at present rendering welfare services or wish to render such services, to cause themselves to be registered with their various regional welfare boards. In this way they will, as it were, tacitly acquire the approval of their community for their participation in the welfare effort of the community.

To those organizations that make or want to make use of State aid, I want to say that registration is essential with a view to financing. The financing plan recently announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, full particulars of which will be furnished to welfare organizations, constitutes great benefits for these organizations, and it is therefore in their own interests that they be registered as welfare organizations.

On the other hand some bodies have been up in arms about this Bill as though its intention was State intervention in or encroachment upon the domain of the private sector. I should like to point out to those concerned that the fact that the registration of organizations is voluntary, proves the contrary. An organization which prefers not to register can, if it has its own funds, do its own thing without State intervention in the sphere of welfare without registering. If it does not have its own funds, it can content itself with registration in terms of the next Bill which we shall deal with, and with the funds it has raised it can, subject only to the control contained in the Fund-raising Bill, do its own thing without any intervention in its activities in terms of the provisions of this Bill, or without the regional plan inhibiting it in any way.

And if it does not register?

Such an organization need not register. A further source of concern to objectors is the possibility that registration of a welfare organization may be refused. In this connection I promised certain organizations that I would once again consider ways and means of making the revision of a decision in terms of which an application for registration was rejected possible before an appeal to the appeal is lodged committee which will be established in terms of clause 15. I considered very carefully whether, after the initial rejection, there should not be a second rejection by another person or body before an appeal may be lodged. However, I reached the conclusion that this may not appropriately be done without seriously obstructing the appeal procedure for which provision is being made in the Bill. I satisfied myself that the appeal procedure for which provision is being made affords adequate and fair protection of rights and deserves to be supported rather than watered down.

I think that the remaining provisions of the Bill may be discussed to better effect during the Committee Stage. Therefore I want to content myself with an appeal to our welfare organizations—and the Opposition—to make this legislation their own now. In this way they will make of it that success which I believe they are capable of, with the necessary mutual goodwill. This measure cannot possibly be seen as an abrogation of bights. On the contrary. It places the highly important aspects of our welfare effort, viz. planning and co-ordination, with a minimum of control in the hands of the community via its representatives on the regional welfare boards. In reality, therefore, what they are going to do with this responsibility depends on them.

I conclude with a word of gratitude and appreciation to my predecessor, the hon. J. P. van der Spuy and also to Mr. Van Vuuren, the Secretary of the department.

In the period prior to my assumption of office and subsequent to the publication of the original Bill in the middle of 1977, they worked very hard. Hundreds of representations were processed and numerous interviews were conducted. Expression has been given to this hard work, to which I was only able to make a modest contribution during the last few months, in the three Bills before this House, Bills which have most certainly been prepared as thoroughly as any Bill could possibly be.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make use of the opportunity to officially welcome the hon. the Minister to his new post and to wish him well in it. I hope he will apply himself to bring benefits and good fortune to all the people who depend upon the services of the department he controls. Because he is a new Minister, we obviously will for the moment be more sympathetic than we would have been if he had been in the post for a very long time. At this very early stage I should like to tell him that the three pieces of legislation he is now busy introducing, could in fact get him off to a very bad start. We on this side of the House will attempt to help him to avoid such an unfortunate situation by moving a number of amendments during the Committee Stage, amendments which we believe are essential to improve the legislation. He could be a victim of circumstances in that he has inherited legislation which was drawn up before he took over this very important position. I suppose it behoves the new hon. Minister to speak with great enthusiasm about the legislation he is introducing; it is, after all, the first major Bill he is introducing. I would, however, like to point out to him that that enthusiasm is not shared by a very large number of organizations and people who are very closely affected by this legislation. Many people have made representations to the hon. the Minister and many people have made representations to us. Dozens of memoranda have been sent to him and dozens of memoranda have been sent to us. We have gone out of our way to interview and to talk to a large number of people who are involved, and what we have found is that this legislation has elicited widespread public interest and has also caused a great deal of alarm amongst many organizations and many people who are involved in this field. Because of this interest, because of the concern and because of the alarm I approached the hon. the Minister last week and requested him to send these three Bills to a Select Committee of Parliament before the Second Reading stages were taken in this House. After some consideration, the hon. the Minister, with a certain degree of confidence, said that he was not prepared to do so. That was before the long weekend. Now, after the long weekend, I see that his confidence in the case of at least one of these Bills has failed him and he has decided to withdraw it and to present a new Bill to Parliament. It would appear that the hon. the Minister, at least in respect of one of these Bills, has had second thoughts.

The representations which have been made to the hon. the Minister and the representations which have been made to us have been made by people who have a deep, very sincere and very dedicated interest in social welfare services of this country. They have pointed out to us that we have a new Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions who appears to be an intelligent and nice fellow and that we should try to explain to him what social welfare work and the people who do that work is all about. They have asked us to explain to the hon. the Minister that he is dealing here with a very intricate and delicate aspect of human activity. He is dealing with a human activity which has a target area of human need, areas of deprivation where humanity is involved. He is dealing with a field where the instruments are people who are motivated by compassion, by selflessness, by goodwill and by humanity. They are people who on a voluntary basis give of their time, of their resources and of their effort in order to do the job. The skills that these people apply are the skills of initiative, inventiveness and enthusiasm. The arena in which they operate is an arena which essentially must be an arena of freedom, freedom to do their own thing. It can only operate successfully if individual and group freedom exists for people to operate in that field.

The moment that one applies restrictions, the moment that one stifles them, one inhibits their efforts and one reduces their efficacy. Social welfare work, where the community is involved, is in fact real democracy in action. It is the finest characteristics of a dynamic community pitching in and paying up in order to render community services. It is in this field that individual participation is absolutely vital for success. It is a field, above all else, where individual members of a democratic community decide to put something back into the society of which they are part, which serves them and which they want to serve. As I have said before, it is a battle against human deprivation carried out by dedicated volunteers.

There is a fundamental aspect, a fundamental characteristic of successful social welfare work in our Western democratic way of life and system, i.e. it can only be successful, effective and efficient if it is based on a sound, healthy partnership between the State on the one side and the society on the other, co-operating to the fullest possible extent. All the representations which have been made to us have pointed out so pertinently that this legislation, particularly the first two Bills, actually goes a long way to destroy this basic partnership between the State and private citizens and replacing it with a State machine, a part of the State. That, in effect, will have disastrous consequences for social welfare work. The State has to play, and should play, a very particular part in this specific partnership. It is the State’s responsibility, in fact, more to hover in the background than to be in the front line attempting to do all the work itself. It must motivate the society and the public to do the job. It must assist them in all possible ways. Above all, the State should provide the finance which is necessary to make this successful.

What the State should not do, is to attempt to overregulate the process, to overcontrol the process, to interfere with the process and to stifle it as such, because if that is what the State attempts to do it will eventually kill the entire process of rendering social welfare services. Therefore, we appeal to the hon. the Minister, in introducing this legislation, not to upset the partnership that exists between the State and the social welfare services, not to disturb this natural and delicate balance which has been built up over such a long time, because if he does, these are the consequences he will have to face in future. If he does this and if he frightens off the private sector, if he frightens off the elements of society that are involved in rendering these services, the hon. the Minister may very well be left on his own to do the job all by himself. That will be the consequence if he persists in the way he is going now.

One can ask any socialist or communist country and study any socialist or communist society, and one will find that in such societies the State that persists in interfering with and controlling all these activities, ends up having to carry out all such activities on its own without any public participation whatsoever. The crux of the matter is—and the hon. the Minister has a very fundamental choice to make this evening—that the hon. the Minister must decide whether he wants to operate a free society where there is free and voluntary participation by the society in these services or whether he wants to have a social welfare system or society in which the State takes the responsibility for and carries out all these services. The hon. the Minister cannot have his cake and eat it. He must decide what he wants, and he must curb this tendency of the Government, this excessive enthusiasm on the part of the Government, to devise new legislation, to formulate regulations and to set up control through which extra bureaucracy is created. The hon. the Minister can play an important part in enhancing the freedom of our society which is the arena in which these organizations can so effectively operate, in motivating voluntary actions and in encouraging our society to get on with the job of making the free democratic society and system work to the full extent of its natural potential.

That is the challenge which faces this hon. Minister. The challenge facing him is one of not destroying this potential.

Prove it by reference to the Bill!

I am coming to that. The hon. the Minister should not get excited. I am in fact coming to some of those aspects. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister has withdrawn the Fund-raising Bill. However, since he is going to introduce a new Bill, I may just state that we have prepared quite an effective devastation of that particular measure. However, since the hon. the Minister is now taking another look at the Fund-raising Bill and has now excited us by giving us the impression that he intends introducing a better and more effective piece of legislation, let me tell him that there is one particular aspect in the interrelationship between that Bill and this one at which he will have to look. That is the fact that dual registration for welfare organizations and fund-raising organizations is required. I should like to appeal to him that it is totally unnecessary to have dual registration with all the red tape, with all the wastage of time and effort and with all the additional costs that are involved. He should please make provision for a single registration of a welfare organization. Furthermore, such registration should entitle an organization, once it is registered, to raise funds and the organization should be freed from the Draconian powers which are embodied in the Bill which the hon. the Minister has withdrawn. I hope that we shall not see the same kind of Draconian powers in the Bill which he intends introducing. [Interjections.]

There are some positive aspects in the Bill which is before the House at the moment. I think it is a very positive aspect that there is a large measure of decentralization of the planning and the carrying out of social welfare services to a regional level. After all, regions are conglomerates of communities which are interrelated and interdependent and who know best what the needs of these communities are. The regions have the best knowledge and experience in order to deal with those needs with a view to providing for the needs of the people of those communities. I think in that respect the hon. the Minister has introduced legislation which has positive aspects.

There are, however, so many negative aspects in the legislation which unfortunately undo the good which we find in it. I should like to refer to some of the negative aspects. One of the most glaring negative characteristics which pervade the legislation is the lack of co-ordinating machinery, the lack of ways and means in which vital co-ordination can be brought about between all the bodies and organizations which are involved. There is virtually no co-ordination at the national level. There is a lack of co-ordination amongst the regional boards themselves. There is no machinery to provide co-ordination amongst the regional boards. There is no machinery to provide co-ordination between the regional boards and the South African Welfare Council. There is no co-ordination between the regional boards and the Welfare Council on the one hand and all other bodies which are significant in this particular field on the other hand. In this regard I refer to the Social and Associated Workers’ Council which is envisaged in terms of the third Bill to which we shall come in due course. There is no co-ordination between these bodies on the one hand and the Director of Fund-raising which is envisaged by the second Bill on the other hand.

Are you now pleading for more bureaucracy?

There is also no co-ordination between the regional welfare boards and the welfare organizations and in general between the public and the large number of organizations that contribute towards and participate in social welfare work. One of the most important opportunities which the hon. the Minister has, one of the most important responsibilities which he has is to introduce legislation which in the first place makes provision for effective and efficient communication between these bodies and for the co-ordination of the efforts of these bodies. Surely, that is a very important requirement.

Another very negative aspect with which I should like to deal is the fact that the hon. the Minister has in this legislation in virtually every respect set out to frustrate the fundamental principle of democracy which is so vital to the setting of an effective social welfare structure and pattern of services in the country.

Where do you find that?

In virtually every respect. Let me mention a few: In the creation of the South African Welfare Council the Minister is to establish a body of appointed members.

Are you sure?

Yes, since they are to be appointed by the State President. The discretion therefore is obviously the discretion of the Minister. These members are not even to be appointed from a panel of nominated people. Surely, those people should be elected by the organizations and the members of the organizations involved. The president of this body will be appointed by the Minister. The chief executive of the body will also be appointed by the Minister. The principle of democracy as displayed by a body elected, by a body electing its own office bearers, by a body appointing its own executive is totally frustrated in this legislation. The very same thing happens in the creation of the regional welfare boards. Once again these are not elected bodies. We are now dealing with a region where there are close-knit communities and where there is no problem in providing for a fully democratically elected body; yet the Minister takes unto himself the right to appoint people to that body. He will appoint people from a nomination list compiled in the most clumsy way. Once again the chairman is to be appointed. Once again the secretary is to be appointed by the State. Why on earth is it necessary for the hon. the Minister to deviate to this extent from normal democratic procedure? Why on earth is it necessary for him offend, to the extent to which this does, the volunteers that are involved? Why is it necessary for him to engender a lack of confidence in the office bearers and in the structure by virtue of the action he is taking?

There is a third aspect I should like to deal with, and that is the fact that this legislation—and here, I am afraid, the hon. the Minister gave the game away—is unfortunately ideological legislation. [Interjections.] It is unfortunately legislation which is dictated by the apartheid policies, attitudes and philosophies of this Government. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister pointed out that although he is prepared to appoint to the S.A. Welfare Council—he did not say that he would definitely do so, but he conceded that he might do so—people of other race groups, the regional welfare boards, which are very important indeed, being the bodies operating in the field where the problems are and where the communities are expected to grapple with those problems, will definitely not be multi-racially structured. According to him, the other races will definitely not be represented. It is therefore quite clear that this legislation is aimed at creating racially segregated separate bodies to deal with the social welfare problems of the different peoples. I should consequently like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has taken the trouble to go out into the field to see and experience for himself the extent to which there is wholesome, sound co-operation between the races when rendering service for the various racial groups. It is very unfortunate that the hon. the Minister has not given himself the treat and provided himself with the excitement of experiencing real co-operation between Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Indians in the service of the community. [Interjections.] After all, humanity and compassion are colour blind. It is one of the characteristics of humanity and compassion that they know no colour boundaries. The understanding, the respect and the loyalty which are built up amongst the races on that particular level of providing services are things to be admired and to be experienced. When people need people, irrespective of colour, when people help people, irrespective of colour, prejudice and hatred amongst peoples of different backgrounds are inevitably and effectively broken down. Now the hon. the Minister is creating statutory social welfare structures to accommodate apartheid ideologies as a prerequisite for serving humanity. I think that it is terribly unfortunate that the hon. the Minister has found it necessary to introduce apartheid as the very foundation of this particular legislation. [Interjections.]

One often wonders why the Theron Commission was ever appointed. Why did the Theron Commission sit for all those years? Why did its members go to all that trouble? Why did they bother to report and make recommendations if every meaningful recommendation of that body is to be denied and ignored by this Government? In the Theron Commission report there were, amongst others, two recommendations. One was for the withdrawal of Circular 29 of 1966 which provides for separate welfare sub-committees for the different groups and the other was for all welfare services to be placed under one body. Why, when the Theron Commission, virtually all the welfare organizations and everyone who is an expert or an experienced participant in the field of social welfare services, say that we must have common services for all our people, is this Government blindly determined to ignore that and to create separate services? The problems do not differ. Poverty, illness and deprivation can affect all people, irrespective of colour. We must not divide our expertise. It is too scarce an item for that. We cannot afford to dissipate our efforts. The effort can only be effective if it is concentrated on the problem and not on the divisions between people. We cannot afford to disperse our resources. Our resources are too valuable and too scarce to be dispersed on an apartheid basis.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the possibility of an appeal in the case where a social welfare organization was not happy with the decision of the regional welfare board with regard to registration or any other action. Provision is indeed made for appeal to an appeal committee. I believe that that is good, but we should like to suggest that the appeal committee should be a committee under the control of and appointed by the S.A. Welfare Council. What is absolutely vital, both in the interests of the credibility of the department and the structure the Minister is creating and of the confidence and trust enjoyed by social welfare organizations, is that the hon. the Minister must provide for an appeal to the courts where an internal appeal fails. Once again, one cannot deviate from this basic requirement of a Western democratic society, namely that in the final analysis, when an organization or a person is aggrieved, he should know that he can appeal to the independent courts of law of the country.

I should like to deal with another negative aspect, and that is the aspect of the part local authorities should play and would like to play in the provision of social welfare services. I believe the hon. the Minister has missed an opportunity by not providing for the delegation of social welfare services, the funding of the services, the staff, the functions and responsibilities involved, to the local authorities where they can carry out these services. Local authorities are in all cases the front-line troops in the provision of health services and social welfare services. They are in close contact with their own people. They serve their own people. They are on the spot. They have an optimum interest in and concern with the problems. They have a very close experience and knowledge of those problems. Therefore they can provide the maximum efficiency in rendering those services. It would be in the interests of social welfare services and in the interests of the hon. the Minister and his department if he delegated as many of the services as he could to the local Government level in our country.

Let us just briefly look at what could possibly be done to improve some of the unfortunate negative aspects of the legislation the hon. the Minister is introducing. First of all, as far as the S.A. Welfare Council is concerned, the hon. the Minister is producing a council which is out on a limb. I believe the hon. the Minister must produce an elected council, a council which has functions other than purely advisory functions, a council which will be the main co-ordinating body of all the organizations involved at all levels, and a council which will have executive functions over and above the functions the hon. the Minister has given to it. It should be an elected council and the hon. the Minister should ensure that it will be multiracial. I also believe that the hon. the Minister should ensure that the regional welfare boards will in fact be multiracial, elected and representative of the social welfare organizations in the field in which they operate.

I believe, too, that they can co-ordinate their activities with the activities of other organizations by co-opting and appointing representatives of other bodies to serve with them and that the Minister should in fact give them the means to carry out effectively the tasks given to them.

We shall, obviously, in the Committee Stage take the opportunity of making many representations to the hon. the Minister and of moving many amendments. At this stage, however, I move—

I should like to say that even at this stage the hon. the Minister can produce legislation which will fulfil all the aspirations and needs of the social Welfare services and the organizations operating in that field in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has the opportunity now of producing good and effective legislation. He must therefore take this opportunity to refer this legislation to a Select Committee, thereby once again giving all those persons and organizations who have expressed reservations and who have expressed fear, alarm and concern, a chance to give evidence and to make representations, fully and effectively, before the hon. the Minister finally goes ahead with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston’s attitude towards the legislation before the House, comes as no surprise to this side of the House. He raised several arguments which were also used by the hon. member for Houghton in a certain sense during her arguments about similar legislation which was introduced in 1965. Most of the arguments which the hon. member for Bryanston raised, can be debated during the Committee Stage. I want to combine his arguments into one central point and say that the hon. member’s main objection—apart from ideological objections—is directed at this side of the House as if this legislation handicaps the private initiative of welfare organizations and limits the discretion afforded private welfare organizations in the welfare sphere. This is one of the hon. member’s chief objections.

Apart from what the hon. member said in this House, he also thought fit to make a statement to the Press. In this regard I am referring to the Sunday Times of 7 May, in which a rreport appeared under the heading “Bid to delay tough State clampdown on welfare fails”. That report reads—

Then the hon. member uses strong language because he says this legislation makes provision for a “State machine”. He also talks about “draconian powers”. We have already heard these arguments in the past. Let us now just test the substance of these arguments. If there is any question of the Government clamping down on private initiative as regards welfare organizations, the hon. member must show us the specific clause in the legislation which prohibits private welfare organizations from doing welfare work.

Clause 15.

The hon. member for Pinelands says clause 15. I deny this because it is not true.

Read it again.

It is not true. Those hon. members have no understanding of the legislation. [Interjections.]

You have to link it with the Fund-raising Bill.

Certain powers are granted to the Secretary and to the hon. the Minister. That is correct.

Certain powers?

Yes. They are being vested with certain powers, but after all, it is State funds which are involved here. Those hon. members are always making such a fuss about parliamentary control, and all we are doing here now, is to ensure that parliamentary control over the State funds provided for welfare, is exercised efficiently. Therefore, the argument of the hon. member for Bryanston does not hold water at all. Nor is there any indication that the State is handicapping private welfare organizations.

We want to place the legislation in a positive light in contrast to the negative light in which the hon. member for Bryanston placed it. The legislation before the House at the moment, is the Magna Carta of welfare work in South Africa. It heralds a new era for welfare services, and the Bill before the House is the culmination of various forces which interacted to give it its present form. The hon. the Minister also referred to this.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to refer for a moment to the background of this legislation, i.e. the historical momentum. The historical momentum which served as the background to the legislation, shows the intimate connection between the State, the private welfare organizations and the Church. The principle is given effect to in this legislation as well. This principle has applied in welfare work throughout history, and these three parties are recognized as equal partners in the present legislation too. We can go back to the earliest historically documented writings and see what Commander Zacharius Wagenaar said as far back as 1664, i.e. that assistance should concentrate on those who do in fact need it. I quote from the Argief-jaarboek van die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis, in which Commander Wagenaar says the following about welfare work—

From the time of the earliest documents and in the subsequent decades, welfare work was carried out periodically by the State, the Church and private welfare organizations. Even in the earlier period, the 17th and the 18th centuries, the principles of a firm partnership between the State, the Church and private welfare organizations were established. Both the State, the Church and the private welfare organizations can look back today at monuments erected by all three bodies in the sphere of welfare work in South Africa. If we take note of the work which the Church has done in the welfare sphere in South Africa, we see that there are various institutions, including the school for the deal, the school for the blind, the Federale Armsorgraad and the various boards that fall under the D.R. Church and do welfare work.

Is that church not concerned about this legislation?

We are still coming to that. In the course of history, and at the present moment as well, there have been the private welfare organizations that have also contributed their share towards promoting welfare work. I have in mind in particular the establishment of national councils for child care, for the deaf, the blind and for cripples. The State, too, has played its part by placing various statutory provisions on the Statute Book. The spotlight had never been directed so searchingly at national welfare and the need for national welfare, as at the National Congress at Kimberley in 1934. The poor white question was debated at this congress in pursuance of the Carnegie Report. The poor white question was a widespread problem just after the depression years. The Carnegie Commission worked on its investigation for three years and drew the attention of the Government to the poor white problem. Due to public insistence, and through the initiative of the D.R. Church, a congress was arranged that advocated the upliftment of those people. The person who delivered the first address at the congress summarized the essence of the whole welfare philosophy when he declared—

The speaker was Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, who was attached to the University of Stellenbosch at the time. The Volkskongres of 1934 resulted in the national welfare of 300 000 Whites coming to the attention of the Government and being improved. It also gave rise to the establishment of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in 1937.

By means of a few historical facts I have tried to indicate that national welfare forms part of the Afrikaner’s national character and of the South African way of life, to the extent that when we became a Republic, the legislature thought fit to establish this specific philosophy of life in the preamble to our Constitution by declaring—

The national welfare of the Republic and all its people is just as important today as a sound economy or a well-equipped Defence Force. I can even say with good reason that national welfare is an essential element in our struggle for survival. Since this is so, the activities of welfare organizations in the community are a healthy phenomenon. It is to the credit of any community if there are people who look after the interests of indigent people, and that is why the authorities, too, have a special task in this regard.

This brings me to the arguments of the hon. member for Bryanston. The authorities, task in connection with welfare, is not to suppress private initiative through statutory measures, and this is not being done in this legislation either. It is merely that welfare work is being channelled according to the South African way and pattern of life, and we do not make excuses for that.

Circumstances have changed drastically since the Welfare Organizations Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1947. Today there are established urban and industrialized communities in the Republic, with their concomitant problems. Changing circumstances set new demands. Let us take a look at the demands which these new circumstances set for welfare. In the first place, national welfare is today a specialized, professional undertaking. That is why there is legislation on the Order Paper to establish social work within the constellation of national welfare work.

Not only is national welfare a specialized, professional undertaking today; there is also a great deal of money involved, and that is why there will be legislation on the Order Paper tomorrow to regulate the financial aspects of national welfare. However, it has become necessary to take a look at the structure and organization of welfare services in the Republic. The sphere of service and welfare is so extensive today—there are three main spheres of social service, inter alia, social problems, family life and the regulation of various age groups—that co-ordination is essential, and this is what this Bill entails. There are approximately 3 940 welfare organizations in the Republic. The activities and objectives of these 3 940 welfare organizations overlap—and hon. members cannot deny this—and it is in the interests of national welfare—this laudable and praiseworthy action—that there be co-ordination and that there should be overall planning.

It is in the best interests of national welfare that welfare actions should be co-ordinated in a national welfare structure—not a welfare structure in the socialist sense of the word, but a welfare structure tested against certain principles. I want to point out these principles briefly. These are the principles against which we must test this Bill.

In the first place, national welfare is a spontaneous community action: from the community for the community. This is the first principle. In a welfare programme like this there is always place for private welfare organizations. National welfare and penal provisions are not reconcilable with each other. The main criticism of the Opposition is that compulsion is being exerted here, but I challenge them to show me one clause in the Bill where there is any question of sanctions. There is not a single one. Surely, then, there can be no question of force.

The last principle which I want to refer to, is that the State’s task is the co-ordination, the planning of welfare services as well as the formulation of a broad national welfare policy. If we look at the legislation before the House and test it against the four principles I have put forward, viz. co-ordination, planning and the formulation of a broad national policy, …

That is only three.

I have put forward four principles. Just read my Hansard and you will see that there are four. If we test this legislation against them, we shall see that these are in fact the pillars on which the legislation is built. Hon. members on this side of the House who will follow me, will deal with the clauses in more detail. Therefore I shall not go into the clauses in detail.

Have a go.

We can conduct a very fruitful debate on this in the Committee Stage. The whole essence of the legislation is clauses 11, 12 and 13, those clauses which provide for the establishment of regional welfare boards and the registration of the welfare organizations. These clauses create the structure within which the welfare services operate according to the nature and pattern of every community. I am quite convinced that the White community, the Black community and the Coloured community can be best served by their own regional welfare boards.

That is an old story. It cannot work.

It has worked in the past. In fact, this basic principle has been working over the past 30 years and it is still going from strength to strength.

With these few motivations, it is a great pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to address the hon. House for the very first time from the bench at the very back of this Chamber. I shall not mention contentious matters as this is my maiden speech. I should like to confine myself briefly to clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. Should the provisions of clause 2 become a reality, there will be a very great number of problems which the S.A. Welfare Council will have to help solve. At first glance, clause 3 seems to be just another paragraph in the legislation, but even a superficial analysis will show that great responsibility is being placed on the S.A. Welfare Council here. Every person who takes an active part in welfare work and who knows what a WO number means will agree with me that these two clauses are very important and perhaps very necessary, too. They are necessary to streamline welfare work. Clause 2 provides for a S.A. Welfare Council which will be appointed by the State President and will consist of a certain number of persons, but not more than 21. These people are appointed by the State President because he believes they are people with a special knowledge of welfare work or because he believes they are people with special experience in this work. Members of the council are appointed for a period of three years. Should any one of them resign for any reason or become unable to do his work, the State President can replace him. It will be the duty of the council to meet at least twice a year to discuss welfare matters. It will also be their duty to report to the Minister on their activities at least twice during their period of office of three years.

It will also be the duty of the council to advise the Government on the general policy to be followed in order to promote the social stability of the inhabitants of South Africa and to prevent any possible social decline. The Council is authorized to arrange conferences, with the approval of the Minister, in order to discuss these matters. It will also be the duty of the Council to investigate every social problem which the Minister refers to them and to report thereon.

I should like to confine myself more specifically to clause 3 of the Bill. This is the clause dealing with the duties of the council to be established. I wish to refer in particular to clause 3(1)(c), and only the last part thereof, where reference is made to the welfare of the aged, as well as the welfare of children and of physically or mentally handicapped persons. These will be problems to which the national council will have to give special attention. The aged of whom we are thinking here are those with whom age has caught up to such an extent that they can no longer earn their daily bread themselves. Now I should like, in all modesty, to make the statement that there is no such thing as a bad elderly person. We should remember that they are people of wide experience, jewels among us, and that at some or other time in the past they contributed pro rata to the development of this wonderful country of ours. Under no circumstances should we allow our elderly people to live in fear. Under no circumstances should we allow them to develop a feeling of inferiority.

Now, it is true that quite recently, a tendency towards uneasiness has arisen amongst old people. It is not because they are growing older, but because they are so afraid that the cost of living will catch up with them. I should like briefly to divide the aged into a few groups in order to indicate how important this council will be and what problems it will encounter. In the first place there are the elderly people who are already senile. They are not cases for Weskoppies or one of the other institutions. However, their minds are no longer functioning very well. These are people who constantly need support, people who sometimes need medical support and who need constant supervision.

Then there is a second group of elderly people. This is a group of people who are not ill, but who are permanent invalids, merely because of old age. This is another group of people with whom this council will deal. The third group of elderly people that we find consists of people who are ill one day and well the next day, and who prefer to go to institutions because they often need medical attention as well. Then there is a fourth group of elderly people. This is the group of elderly people who are now fearing that they will not be able to keep their accommodation much longer, people who, for economic reasons, are to an increasing extent trying to take refuge in institutions. Perhaps I can mention a fifth group, a group also consisting of problem cases. I am referring to the elderly people suffering from silicosis. Actually, these people can still live well because they are really receiving two pensions; one because they rendered good and long service in the mines and another because they contracted silicosis. It is strange, but these people simply cannot understand why they have to pay income tax on their silicosis allowance.

I now come to child care. Reference is made to children and to the welfare of children. Child care and child welfare is a separate field. We know all children need care. We know that many children receive too much care, but also that children often become in need of care. We are thinking of accidents, broken homes, divorces and the abuse of alcohol and perhaps drugs. Every child has his own character and every case has its own problems. There will be cases which will have to be referred to this council.

Here I also wish to refer to people who are physically handicapped. Here one involuntarily thinks of the crippled. Whether they are crippled as a result of a road accident, a mining accident, a factory accident or a railway accident, makes no difference. The most important fact concerning these people is that they have to be rehabilitated. It is often found that these people are paid a certain amount of money and that the firm, body or whoever is concerned, does not wish to accept any further responsibility for them. When it becomes necessary to give these people medical assistance in the form of equipment such as medical braces, medical shoes, artificial legs, arms or hands, one finds that by the time it has been established who will be responsible for the expenditure, another person has already been employed in place of that person.

I now come to the last group of people mentioned here. I am referring to the mentally handicapped. This group can be divided into two groups: the group over 20 years of age and the group under 20 years of age. They are people who have been hidden away in back rooms and back yards for many years.

Thanks to the work done by the Department of National Education, much is now being done for these people. There is an institution on the West Rand, and it is wonderful to see what is being done there for people over the age of 20 years, people who have never before been granted the opportunity to give expression to their talents.

The group under the age of 20 years can once again be divided into two groups: those who can be trained and those who cannot be trained. The group which can be trained consists of people with an IQ of between 30 and 60. Once again, thanks to the Department of National Education, wonderful work is being done for these people. It is wonderful to see how these unfortunate little beings are transformed into happy people. It is wonderful to see how happy the parents are to see the progress made by the children at this institution where people sacrifice their lives to promote the welfare of these children.

The last group is the group with an IQ of under 30, those who are written off as untrainable. However, this is not quite the case. I know of only one institution caring for these people. This is an institution near Springs on the East Rand, a place called Vita Nova. This means “new life”. Their ideal is mainly to take these children away from the parents who were kept very busy by the children. Furthermore they believe that if they can only help these children to take care of themselves, to wash themselves, to dress themselves, to comb their hair and to eat, they can be satisfied. This institution has already progressed to being a small factory where simple things such as wire coat-hangers are made and sold. These children, who were regarded as untrainable, are therefore also going to play their part in society.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Springs on the occasion of his maiden speech. It is appropriate that he should speak on welfare matters because it is obviously something that is close to his heart. I am sure he realizes and appreciates on his election to the House that the House on many occasions has to consider the welfare of the people. Therefore it is appropriate that his maiden speech should have been on this subject. We wish him well in his career as a member of the House and we hope that his future contributions will be as constructive as this contribution was.

The hon. the Minister, in introducing the Bill, gave many reasons why it was necessary to bring about a change in the existing position. We have heard from the hon. member for Bellville a historical background of various welfare steps that were taken until we reached the present situation where it has become necessary to amend the 1965 National Welfare Act. This Act was a major piece of legislation. As I well remember, the Act of 1965 repealed the 1947 Welfare Organizations Act and affected the control of the welfare organizations of that time. It was felt that that step was necessary to bring about a more streamlined system as far as the welfare services were concerned. Indeed, the 1965 Act which is now to be repealed by the three welfare Bills the hon. the Minister has referred to, proved to be highly successful in many regards, and particularly in respect of research on welfare work. It led to a tremendous increase in the scope and extent of the activities of the Department of Social Welfare. It led to the creation of the National Welfare Board, four commissions, regional boards, etc. I think the hon. the Minister could have followed the procedure that was followed in 1965 when in respect of that major piece of legislation affecting welfare services and so many people and organizations a White Paper was tabled which set out in simple language what that legislation of 1965 entailed. I think that the fact that that White Paper was issued in 1965 did in some way contribute towards allaying the fears of many welfare organizations and people connected with welfare work at the time.

One of our great difficulties in dealing with the present three Bills—at the moment we are of course dealing with only the National Welfare Bill—is that there has been, and quite rightly in some instances, an adverse reaction to the 1977 draft Bills. Those Bills were published in the Government Gazette for general information but the motivation behind the Bills was not given. People were asked to submit recommendations and, in reply to a question put to the Minister, he said that something like 247 representations had been received. However, the original draft Bills did create the impression that the Government was moving towards bureaucratic control and greater and stricter control over all welfare organizations and all persons connected with welfare services in South Africa. I must say at once that the three Bills which have been read for a First Time are an improvement on the 1977 draft Bills. I think that perhaps there are many people and organizations who are unaware of the provisions of the Bill as it now appears before the House. That is why I think that a good deal of the reaction that was originally received to the draft Bills has unfortunately not been allayed in any way as regards certain queries and anxieties people have had.

I should like to say immediately that we on these benches support the principle of this Bill in regard to the control of welfare organizations. Indeed, I have not yet come across any organization that states that it is opposed to the principle of the Bill. As has been indicated, it is a long-standing situation that there has been a degree of control over all welfare organizations. This National Welfare Bill goes a little further, of course, in that it has a wider base. A S.A. Welfare Council is to be appointed which is going to recommend policy in connection with all welfare services of all the inhabitants of the country. Therefore, it has a wider scope than perhaps the original National Welfare Board had that was created in terms of the 1965 legislation. Our feeling is that this Bill is acceptable in principle. However, we have reservations in regard to a number of clauses. We have placed in advance on the Order Paper, for the benefit of the hon. the Minister and of the House, a number of the amendments that we wish to move during the Committee Stage of this Bill. Consequently it is not my intention to deal with the Bill clause as there will be ample opportunity to deal with many of the provisions of this Bill in greater detail during the Committee Stage. We do feel, however, that there is a certain amount of motivation that we should state at Second Reading in connection with this Bill and in connection with the amendments that we have placed on the Order Paper.

First of all, when one considers welfare legislation such as this, one has to ensure that the necessary community participation exists as it is indeed a prerequisite for any successful welfare service. Here the hon. the Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, has said that he does not wish to interfere in any way with the old established partnership between the State and the welfare organizations, in other words the community and the churches that are involved in welfare work. On this basis we have to study the contents and the provisions of this Bill.

First and foremost the S.A. Welfare Council is a body which is different from the National Welfare Board. The functions of this council are stated quite clearly in clause 3 of this Bill—

1. (a) the general policy which should be followed to promote and ensure the social stability of the inhabitants of the Republic and to prevent social decline;

This is the first function that is stipulated in clause 3 of the Bill. We believe that if this council is to cater for all the inhabitants of the Republic it means that this S.A. Welfare Council should indeed be representative of the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa. If the welfare services for South Africa are to be co-ordinated, we believe it is vitally important that we should see to it that that co-ordination is brought about by having a well-balanced council to enable people of other race groups to also play their part in the overall social welfare services that are to be provided for all the inhabitants of the Republic. I think it is important to see that this council is truly representative of those inhabitants.

In terms of the Bill it is a function of this council to advise the Government in regard to general policy matters, etc., and the Bill further stipulates certain other functions of the council. These functions cover a very wide field, indeed the whole welfare set-up in South Africa. At the same time the Bill devolves power to the regional boards. We support the devolution of power to the regional boards because it brings the control of welfare services closer to the communities being catered for in the various regions. However, it would appear that there could be a lack of co-ordination as it appears that the proposed legislation does not provide for some sort of forum to bring about a greater measure of co-ordination. That is why we also believe it is important to see that this proposed council should also have representatives from the various regional boards. The 1965 legislation made provision in the constitution of the Welfare Board to ensure that each region was represented on the Welfare Board. One of the criticisms of the existing legislation was that overlapping has taken place. The hon. member for Bellville referred to the large number of welfare organizations and it is quite true that there is a lot of wasted effort and a lot of overlapping at the present time. For the co-ordination of these welfare services there has to be some forum to bring about that co-ordination. We in these benches feel that this Welfare Council can create that forum and can bring about that greater co-ordination, as a result of which it can recommend to the Government the general policy that should be followed in order to improve the welfare services to all the people of the Republic. As far as the Welfare Council is concerned, we believe it has an important role to play. The functions of this council, as set out in the Bill, indicate that it will be responsible for almost every facet of the welfare services that are being provided in South Africa at present.

We then come to chapter two of the Bill which recreates the regional welfare boards. We believe this is an important step forward in ensuring that our regional boards have a more meaningful role to play than they have had in terms of existing legislation. In this regard the regional boards again have the specific task of attending to the welfare services and to the provision of welfare services in their particular regions. In this regard due cognizance must be taken of other race groups being cared for in the various regions and there should be a co-ordination of those welfare organizations in the particular regions. We know that there are many regions which have welfare organizations that cater for various race groups and although we have the Government’s circular of 1966 and various viewpoints have been expressed in respect of that circular, we have to know at some stage or another what definite line the Government is going to take in regard to their policy dealing with the welfare services of the various race groups. The hon. the Minister indicated the Government’s attitude this evening and, according to that, we are going to have a tremendous duplication of work and of wasted manpower, particularly where a number of organizations are rendering services to the various race groups. These organizations should fit into the overall welfare situation in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he does not, in any way, wish to upset the successful implementation of welfare services which is presently in existence. In this regard we have to take into account that there are these organizations who are doing a tremendously wonderful job of work amongst the various race groups by way of their trained and professional services. Amongst some of these race groups, particularly in Natal where one might not find so many qualified social workers, the work is done mainly by the White section of the community and also in this regard these people are rendering a magnificent service to people of other colour groups. It is therefore important that if we are to co-ordinate our services in a certain region, there should be a balanced representation on the regional boards to ensure that all people are given an opportunity to play their part in formulating the policies relating to welfare services that are being provided in that particular region.

The registration of welfare organizations is to be done by the regional boards and we believe this is a good step in the right direction. We feel that persons within that region are the best people to assess whether it is necessary to have a new organization or a branch thereof or whether there should be an extension of an existing organization. I know there is a great deal of professional jealousy among the various welfare organizations particularly amongst those that are rendering certain welfare services in the same field. I notice in the Bill, however, that due recognition is given to this and that there will not be undue interference as far as those welfare organizations are concerned. We have to regard the regional board as being a meaningful body in which the community will play a real and active role. In terms of the legislation three quarters of these regional boards will be appointed from nomination lists. The nomination lists will provide the welfare organizations with an opportunity to nominate people they believe to be best suited to undertake the additional responsibility as a member of a regional board. These regional boards should have the full confidence of the hon. the Minister as it is his legislation. He should allow the regional boards to elect their own chairmen and to elect their own deputy chairmen from amongst their own people. Because of the importance of community participation in the regional boards, the community in each region should be able to elect their own chairman, who will then become the leader of that regional board and of the welfare services conducted in that area. I believe it is only right and just that they should have the opportunity to elect their own chairman and also their own deputy chairman if such a deputy chairman should be deemed necessary.

I should also like to deal with the question of national councils in the various regions. This is another matter which has caused concern. Like the hon. member for Bryanston, we on these benches have also consulted with various interested people and parties in connection with all three pieces of legislation. We have also found that they still have a certain degree of doubt as far as some of the provisions of the Bill are concerned. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s gesture in making available to us earlier this afternoon a copy of an amendment which he intends moving in the Committee Stage to give due recognition to national councils. A national council has a very important role to play in the co-ordination of the welfare services in a particular field of operation and it is important to see that the national councils have the full opportunity to be recognized as such so that they can fulfil the important role they have to play in the various regions. Almost all of them have affiliated organizations operating in the various regions of the Department of Social Welfare.

As I have said, we will discuss the operation of this legislation and other aspects in greater detail during the Committee Stage. The question of the existing welfare organizations being able to continue as such in terms of this legislation for a period of two years is an important one, because there might be organizations which do not wish to register as a fund-raising organization in terms of other legislation fund which is to come before the House, although they might wish to operate as a welfare organization. In my experience when dealing with welfare organizations I found very few organizations which are not fund-raising organizations as well as welfare organizations. It is extremely difficult for a welfare organization to exist without also becoming a fund-raising organization. I share the concern about the question of dual registration which was mentioned by the hon. member for Bryanston, because in terms of the original draft of the Fund-raising Bill it was necessary for an organization to become registered in terms of that legislation so as to become registered as a welfare organization. The provisions of that legislation, of course, meant that under certain circumstances they could be prevented from becoming a registered welfare organization. I shall be interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply on the question of organizations which might wish to continue, but voluntarily decide not to become a registered welfare organization. Will they be able to continue?

The difficulty here concerns the interpretation given to providing welfare services, because we know that in terms of other legislation, i.e. the Social and Associated Workers’ Bill, there are also certain restrictions that will be placed on organizations which might be undertaking social work or social welfare services in terms of that legislation. I am sorry that I have to refer to other legislation which is not yet before the House, but as the hon. the Minister indicated when he introduced this Bill, this is the first of three pieces of legislation which indeed will replace the National Welfare Act of 1965.

In our view the Bill in principle creates a slightly different machine from what we had in terms of the 1965 legislation. It does create certain questions as far as the operation and effects of the legislation are concerned, and these questions still have to be answered. We know that the Government has certain constitutional proposals aimed at creating other Parliaments to deal with the affairs of other race groups and one has to ascertain how this particular piece of legislation will fit in with that philosophy of the Government.

I should also like to refer to the findings of the Erika Theron Commission of Inquiry relating to the Coloured Population Group. We had an opportunity of debating this in the House on a previous occasion. However, in the White Paper which the Government issued on the report of the Erika Theron Commission, the important recommendation of the commission concerning the co-ordination of welfare services was rejected. One has to remember that the chairman of the Erika Theron Commission of course occupied the chair in social work at the University of Stellenbosch and is a person of vast experience in welfare matters. I am quite sure that those recommendations have not been made lightly. The recommendations which have been made in regard to the other race groups, are rejected in the White Paper the Government has tabled. Instead of reducing the overlapping which exists between welfare services, the creation of a large number of various welfare boards for the various race groups will bring about even greater overlapping and a lack of co-ordination will be even more acute.

The provision of welfare services to other race groups is a matter which still requires greater clarification by the hon. the Minister. I hope that when he replies to the debate, he will give some further indication as to how he foresees the set-up of our welfare services, particularly in relation to the other race groups.

A welfare programme has to be drawn up by the regional boards. I think this is an important step towards the stage in which they can organize, arrange and come forward with programmes and the holding of symposiums where the regional board can put forward the difficulties they have as far as welfare services are concerned. I believe the hon. the Minister must have full confidence in his regional boards to ensure that they come forward with a welfare programme which they will be able to put into effect without undue interference from the hon. the Minister or the department. It is important that the welfare boards should be regarded as having the confidence of the hon. the Minister and the department.

We consider this proposed legislation to be an improvement in many respects. However, we have placed a number of amendments on the Order Paper which we shall discuss in greater detail in the Committee Stage. We support the Second Reading of this Bill at this stage. We believe that organizations have had an opportunity to put forward their point of view directly to the hon. the Minister and various hon. members of Parliament. There has been a reasonable time limit to allow people to come forward with their views and propose various amendments. Many of the amendments on all three Bills have a good deal of merit. I am sure the hon. the Minister will in the Committee Stage indeed ensure that this Bill does to the greatest possible extent meet the wishes of those who are connected with the welfare services. It will help to prevent people adopting an attitude that this is undue interference by the Government in virtually every respect of welfare services. I do believe there is interference, but interference which is necessary in some respects. Welfare organizations raise funds from the public and provide a service. They are subsidized by the State and receive considerable assistance. There therefore has to be a degree of control over these welfare services. A degree of control is necessary to ensure that the balance between the State, the community and the participation by the welfare services is not upset, and to ensure that our welfare services are improved to achieve their object. We on these benches support this Bill in principle and hope that during the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept some of the amendments we have placed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the evening I should like to express a few words of appreciation towards the hon. member for Umbilo who has just made one of his ever positive contributions. He submitted positive suggestions and they will certainly receive attention in the Committee Stage. I do not want to attend to them in detail now.

One thing is clear, and that is that from the evidence we have received and from all the representations that were made—if one can call them representations—and also from the protests that there were, it is clear that ample opportunity was afforded people to express their views on this legislation which is now before the House. I think we owe a word of gratitude to Prof. I. J. J. Van Rooyen, Prof. H. S. Cillié and Mr. B. C. Loots who undertook the inquiry and did really excellent work. I do not know whether all hon. members have had the opportunity of studying this treatise. It is excellent work indeed and, together with officials of the department, I think they deserve gratitude and appreciation. I think that on behalf of the department there is also gratitude and appreciation to all members of the public and to all the organizations that put forward positive, and also what some may regard as negative, criticism. For, after all, no piece of legislation has a special lease on wisdom. Neither has the Government ever thought that they have a special lease on wisdom. In fact the previous Minister, and the present Minister, since his accession to this post, have kept the door open to people of all groups to convince them of the reasonableness of a standpoint. Much good has come out of submissions made to the committee, to officials and to everyone who has dealt with this legislation up to now. I trust that the positive aspects will also be emphasized in this debate, and I think that this has been achieved to a great extent this evening.

There are only two things I should like to mention to the hon. member for Bryanston who moved an amendment on behalf of the Official Opposition.

†At times one wonders how often arguments can be repeated and one wonders how often history can repeat itself. When looking up the debates on this particular subject one finds that a Bill was discussed on 27 March 1947. The Minister of Social Welfare and Demobilization then was the hon. H. G. Lawrence. Hon. members will recall that this was just after the war. There are only two arguments which were advanced by the hon. member for Bryanston to which I wish to refer in this regard. The first concerns the measure of control to which he objected. I quote from the speech of the hon. the Minister at that time (Hansard, Vol. 60, col. 1876)—

The same applies today. With regard to the appeal to which the hon. member also objected and which he said should be referred to a court of appeal, the hon. the Minister at that time said (Hansard, col. 1880)—

One can see how history repeats itself.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 22,