Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as the debate has progressed through the various stages in this House, it has revealed more and more the confusion that has existed in the minds of hon. members opposite regarding the purport and the import of this particular measure. I want to mention a few of these areas of confusion which, I believe, have now been eliminated, although the process of elimination has convinced us even more now, at the end of this debate, that our attitude in opposing this measure is an entirely correct one.

The first one was that hon. members opposite, especially during the Second Reading Stage, protested long and loudly that this Bill had nothing to do with evictions as a consequence of either the Group Areas Act or any other racial measure. They linked this Bill entirely to the question of the payment of rentals. The hon. member for Bellville—I see he is not in the House at the moment—was quite emphatic. Other hon. members rejected our contention that this Bill had to do with evictions and that these evictions need not necessarily have anything to do with the payment or non-payment of rentals. What has become clear during the course of this debate is that the Community Development Board takes over property from disqualified people in terms of the Group Areas Act and thereafter virtually becomes an agent of the Government in executing the Group Areas Act, evicting people and redeveloping that particular area.

Where it takes over properties and where these properties in turn are leased or let to persons who, by virtue of their race, do not qualify, the Board, when it wants to evict these people, use the procedures laid down in section 18(1) of the Act. We are now amending the Act in order to create a further administrative procedure which provides that when tenants who are disqualified on grounds of race and are to be evicted from property which is being required by the Community Development Board, they are evicted in terms of notices under section 18(1) of the Act. The argument, therefore, that this is “net om huurgeld te verhaal” is quite nonsensical. If one looks at the various eviction orders, they invariably relate to persons being disqualified as a result of the Group Areas Act.

The second area of confusion which, I believe, has been resolved is the question I put to hon. members opposite when I asked them whether the provisions of this new measure could or would be applied in relation to District Six. The hon. member for Bellville said once again they could not be used in relation to District Six. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, contradicted him and said they could be used, but they would not be used. During the course of the Committee Stage, it has emerged that these provisions are being used. They have been used in the past, they are being used at present and there is no indication that they will not be used in the future. The provisions of section 18(1) of the Act, the eviction notices which flow directly from the acquisition of such property as a consequence of the Group Areas Act, are being applied and will be applied.

Granted, while the hon. the Deputy Minister first of all said it would not be used in respect of District Six, he now says that this Bill was not specifically designed for District Six. He now says it was not designed exclusively for District Six, but it could be used in respect of District Six or anywhere else.

Why do you argue only with reference to District Six?

Mr. Speaker, I asked him a specific question and the hon. member for Bellville said it could not be so used. [Interjections.] However, I do not mind returning to the case of Mr. Bawa. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that it was not designed exclusively for District Six. It is cold comfort for the person in District Six who is evicted in terms of one of these notices, to know that other people in other areas are also similarly treated by the Government.

However, there is a third point which has emerged as a result of an examination of the eviction orders, and in particular as a result of the eviction order which I read out here in the House in terms of section 18(1) of the Act in respect of Mr. Bawa, the Indian trader, formerly of Kildare Road, Newlands. There is an anomally because the eviction order served on him by an official of the Department of Community Development says that he is acting on behalf of the board in terms of section 18(1) and that he was required to do certain things because, he says—

He on his own will declare a resolution by which this man can be evicted. The parent Act, which we are now amending, quite correctly says that when an eviction order has to take place this should be the decision of a board. It says—

Now, we have a single official saying that he is, by resolution, going to declare this. It therefore appears that in terms of section 18(1) of the original Act the Minister has appointed this single official to act for the board when it comes to evictions. This clearly negates the intention of this clause. It is nonsense to say that “I as an individual by resolution will declare”, when the parent Act says—

When it comes to the eviction of people from their properties—which is a very, very sensitive matter indeed—the hon. the Deputy Minister must give the House only this simple assurance, namely that the evictions will not take place as the result of the decision of a single person or single official and that if evictions are to take place in terms of Government policy, it should be by resolution of the board or should include members of the board. It should be more than one person. To say in the law that one can only be evicted by resolution of the board and then to appoint one person to act for the board, we believe negates the very elementary principle that a decision to evict should not be taken lightly and should be a collective decision of the various people responsible.

In the main the hon. the Deputy Minister has, on one of the first Bills he has introduced in his new capacity, adopted a constructive approach; he has been bland to the point of charming in the assurances he has given. However, when one has examined the content of these assurances, one finds in fact that they are not nearly as convincing as they sounded when he first gave them.

For these reasons the official Opposition remains opposed to this measure. We do not believe in forced removal of people on the grounds of race or colour under any circumstances. To the extent that this clause gives further administrative machinery to the Government to implement that policy, we are opposed to it. We are opposed to assisting the Government to increase its bureaucratic powers in order to apply racial legislation. In the light of the general mood which was created during the recess by the hon. the Prime Minister, we would have expected that instead of seeking additional powers and more legislative measures to apply the policy of apartheid, the Government would have put a stop to this and started saying to the people of South Africa “Thus far and no further.” We call on the Government not to have any more forced removals under the Group Areas Act.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to repeat the arguments we had during the Committee Stage, but I should like to get the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that no injustice will be committed in the application of this Bill. As we look at the application of this Bill, one aspect which we should get more clarity on is what would happen if, for instance, a letter or notice is affixed to the front or principal door, but is removed, resulting in the addressed person not receiving the notice. What sort of proof are you going to produce in order to prevent injustice? Must one produce photographs, for instance? The case of Mr. Bawa has been mentioned here, and I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to listen very carefully. Mr. Bawa was removed from his premises and was given notice in terms of section 18(1). I gather, from what I have heard, that this person was a businessman. My interpretation is that where a businessman conducts a respectable business, with defined opening and closing hours, in terms of the Bill there would be no difficulty in contacting such a person. It would be possible to deliver the notice to him or to an adult member of his family. Many of the reasons why the Opposition is opposed to this Bill therefore falls away because those people who will be removed either in terms of the Group Areas Act or this legislation will therefore not be people who are away or who try to evade reception of the letter, especially if they conduct a business. It would be no problem to contact them, and in that respect this amendment will be of no other assistance to the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department in the eviction or so-called forced removals in terms of the Group Areas Act of people who conduct a regular and respectable business. Of course, where a person is conducting a business and is in arrears and the business is closed, there would be no other alternative for the hon. the Deputy Minister than to follow the procedure as set out in clause 1 of the Bill.

Finally, to return briefly to the power given to the Minister in terms of this Bill and the promise that in future the authorities would do their utmost to see that the properties are kept clean, I want to reiterate my request in the Second Reading. It is not so much the houses, but especially vacant land after demolition of buildings and land belonging to the Community Development Board, in respect of which inspections should be carried out. In Durban where there are vacant plots as a result of demolition, the municipalities wash their hands of it. They say the property is not owned by them. It is property owned by the department, and in fact some of those areas are an absolute disgrace and the remaining tenants, the people left behind, really have to cope with a tremendous problem. So if the hon. the Minister can see to it that in the application of this new power it is found, in fact, that these areas are cleaned on a more regular basis, it would, at least, be worthwhile to give those powers to the department and its inspectors. We shall be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point has not advanced any new argument. He merely repeated the old arguments used over and over again in the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage. I have tried my utmost to explain to hon. members on the opposite side what the intentions of the new provisions of the Bill are, but it is obvious that hon. members in the official Opposition benches do not wish to accept my explanations and my assurances. So I doubt whether, at this late stage, I shall be able to convince them that this Bill has nothing to do with furthering the objectives of the Group Areas Act.

*The hon. member for Sea Point has only one thing on his mind and that is District Six. [Interjections.] This legislation, however, is not concerned with enabling the department to evict a person. That right we have.

The procedure.

It would not change anything to negate the provisions of this legislation, because we should still have the right to evict people in terms of this Act. Therefore, that is not the issue. So he is creating a completely false impression. Surely the point of this legislation is not to give us the power to evict people. The point is that we are trying to do things in a more humane way, when we reach the stage where a high-level decision has been taken to evict someone. That right we have. Instead of evicting a person, we now tell him: “We do not want to do you any harm; we do not want to put your things outside, but we are now locking the door, provided that you make arrangements with us.” Can an hon. member be so foolish as to argue: “No, you should not be so co-operative; stick to the old arrangement and put the man’s things outside?” That is the essence of his whole argument. These people must not be treated in a more reasonable way. [Interjections.] If an hon. member adopts an attitude like that, I cannot argue with him, because his argument concerns the eviction of people. It is not a question of evicting people, however. It is question of wanting to treat people in a more humane and lenient manner.

Be careful about the word “humanistic”. It could be dangerous.

The other principle which is involved is the method of notification. I do not think there is a member in this House who does not know that only these two matters are involved, viz. the manner in which a man can be evicted, or the manner in which he is given notice of it. Why is the hon. member now creating the impression that we are getting more powers in order to evict people more easily?

I said it was a question of rent.

Of course it is a matter of rent. It is a matter of rent to be paid by business people and also by tenants, but particularly by businesses. In the majority of cases it is a question of whether one evicts a businessman because he is in arrears or whether one creates other machinery by means of which one can negotiate with him rather than to throw him out on the street. The motive behind all the hon. member’s random talk is that he does not want us to be able to negotiate. The hon. member and his supporters regard this legislation as an instrument in our hand to take an instrument of propaganda out of theirs. That is all they see in it They realize that this legislation will enable us to negotiate with people. We can now close down a business, but we need not put the possessions of the businessman concerned out on the street. If the hon. member can persuade me to abandon this attempt I shall have to put this man out on the street. Then the hon. member will be there with the Black Sash and the cameras. Therefore it is merely a mischievous, deliberate—I do not want to say “distortion of the facts”, because I may not say that—misrepresentation which the hon. member is giving here for the sake of political expediency.

As far as the question of notifications is concerned, that is a different matter. That matter I have tried to explain. The hon. member for Durban Central also raised this matter. It is true that if we attach the notice to a pillar or to the frame of the principal door, someone could maliciously remove it. In that case the person concerned will not have received the notice, as the hon. member quite rightly said. However, it is contained in many laws, and any lawyer will be able to tell you, that this is general practice and the risk you have to take. Nevertheless, I have surely made out a case to show why we are compelled to make use of this method. We shall only do so in the most extreme cases, however.

I also want to say to the hon. member for Durban Central that I am glad to find him so excited about the appearance of the department’s schemes. I want to tell him that in this regard the department will do everything in its power as long as it has sufficient funds. Money is always a handicap to us. When we receive our money, we must decide whether we should build another house for somebody or whether we should spend the money on a few tractors and bushcutters to keep a residential area clean. As I have said, however, as far as possible it is general practice now to do these things every month. Although it has only a small effect in certain areas, we shall try to do more in this regard in future, particularly at his request.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—102: Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Page, B. W. B.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Rabie, J.; Raw, W. V.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Scholtz, E. M.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Volker, V. A.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, F. J. le Roux, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and P. J. van B. Viljoen.

Noes—17: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think we should for a last time look at the impact this Bill would have should it be applied in practice. We must determine what would happen, if the Third Reading of this Bill goes through, in respect of certain squatter homes and shacks which exist in South Africa today. First of all, it appears that a squatter’s shack which has been erected with the consent of the owner in terms of the law as it presently exists and which in no way contravenes any existing statute or local authority by-law or regulation, can now be demolished. In other words, shacks that were erected with the consent of the owner and which are at this stage not in contravention of any building regulation in the area in which they were built … [Interjections.] These shacks were not built unlawfully. If they were built unlawfully, the Government can act in terms of existing legislation. If a shack has been built unlawfully, it can be demolished. This Bill stipulates very clearly that if they were erected with the consent of the owner, consent which is required at the moment, and if they were not erected in contravention of any existing by-law applicable in the area, they can now be destroyed—oddly enough, at the expense of the owner. The owner could well be the innocent person. There was no by-law or regulation and no consent was required, but in these sets of circumstances, in spite of his having been completely lawful in his actions in allowing these shacks or these homes to be built, he could not only have them, but destroyed even at his expense. We find this retrospectivity quite unacceptable.

Secondly, it is a most unusual way in which the hon. the Deputy Minister seeks to acquire these new powers, because the clause makes it quite clear that the shacks must comply with the legal requirements of a local authority, and if the shack is situated within the area of jurisdiction of that local authority on land which is not the property of that local authority, certain action could be taken. It must therefore comply with certain regulations and it must be situated in the area of jurisdiction of a local authority. Having said that it applies to such shacks, the Bill furthermore stipulates that if it is not in the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, it will for the purposes of this Act change the area of jurisdiction. This is an anomaly. This is a situation in which the authority of a local authority is extended for one purpose only, whereas for the rest it does not have any jurisdiction over that area of land. We think in principle this is wrong and is going to create serious anomalies in respect of local authorities adjoining one another. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that it primarily applies in Natal. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Does it only apply in areas adjoining local authorities which are occupied by Whites? What about homelands and areas which fall under the jurisdiction of homelands? It does not say so. This would give authority to the hon. the Minister to extend the boundaries of a White municipality to have jurisdiction over homeland land for the purposes of this proposed legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head.

Oh no, man.

The hon. member says “Oh no, man”, but he knows that if there is squatting in Natal, it is more likely to be taking place on land occupied and owned by Blacks than it would be on land owned and occupied by Whites.

The third point which emerged from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech yesterday, is that while he will consult with a local authority whose boundaries or jurisdiction he proposes to extend, he will nevertheless extend that local authority’s boundaries if he does not get the co-operation of that local authority. In other words, this is the big stick. This is coercion. This is saying to the local authority that unless it agrees, we will extend its boundaries and impose this new responsibility on it. We do not believe that the approach of the Government towards local authorities should be one of coercion. It should be one of co-operation and agreement.

The fourth point which emerged during the course of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s address was the disturbing vagueness of his assurances about the Government first having to provide alternative accommodation before squatters are evicted from their homes. In the first instance he seemed to be quite sure of himself that the Government would indeed provide alternative accommodation. Then the hon. member for Pinelands asked him a simple question. He asked: “Do you actually mean what you are saying? Do you really mean that the Government really will provide alternative accommodation?” The hon. the Deputy Minister then said (Hansard, 13 February)—

He says the Government has never thrown out anybody. But what are the exceptional cases? 10 000 people at Modderdam, 4 000 people at Unibel. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to forget the past.

*Let us bury the past now. As far as the future is concerned, as far as the squatters’ homes that could be demolished in terms of this legislation are concerned, will he give the assurance that before any squatters’ homes are demolished in terms of this legislation, he will provide alternative accommodation first? [Interjections.]

†All “plakkers” in terms of this legislation are “onwettig”. The only way that one may “plak” the legal way is for the Government to declare that illegal squatting is now legal.

It has been done in the case of 22 960 people.

In other words, what the hon. the Minister is conceding is in fact that all squatting is illegal, unless the Government makes it legal. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Will you make all squatters to whom this legislation would apply legal so that you can first give them alternative accommodation before you destroy their quarters? I want to bury the past for the moment. But to the extent that the Minister is now asking for new powers, new powers to demolish squatters’ homes, we ask him in respect of his new powers whether he will only use them when he has provided alternative accommodation first. If they are there illegally, will he follow the example to which the hon. the Minister has referred and see that they are legalized during that period while the Minister is finding the alternative accommodation?

The Bill gives two different sets of people authority to demolish shacks. The one is the local authority, which can act in terms of the proposed new section 3(1)(b), while in terms of the proposed new paragraph (c) it can be the Department of Community Development or an administration board. Let us for the moment accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance on alternative housing as far as action by the Government’s agents are concerned. Is he in a position to give us any assurance as far as action by a local authority is concerned? It is either the local authority or the central Government which can act. He says that he does not want to see people deprived of their homes and that as long as they are “wettig” alternative accommodation will be found. Can he give us an undertaking in so far as action of local authorities is concerned? Would he prevent local authorities from acting in terms of the provisions of this Bill, should it become law, unless they have first found alternative accommodation? It is no use the Government giving us the bland assurance if it is actually giving local authorities power. We believe that the backup assurance must be given that not only will the Government find alternative accommodation, but also that local authorities will not be allowed to act in terms of this measure unless alternative accommodation is found for these people.

There is no doubt that the approach of the hon. the Deputy Minister during the course of the debate over the last three days, as also that of the Government, has improved remarkably since the debates of 1977. Those were the days when the Minister still moved in with his bulldozers and indiscriminately razed the squatters shacks to the ground.

And the front-end loaders.

Their approach has improved since then. However, this Bill still seeks more power for the Government to demolish squatters’ shacks. In many instances it makes these powers retrospective and it uses the coercion of local authorities in order to force them to act in terms of Government policy.

For these reasons we would have hoped that the better mood which has prevailed in this debate would have been taken much further and a much more positive and an even more humane approach would have been adopted than is reflected in this legislation. For these reasons we shall not be supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage the hon. the Deputy Minister made it quite clear that this legislation was primarily aimed at Natal, but he has failed to give us any specific example of conditions existing in Natal which have necessitated this type of legislation. As we are now considering the application of the Bill in practice, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should give us some details and take us into his confidence as far as this is concerned. We ought to know what areas he is specifically aiming at. I want to repeat what I said in the Committee Stage, viz. that I am grateful that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he is prepared, at a later stage, to consider the amendment I moved. The amendment’s aim is to put beyond it any doubt that where certain buildings and structures were erected in compliance with old regulations in the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, they will not be demolished. If the hon. the Deputy Minister could move this amendment in the Other Place, it would obviously improve this measure.

There are a number of practical consequences which will flow from the application of this Bill especially if one considers the new powers whereby the Minister—and let us face it; it can be completely arbitrary—can extend the boundaries of local authorities to increase their areas of jurisdiction.

Only for the purposes of this Bill.

The boundaries of a local authority can be extended …

Not the boundaries.

The area of jurisdiction of a local authority. That could well happen contrary to the wishes of the local authority which presently has jurisdiction over it as well as of the new local authority which will now have to do the work for the hon. the Minister. For various reasons local authorities may be reluctant to have their areas of jurisdiction extended for the purpose of doing this specific job. It may go totally against the system the hon. the Minister is using to try to solve the problem of squatting. When you have to resort to this kind of thing where you have to force a local authority to act in a certain way, it is not a good thing. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made it quite clear that he sees merit in going about it in this way. He said that local authorities could in no way refuse to comply with the provisions of this legislation. Local authorities are very much the junior partner, and once the central Government has made up its mind about something, local authorities will just have to comply. This is an entirely wrong attitude and all the more reason why we should have decentralization of administration and decision-making in South Africa. When one reads clause 1 it is clear that Administration Boards will now have the power to demolish any squatter building or structure in any area. Administration Board officials are not tied to any particular area. One can only wonder why the hon. the Deputy Minister wants Administration Boards to do this type of work or why he wants to saddle local authorities with this work. The whole approach, especially clause 2, is wrong. In the Committee Stage we moved an amendment so that the Minister would have to do this in consultation with local authorities, but the hon. the Deputy Minister was not prepared to include the words “in consultation with”. It should be borne in mind that in affected areas two local authorities may be involved. Firstly, there might be the local authority whose area of jurisdiction is to be extended and, secondly, the existing local authority who has power over that area. It may be that a local authority is reluctant to relinquish its jurisdiction in respect of squatters to any other body. Technically speaking, there should also have been—if one can put it in another way—in a sense some effort to reach an agreement when it is being transferred from one local authority to another. I shall try to explain it to the hon. the Deputy Minister by means of a practical example.

I have already explained to the hon. member for Sea Point that that cannot happen.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says it cannot happen. The way the Bill reads here it is quite clear that it can happen. According to the Bill the area of any local authority can be extended.

Yes, but not to another local authority.

But it does not say that. That is not stated anywhere in the Bill. It merely says that, after consultation with any local authority, a particular local authority’s area of jurisdiction can be extended. This is where, once again, the whole situation in Natal becomes completely relevant. In the Cape Province, where we have a system of divisional councils, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that is not being affected. Therefore the area of jurisdiction of a municipality will not be extended in such a way that it will impinge upon that of a divisional council. In Natal, of course, we have the Development and Services Board which acts as the local authority over large proclaimed areas. We also have municipalities, of course. However, there are certain areas in which the powers of a local authority are vested in, for instance, the local magistrate, one of his powers of jurisdiction being, for instance, granting demolition orders. In such an area it can very well happen that the jurisdiction of a local authority can be extended in order to include that specific area which may fall under the jurisdiction of the Development and Services Board. This is the type of practical result flowing from this particular piece of legislation.

It is also a well-known fact that the Development and Services Board in Natal, through its chairman, has announced that it has adopted a humane attitude towards squatters. The chairman has stated that he is not prepared to have squatter shacks and dwellings demolished in a willy-nilly manner. One cannot say that, because a humane attitude has been adopted, the Development and Services Board is not carrying out its duties in a proper way. However, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and also according to some local authorities, those people, because they have adopted a humane attitude, are no longer performing their duties properly. My contention is that this sort of legislation results in unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of people. Therefore, I believe this is bad legislation. This is the type of legislation that results in invading the area of jurisdiction of a particular local authority. It is on account of reasons like this that it is so regrettable …

The Development and Services Board, not a local authority.

In terms of this legislation it is a local authority, and not the Development and Services Board.

No, you have it quite wrong. [Interjections.]

Banie, please take a few days off to study the Bill.

Not Banie. Mr. Banie. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot waste my time teaching the hon. member for Langlaagte the alphabet now across the floor of the House. [Interjections.] The fact is that the Development and Services Board is invested with the same powers as those of a local authority. The legislation in question, however, refers to a local authority. One finds, for instance, that where a municipality …

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

Oh, Banie, I do not have the time now to teach you. [Interjections.]

†I am also not prepared to answer questions now. My time is far too limited. [Interjections.] I wish to point out, however, that I find it quite regrettable that we have reached the final stage of discussion on this Bill without really knowing what the problem is that the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to solve. Exactly what is his problem? I should like to know, because I believe it is necessary to judge it on merit. We feel that this measure could result in gross interference in the affairs of existing local authorities trying their best to solve their own problems. They are perhaps doing it in a humane manner, which is misinterpreted by the Government. There is another interesting aspect. I should just like to establish, before the hon. the Deputy Minister gets all the information from the hon. the Minister, that no where is it stated in the Bill that the area of jurisdiction which is to be extended, has to be contiguous. Could it not well be that one can have an effective local authority, according to the hon. the Minister’s definition of how one has to treat the squatters, having its area of jurisdiction extended over non-contiguous areas? That is the sort of thing that can happen because of this type of legislation.

I think I have said enough to convince the hon. the Minister by now that he should withdraw this type of legislation, have a good think about it, have a change of heart and adopt a new attitude towards the problem, not only as far as the problem of squatters is concerned, but also as far as the situation of the relationship between local authorities and the central Government is concerned, and then present decent legislation. We in the NRP will be voting against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Durban Central tried to draw an absolutely academic distinction in his argument about the boundaries of the local authorities. If their peri-urban body in Natal is a local authority, measures and regulations already exist in terms of which negotiations may take place with them. If it is not a local authority, this act comes into operation and is made applicable there. However, it struck me that the hon. member is afraid that the boundaries of Pretoria will be expanded to such an extent that problems in Durban could be dealt with under that heading. I wonder whether the hon. member did not perhaps stretch his arm very far when he stated his problems here.

As far as the hon. member for Sea Point is concerned I want to say that his leader made a remark the other day with regard to the brain potential of one of our members. That hon. member has a bulldozer on the brain. If he hears the word “squatter” or “shanty”, he sees a bulldozer. I think he has a bulldozer on the brain. He draws no distinction between squatters and squatters. I just want to say for his information there are authorized and unauthorized squatters. The State makes provision for dealing with some of them in a certain way and with others in a different way. We do not see any point in Opposition leaders trying to introduce an equalizing process so that everyone should be treated alike. They really do not all deserve equal treatment. Only yesterday the hon. member was concerned that a local authority might not agree if the department negotiated with it about the expansion of its boundaries. Indeed, there was an amendment to the effect that they would have to agree before the legislation could be made applicable. Today the hon. member is concerned about the fact that when such an expansion takes place in consultation with a local authority, the local authority will not provide the alternative housing. It really seems to me as if their sails are being trimmed to the wind, and that the argument is being adapted as the circumstances require.

We cannot make progress on that basis, and consequently it is my opinion that the Bill should be accepted as it is, because its effect will be to facilitate greatly the department’s task of solving this problem of squatting in a really effective way.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, it will not help wasting too much of one’s breath on these hon. members. We are dealing here with matters of principle. Their philosophy and our philosophy on the entire approach to this problem differ as the East does from the West. The hon. member for Sea Point has not progressed from where the old United Party was in 1948, and he is still there today. That is why he is sitting where he is now, and he will even move back one more row. Next year he will probably be sitting in the back row. If he does not adapt himself to the circumstances he will become hidebound in his thinking on this matter. We are living in another world. We are no longer living in 1948. The attitude of the hon. member is therefore that of the United Party to which he belonged, a party which said, as far as this kind of thing was concerned, that matters should simply be allowed to take their course. That was why South Africa looked the way it did when we took over in 1948. [Interjections.] However, because we have the opposite attitude, South Africa looks the way it does today.

The hon. member was still a baboon in the mountains then.

It serves no purpose for the hon. member to argue with me if we get no closer to one another. Whether I give him an answer or do not …

Order! If the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said what I heard, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what you heard, but I withdraw it nevertheless.

In reality it makes no difference what I say here, for the end result will remain the same. For the sake of courtesy, however, I am nevertheless going to speak to the hon. member, for we are in a place where we have to speak to one another.

That is why I want to try once again to bring it home to the hon. member that in this legislation we are solely concerned with one group of squatters, and that is a group of squatters whose sojourn there we condoned in 1977, when the provision in section 3(b) was accepted, for reasons which I mentioned here yesterday and the day before. We are concerned solely with them, the group of squatters to whom we said in 1977, when we introduced the new legislation to clamp down more firmly on the situation: From now on no person may erect a structure to provide anyone with a place to stay if that structure does not comply with the regulations and provisions of the local authority. We said: Very well, there are such things today, but at present we are in no position to provide these people with alternative accommodation on a large scale, and for that reason we shall mark the huts. Consequently all those huts were marked.

Where was that, please?

Throughout the country, but particularly in the Western Cape. At that stage those squatter huts were numbered and we gave these people permission to live in them. Their sojourn in those huts was illegal, but we condoned it in that situation, just as we condoned the behaviour in unusual circumstances of the friends of the hon. member for Pinelands as well.

Crossroads.

Over the years we have seen our way clear to providing the people living in numbered huts with alternative accommodation. We must remember that these are huts which were built with the consent of the owners. However, we found that as soon as we removed one family from such a hut, they simply put in another squatter family. I explained that this was a highly frustrating situation which did not get us anywhere. Surely I have now kept my promise: I have given the person in the numbered squatter’s hut another house. However, I did not promise that I would condone the occupation of that hut of everyone put in there by the squatter owner. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point now wants an assurance from me this afternoon. In the first place, he asked me specifically whether I would legalize all squatting in future. Of course I will not legalize it!

The hon. member went on to ask whether, after I had legalized it, I would undertake to provide accommodation for all the legalized squatters. Sir, can the hon. member imagine that I would lend myself to anything like that? Surely this is an invitation to the creation of such situations as those we experienced here in the Cape Peninsula. If we were to allow that, we would tomorrow have thousands of people from Transkei and Ciskei on the outskirts of Pinelands. While the hon. member for Pinelands does not want them to walk through Pinelands, the hon. member for Sea Point will approach me and say: “Let us legalize these people. Do you undertake to provide each one of them with a house? Of course the answer is “no”.

What does Piet Koornhof say?

I made it very clear to the hon. member that all that this legislation is concerned with is a specific group of squatters whose huts we numbered at the time. After we have removed the people from those areas in future, we want to demolish the houses.

I also want to point out that we are not concerned with people living in legalized structures. I am saying this in reply to the hon. member for Durban Central as well. If it is true that a local authority allowed or legalized certain structures, that is not the issue here.

I accept that.

A person may live in a dwelling which has been erected in accordance with a plan, a directive or a provision of a lawful local body. The hon. member has an amendment on the Order Paper and I have said that I shall examine it and shall try to remedy whatever is worrying him. I want to accommodate people, if I can. However, I also wish to make it very clear that we are not in any way concerned here with people who are living in legalized structures built according to a plan of any local authority: What we are concerned with here are squatter huts which do not comply with the standards of some local authority or other. I cannot do more than this to convince the hon. member for Sea Point of what we are doing here and what this legislation is all about He even went so far as to suggest that it was possible that, since we are making provision for the possibility of extending areas of jurisdiction, it will now be possible for this to happen in the Black areas, the Black countries as well. The hon. member need only question the hon. member for Houghton, who is sitting in front of him, on this matter. If he does so he will also know that local authorities in Black States are the responsibility of those states and that we have nothing to say about them. Why is he asking me such a stupid question?

The hon. member for Durban Central raised another matter as well.

Piet Koornhof of Parow.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member for Bryanston and other hon. members that it is a rule that an hon. member of the House may not be addressed by name here in this House, but according to his electoral division or official title. There is a growing tendency among hon. members on both sides of the House—I think the hon. member for Bryanston has already been guilty of this on three occasions this afternoon—to call members of the House by their names. Restraint must be exercised now as far as this tendency is concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

There are another two matters in respect of which I owe the hon. member for Durban Central a reply. The one concerns the question of “ in consultation” or “after consultation”. Yesterday I tried to explain to the hon. member that many problems could arise if we left the final decision in the hands of the local authority. But what is more, if we were to accept his proposal of “in consultation”, we could reach a position of stalemate. In the course of the negotiations the local authority could impose impossible conditions on us. If we did not then accede to them, they could say: “Well, it depends on us. You cannot do it if we do not agree.” I stated time and again that it was not the intention of the department to look for trouble. The work of the department is done mainly by local authorities on an agency basis. In this connection I want to pay tribute again today to the NRP city councils and even the Prog, city councils for the co-operation we are receiving from them. The hon. member for Durban Central asked me in passing to state specifically which city councils these were. I shall tell him outside the House. I do not want to single out certain areas across the floor of the House because that could only jeopardize our consultations and relations with these bodies. In practise it is not going to work out as the hon. member is alleging, viz. that if I am not satisfied with the conduct of a municipality or local authority I am going to transfer its jurisdiction to another municipality or local authority. It just does not happen like that. A local authority has to deal with these matters in terms of the provisions of the Act, and if it does not do so, the department may do so at its expense. If a municipality refuses to take action, the department does not transfer the jurisdiction to another body so that that body can do it. That simply does not happen, nor can one argue in that way. I want to agree with the hon. member for False Bay that the longer we discuss these matters, the more theoretical and academic the discussion becomes and the more absurd the questions which are put.

I have already dealt with the question of consultation, duplication and legal jurisdiction.

I think we have had a very interesting discussion on this Bill and eventually hon. members on the opposite side of the House will find, as usual, that the Government did the right thing by coming to this House with such legislation. I want to tell hon. members that they must try to show an understanding for the enormous problem which we have to deal with in our country. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House should not try to drag this problem into the political arena by running to the Press with every incident and with every Khalfey case which occurs in an attempt to discredit the Government and in that way blacken South Africa’s name. The Khalfey case was blown up out of all reasonable context because it was not Khalfey’s property. The executor of his father’s estate approached us as long ago as 1972 and asked us to buy the property. He offered it for sale. Therefore, we did not force him to sell. It was an agreed purchase. Subsequently Khalfey stated that he had been compelled to sell the property. Surely that is not true. Yet hon. members of the Opposition swollow the story whole, because it is a nice piece of propaganda As I have said, Khalfey only appeared on the scene a long time afterwards, and besides we offered him alternative possibilities which he did not make use of. I want to make an appeal to hon. members on the opposite side of the House not only to try to understand our problem but above all to refrain from trying to exploit these things because they think they can hurt the NP Government by doing so. They must remember that if they cut their nose, they spite their face, in this case South Africa.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—91: Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. R.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. R; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Scholtz, E. M.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, F. J. le Roux, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and P. J. van B. Viljoen.

Noes—24: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du R; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, R. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday has said nothing which in any way induces us on this side of the House to change our attitude in regard to this clause or to the Bill itself. In fact, everything which he has said merely confirms our belief that the sooner the Indian Council becomes an elected body, the better, and that to extend its life at this time is simply to perpetuate a situation which is totally unsatisfactory and unrealistic. The hon. the Minister has said nothing to justify his blatant about-face between last year and this year on the issue whether, in the light of the operation of the Schlebusch Commission, it is desirable that an elected body speaks for the Indian community. He did not even try to justify it. But there was a complete about-face between what he said to the House in March last year and what he has said during the course of this debate. One wonders what has happened between 30 March last year and the beginning of this year, when, apparently, the Government changed its mind on the desirability on having an elected body available to be consulted or to consult with the Schlebusch Commission. In nine months there was a complete about-face.

The hon. the Minister in his introductory speech to the Second Reading has told us that because of the uncertainty which will exist or does exist as a result of the operation of the Schlebusch Commission, it was deemed unwise at this stage to proceed with the elections for the Indian Council. Then, yesterday, the hon. the Minister, when he replied to the Second Reading debate, hinted very strongly indeed that some interim recommendation might be made by the Schlebusch Commission which might change the whole situation in regard to the Indian Council. This is what he said in this House yesterday afternoon. Obviously the hon. the Minister knows much more than he is telling the House at the present time. When, during the debate, I asked the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House whether the Indian community would be consulted about any interim recommendations, he neatly sidestepped that question by simply saying that as he was a member of the Schlebusch Commission he could not go into that matter at this stage. But my point is—and I want to come back to it—that, whatever may happen in regard to the operation of the Schlebusch Commission, whether it issues a final report and whenever it issues a final report, or whether it issues an interim report, it surely is going to be necessary, if there is going to be consultation with members of the Indian community or any other community, that that consultation takes place with people who are elected and who are known to be the leaders of that community. Surely, in any circumstances, whatever the difficulties may be in regard to the operation at the present time of the Schlebusch Commission, it is preferable, it is desirable, as the hon. the Minister indicated in March last year, that if there is going to be consultation or participation of the Indian community in the functions of the Schlebusch Commission in any way, the people who participate and take part in these proceedings should be the elected leaders of the Indian community.

I told you my sentiments and they remain unchanged. I said so several times.

The hon. the Minister has certainly said that he is committed to the principle of having an elected council, but he has used the argument that it cannot be made an elected council now because of the operation of the Schlebusch Commission, that because of this uncertainty it is not wise to go ahead with the elections at the present time. Was that or was that not the case which the hon. the Minister put to the House? It was. That was precisely the case he put. He said that because of the operation of the Schlebusch Commission, because of the expense involved, and so on, it was not justified at this stage to proceed with the election of members to the Indian Council. This is the case which the hon. the Minister put. My argument is that, surely, whatever the case as far as the Schlebusch Commission is concerned, if it is going to have to consult, as one hopes it will, with the Indian community, if they are going to participate in its deliberations, it will be desirable that the Government should know who the elected leaders of the Indian community are. That is still the position. The hon. the Minister has not satisfied that query. At this stage he is telling us that he wants to extend the life of this body in order to preclude the possibility of an election at the present time. When is that election then going to take place? We still do not know. There has been an exchange across the floor of the House. The hon. the Minister says that it is desirable that there should be an election, but what is the position? The country, and the Indian community, are still left without any real certainty as to when an election is to take place. We still do not know what the mechanism is going to be through which the Indian community might be consulted about the constitutional future of South Africa. We are left with the entirely unsatisfactory situation where we are left with an Indian Council that is part nominated and part elected and which is in no way representative of the Indian community.

While we are dealing with the Indian Council I want to refer to some of the unctuous, or precious, arguments used by the Minister and the hon. member for Newcastle and others in asking what the Government could really do in view of the fact that this was a request which had come from a statutory body and that the Government could not turn down such a request. It had to view it with favour. After all, the Indian Council itself had requested that its life be extended. This was a very interesting and new concept, and one wonders whether this is going to be an absolute principle by which the Government is to be guided when it comes to requests which are made by statutory bodies.

One wonders for example whether it applies this principle to every request which comes from either the Indian Council or the Coloured Representative Council when they make a request, and whether, because these are statutory bodies, the Government believes that it must accept the recommendation which they made. That was the burden of the argument used by speakers on the Government side. Surely, in this case the Government has found the request convenient. It is the convenience of the Government that has been satisfied, and therefore it is prepared to come with this legislation in order to extend still further the life of the Indian Council. When one comes to the argument used, namely that because the members of the Indian Council have requested it, there should be some obligation on the part of this Parliament to accede to that request, I submit it is a very weak argument. Particularly where one is dealing with the very future of the council itself, recommendations which come from the members of that council then lose a great deal of weight, because clearly, in the nature of things, these are people who are themselves involved. They cannot or may not be able to give an impartial or objective view of the situation. They have a vested interest in increasing the life of the council of which they are members. They are people who are serving their communities, some of them are elected and some are nominated. They are drawing salaries and may be eligible for pensions. All these sorts of considerations come into their calculations when they consider whether or not they are going to be disbanded or have to go to an election or whether they are simply going to have their life further extended by the Government by means of an Act of Parliament.

The debate has been totally unsatisfactory. We have had no satisfaction and we still do not know what it is that has made the Government change the view held last year, namely that it would be desirable because of the operation of the Schlebusch Commission for the council to be elected in general, the debate has once again emphasized the futility of a White Parliament trying to determine what is good for other groups in South Africa. Again one comes to the position that the sooner you have elected representatives, who should be sitting and participating in this sort of deliberation with us so that we are not talking on their behalf but with them, the better it will be for everyone in South Africa. We are in no way satisfied with this clause and with the Bill and are therefore going to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. member for Musgrave one wonders why his party, which is always so quick to allege that they want to carry out the wishes of the Indian population, the Coloured population and the various Black peoples in our country, has now emerged as the party which is opposing the wishes of the S.A. Indian Council. I believe we all know that the S.A. Indian Council asked for this election to be postponed.

They themselves have not been elected.

Now it is somewhat strange that the hon. member for Musgrave should be the one who has suddenly emerged as an advocate of those who want to have a premature election at any cost, against the wishes of the S.A. Indian Council. However, there is a very good reason for this. By trying in this way to detract from the authority of the S.A. Indian Council, the hon. member for Musgrave is engaged in nothing less than an attempt to undermine the authority of the S.A. Indian Council in so far as it speaks on behalf of the Indian population of South Africa the hon. member knows very well that the real debate among the Indian population of South Africa is about the question of whether the Indian community should have anything to do with the constitution of the S.A. Indian Council at all, irrespective of whether it is an elected or an appointed council, or whether, as the Natal Indian Congress contends, it should have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of the S.A. Indian Council. In other words, this whole attempt by the hon. member for Musgrave is nothing but an attempt to detract from the status, the authority, the acceptability of the S.A. Indian Council. In this way he is playing straight into the hands of the Natal Indian Congress and of those who want absolutely nothing to do with consultation and co-operation with the Whites in South Africa.

We know quite well what the underlying reason for this is. We know quite well what has caused this sudden about-face on the part of the hon. member for Musgrave.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Umlazi. I believe we have to face facts. I think the fact of the matter is that delays have taken place. By virtue of the proclamation issued in November last year we find ourselves today with a situation in which the life of the Indian Council has to be extended. Blind opposition to this measure …

Parliament has been requested to extend it.

Parliament has been requested to extend it. Blind opposition to this measure is …

Blind?

It is blind opposition. I believe the PFP is blind opposition. There is no alternative given. With humble respect to the official Opposition, if they were to offer an alternative, I believe, we would get somewhere. However, there is no alternative given. There is merely opposition to this measure.

We must have the election.

If we were to have the election in March—that means next month—I ask in all fairness whether there is sufficient time for the Indian people and for the Indian political parties, who have gone into a situation of “hold” and who are now anticipating what is going to happen because they believe that the life of the Indian Council is going to be extended? I believe it is grossly unfair to expect those people to hold an election within the next six weeks. We in the NRP believe firmly that this cannot take place because, as an hon. member of the NP said the other day, we have to be fair and just. Hon. members of the official Opposition are not being fair and just to anybody by wanting to force this election on the Indian community right now.

The political parties want the election. They did not ask for a delay. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, not once has the hon. member for Musgrave quoted a political party that has indicated that it wants to hold an election now.

Do you know of anyone?

I shall tell the hon. member of one party that does not want the election. That is the Reform Party. Now, how is that for a start? Moreover the Reform Party is the majority party.

Some of the Reform Party …

Some of the Reform Party? Now we hear the PFP talking about some of the Reform Party. I wonder if they know of a split in the Reform Party. [Interjections.] Good heavens, no. We are here to do what is in the best interests of the Indian people, and I believe that this can be achieved by an amendment I want to move in respect of clause 1 of this Bill.

We made our attitude and our position abundantly clear during the Second Reading stage. I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s reply. I noted his comments and I accept his assurances that he wants to see a fully elected Indian Council as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I accept those assurances. In line with our comments during the Second Reading I intend moving my amendment because I believe this is the fair and just way of doing things. As the Act now stands—for the record—and as the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, in terms of section 5A of the S.A. Indian Council Act (No. 31 of 1968)—

That means simply that the hon. the Minister’s reply yesterday is quite correct. He may, by proclamation, extend the life of this council. With all due respect, we believe that the hon. the Minister should not be entitled to extend the life of the council beyond 5 November this year. If the life of the council is terminated either before or on 5 November this year, we will all know that the required election is going to take place and we will all know that it is going to take place within what all concerned will regard as a fair space of time. I feel that it is completely unfair to call on the Indian people to hold an election within five weeks, but I feel it is equally unfair to say to the Indian people: My friends, your future as far as your vote is concerned is in the melting-pot because we do not know whether this is going to be extended by proclamation again.

I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Umhlanga. I greatly appreciate his attitude and I am glad to see that there are still people in the Opposition who remain practical in their approach to Bills. I realize that no one in the Indian Council asked me to extend the period of office for more than a year, and I also realize that the problem which I have in respect of the Schlebusch Commission will be solved within a few months. Therefore I am glad to say that I accept the amendment. I am very anxious that we should have a fully elected Indian Council as soon as this is practicable and desirable—and it will become more desirable during the course of the year.

Now I come to my friend, the hon. member for Musgrave. He made a speech here which confirmed what I had said during the Second Reading debate. He does not speak with any conviction and he has no real arguments to advance. He could only engage in suspicion-mongering, in ascribing motives to people which he had no right to ascribe to them and in implying that members of the present Indian Council were a bunch of crooks who were only concerned with their own personal interests, their pensions and so forth. [Interjections.] That is what he said.

Your words!

Oh, yes, that is what he said. The hon. member for Orange Grove also said so. All I can say is that if they want to adopt that attitude, if they want to expose themselves in that way in the eyes of the Indian public, they are welcome to do so and they are also welcome to vote against the measure. However, I am very glad to know that three of the four parties in this House are opposed to their unreasonable, unfair and mischievous attitude in this case.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—103: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bartlett, G. S.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Durr, K. D.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Page, B. W. B.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Rabie, J.; Raw, W. V.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Scholtz, E. M.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. F.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, F. J. le Roux, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and P. J. van B. Viljoen.

Noes—16: Basson, J. D. du P.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Certain problems have been encountered as far as the administration of sections 4 and 6 of the Abortion and Sterilization Act is concerned.

In terms of section 4(1)(b) of the Act the consent of the person who may in law consent to an operation beneficial to another person who is incapable of personally consenting thereto, is compulsory for the sterilization of the latter person. In some cases such a person who can give his consent is just not available. In the case of persons under 18 years of age, statutory provision exists for ministerial consent in such cases, but no such provision exists as far as persons over the age of 18 years are concerned. The appointment of a curator for the person by the Supreme Court is problematic, because of the high costs involved. Provision is now made in clause 1(b) of the Bill to amend the above-mentioned paragraph to allow that a magistrate may, after such investigation as he may deem fit, grant such consent.

Section 4(1)(c) also provides that the authority of the Minister of Health is required for a sterilization in terms of section 4. The Act does not make provision for the delegation of the Minister’s powers. Clause 1(b) of the Bill now makes provision for the amendment of the paragraph to enable the Minister to delegate his powers to an officer of the Department of Health in order to facilitate the application of the provision.

Rape, incest and unlawful carnal intercourse with a female idiot or imbecile in contravention of section 15 of the Immorality Act, 1957, are by definition unlawful carnal intercourse in terms of the Act. As far as magistrates are concerned, cases of incest and the said contravention of the Immorality Act may be heard by any magistrate, but cases of rape may be heard by a regional magistrate only.

In terms of section 6(4) of the Act a certificate issued by a magistrate attached to the court having jurisdiction in respect of the alleged offence in question, is required before an abortion on the grounds of unlawful carnal intercourse may be procured. In cases of rape this would mean a certificate issued by a regional magistrate. In terms of clause 2 of the Bill the relative subsection is to be amended to make provision that, in all instances, the magistrate of the district in which the alleged offence took place may issue such a certificate in order to assist the victims of rape.

The Bill was published in the Gazette for information and comment.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity of conveying my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his appointment. He is a medical man, as his predecessor also was. It is true that he studied at the University of Cape Town, but I do not believe that really means he could not have been a very good doctor as well. In addition, the hon. the Minister has served as Administrator of the Cape Province for some years, and this will stand him in good stead in the demanding task which now rests on his shoulders.

The hon. the Minister will find that the health spokesmen on this side of the House are a very good-natured and friendly group of people, so we will not give him much trouble. Health matters are usually in the interests of all South Africans, and for that reason there is usually unanimity as far as these matters are concerned. He can only expect opposition from this side of the House if he were to try to introduce apartheid into the health legislation of our country in some way.

I think the hon. the Minister will instantly make friends on this side of the House by doing only two things, and these are, firstly, to negotiate a settlement between himself and the Medical and Dental Council in respect of the major confrontation which lies ahead, and, secondly, to give his full support to the proposed legislation on smoking introduced by the hon. member for Hillbrow. If the hon. the Minister will comply with these two requests at this early stage, I personally assure him that we shall get along splendidly.

I also want to avail myself of the opportunity, on behalf of this side of the House, of thanking the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Dr. S. W. van der Merwe, who always very kindly tried to satisfy us on this side of the House. He was always accommodating and always made a sincere attempt to do the very best for the country in the position he occupied. We want to wish him everything of the best in his new post and to ask him at the same time not to mar the pleasant impression he left here as Minister of Health by announcing further increases in the price of fuel.

The legislation before the House is concerned with abortion and sterilization. The PFP will support this legislation, not because it satisfies all the expectations we have in respect of such legislation, but because it effects certain minor improvements. I say minor improvements, because it will effect only a very limited improvement in the circumstances. The hon. the Minister and other hon. members know that enormous problems and great suffering are caused by the excessively restrictive measures contained in the Abortion and Sterilization Act.

In the case of so-called unlawful carnal intercourse, in the form of rape, for example, it is believed by experts in this field that only about 5% of such cases are reported to the Police—for various reasons. Victims of rape are often people who are afraid of possible further victimization by the rapist. For many other socio-economic reasons, cases of rape are often not reported to the Police.

The fact is that a very large percentage of illegitimate births, especially among the Coloured community, are the result of rape. In a reply I received from the hon. the Minister of Statistics a few days ago, the birth figures for 1978 were given. The figures show that 74 585 Whites; 65 260 Coloured people; and 18 862 Indians were born in 1978, but in respect of Whites the number of illegitimate births is 3 194; in respect of the Coloured people, it is almost 50%, i.e. 30 565; and in respect of the Indians, it is 2 155. A large percentage of those illegitimate births involve teenage Coloured girls, and according to social workers among that community, this is often the result of some form of rape. 95% of those cases of rape are not reported to the Police.

Because of the restrictive measures in this legislation, it is also a fact that the victims do not turn to the Act in those cases for an abortion. This is not done because it is so difficult for people in that group to comply with the provisions of the Act. I should very much like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider all these circumstances once again and to try to make amendments which will bring about real improvements and alleviation in the unfortunate circumstances which cause such very great suffering and problems, especially among the less sophisticated groups in our country, such as the Coloured group here in the Western Cape.

We now have a new Minister and I hope he is a little more enlightened than the previous one, if that is possible. I want to ask him to reconsider all the provisions of this Act, against the background of the suffering which is caused by its implementation.

It is not necessary for me to describe the problems caused by this Act and the problems experienced by teenagers, for example, as a result of pregnancy which is the result of indiscretion. Nor do I have to describe the social pressure to which they are subjected and the circumstances in which they live. I think that in a civilized country like South Africa—our legislation is decades behind similar legislation in other civilized Western countries—legislation of this nature is a means which can be used to protect the youth of a country against certain circumstances which may wreak havoc in their young lives and cause untold problems for them. For this reason, I wish to urge the new hon. Minister to reconsider this entire Act, with all its provisions, and if at all possible, to come back to this House with new amending legislation which will solve all those problems for us.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Bryanston in congratulating the hon. the Minister of Health on his appointment as Minister. I also want to congratulate the Minister on his brilliant victory in the Durbanville election as a result of which he is able to take his seat here as a member of this House today. I want moreover to congratulate him on the way in which he has handled his first Bill in this House. I find it striking that the Act which is now being amended is the very one which the hon. the Minister helped to pilot through this House five years ago.

That is the extent to which I agree with the hon. member for Bryanston because while he told us that his side of the House would not oppose the Bill, he nevertheless pleaded with the hon. the Minister to relax some of the provisions in the relevant Act. Seven years have already elapsed since the commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of a former member of this House, Dr. C. V. van der Merwe, investigated the whole question of abortion and sterilization in South Africa, and it was on that commission’s findings that the Abortion and Sterilization Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1975. It is a fitting tribute to the thoroughness with which that commission performed its task if, after seven years, it is necessary for the present Minister of Health to effect only minor amendments to the Act, and this in spite of vehement opposition by the hon. member for Houghton. She will have to concede today that the Act has worked effectively.

When one peruses what she said at the time, one finds that what she predicted did not come to pass. I want to point out that when that legislation was before the House, the hon. member referred, inter alia, to the Lane Commission that had investigated this matter in England. She said the following (Hansard 1975, Vol. 55, col. 495)—

I want to add that we should note what happens in other countries in this regard. As an example I want to mention the particular country to which the hon. member also referred, namely, Great Britain. Since 1967 when very liberal legislation was introduced which more or less made abortion on demand possible, a city like London became increasingly known as the Mecca where abortions could be freely obtained. Women from all over the world flocked there for that specific purpose. Since 1967 no fewer than 1,4 million abortions have been performed there. This has given rise to all kinds of malpractices in this connection. There have even been cases where pregnancy was incorrectly diagnosed and the women were sent to establishments to undergo so-called abortions. Today after 13 years the British Government is introducing legislation in order to exercise stricter control over the position. As far as this is concerned I want to refer to a report that appeared in The Pretoria News of 8 February 1980 dealing with this subject. Inter alia, it states the following—

Those poor little creatures who were capable of maintaining life at 28 weeks by hanging on to life for a few hours after they had been aborted, fired the imagination of the people of Britain also revolted against this type of liberal legislation.

The two amendments proposed in the legislation before us today deal, in the first place, with sterilization and provide that magistrates may consent to it when the people concerned are not qualified to do so. As far as this is concerned, the Minister of Health may delegate his power to officials. This is necessary because in cases of that nature it is necessary that sterilization be carried out as soon as possible. Under the existing law there has sometimes been a considerable lapse of time before such cases have been attended to and that has given rise to further problems. In the second place the legislation provides that an abortion may only be performed in a controlled establishment and that a certificate authorizing the abortion can be issued to this effect by a magistrate in the relevant district.

I want to emphasize that the control over abortion remains as strict as that provided for in the Act of 1975. These minor amendments must not be regarded as any relaxation of that legislation. I trust that here in South Africa we will continue to approach this matter in accordance with our own conscience and in accordance with our own Christian principles which are based on Biblical injunctions, more particularly the Calvinistic injunction, the Sixth Commandant, among others that—

Over and above that, we subscribe to the positive aspect of the matter, namely, that we should protect life, God’s supreme creation, from start to finish. In fact, life commences as soon as the male sperm unites with the female ovum and not at any later stage of the pregnancy.

The main argument usually advanced by those who advocate a more flexible abortion law is that the existing law promotes back-street and unhygienic abortion practices, but what do we find in practice? Seven years after the law was relaxed in England the London Evening News reported, for example, one J. C. Brown of the Hammersmith Hospital as having said the following—

The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology reported in similar vein, as follows—

I can give examples of a number of similar findings. Throughout the Western World where there has been a relaxation of this type of measure there has been a tendency towards permissiveness on the part of society, to lawlessness as far as this matter is concerned, and an increase in this kind of practice.

In conclusion, Sir, allow me to highlight one further extremely adverse effect that any possible relaxation of the control over abortions can have on the mental well-being of the women of our country. Scientific studies have disclosed that particularly in countries like America where there has been a significant relaxation in the legislation in this regard, the methods have become so modernized that it is possible today for a pregnant woman to enter an establishment, more or less as she would enter the salon of her hairdresser, and to emerge a few hours later after having had an abortion. One is inclined to think that after that she would not even give it a second thought. However, investigations have brought to light the fact that a large percentage of those women subsequently suffered mental anguish as an aftereffect. Although it was easy to undergo the abortion the sense of guilt of having committed a murder did not leave the minds of many of these women and psychologically it left its scars.

I should like to quote what Dr. Vosloo, a former member of the House of Assembly …

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to cover a fairly wide field. However, I do think he is digressing too far now.

Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. I merely want to say that, as in the past, we in this country are determined that this legislation shall be strictly applied and that the amendments that we are effecting today must not be interpreted as meaning that the existing legislation is being relaxed in any way. That is why I also want to ask hon. members not to overlook the mental aspect of the matter. For that reason I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that the present strict control over abortions be maintained as it is, in fact, being maintained in this amending Bill before us.

In view of this I wholeheartedly support the amending Bill before us today.

Order! I have allowed the first two speakers to cover a wider field, to some extent, than that covered by this Bill. The hon. member for Bryanston stated certain views briefly. The hon. member for Pietersburg went further and stated another point of view. But the Bill does not deal with that. It deals with the adaptation of the procedure followed in connection with certain incidences of sterilization and abortion. That is what is at issue.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NRP I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to his new post. According to the newspapers, it appears as if he will be experiencing a few problems in future. As far as today’s debate is concerned, however, it gives us great pleasure to support him.

†Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best to abide by your ruling. I have a few brief comments to make in connection with the Bill. As you have allowed the first speakers of other parties only a couple of minutes to deal with their thoughts, I hope you will accord me the same privilege, and I shall try not to overstep your generosity in that regard.

I feel that any legislation dealing with such a contentious topic as abortion or sterilization is bound to be thoroughly studied in its context and for its implications, because of the possibility of very strong controversy resulting. Accordingly we expect that any legislation in this regard should be handled with sensitivity and understanding, and also in a way in which it will cause least embarrassment and the fewest problems for all concerned. Like all other members of my party I also believe that the South African legislation regarding abortions is a workable compromise between the permissiveness of certain so-called enlightened countries in the world and the ostrich-like attitude that ignores the basic problems entirely. I believe that whenever we discuss abortion we should be primarily concerned with the question of preserving human life, and I sincerely hope that South Africa will never succumb to the temptations of those who clamour for abortions on demand.

The hon. member for Pietersburg referred to the legislation in Britain. He read from the legislation that was passed in Britain in the middle ’sixties, and if one thinks back, one will remember that those were days of enormous drug problems and permissiveness. I think one can see the British legislation as an extension of that permissiveness, and it is very significant that they are today introducing measures to make abortion more difficult to procure than in the past. Abortion on demand is often merely an excuse for an undisciplined way of life and leads, inevitably, to a lowering of moral standards. I think, particularly when we are dealing with the life of the unique human being, however small he may be, we must know that each person is different and identifiable, a being in his or her own right. We must never allow ourselves to dismiss such a subject lightly and without due consideration. Obviously the plea of the hon. member for Bryanston for a certain amount of flexibility, is one that we hope will be borne in mind by the hon. the Minister, because circumstances are never the same from year to year and there might well be certain circumstances under which we may have to look at this legislation again, and I hope that we shall be able to do so without getting excited about it. I hope we shall look at it in a reasonable way and that, if flexibility is need, it will be considered in that light.

With these few brief comments, I should like to say that the amendment Bill contains no major changes, as previous speakers have said, but only rather minor procedural changes, and as such it will receive the support of this party.

Mr. Speaker, I want to endorse certain remarks made by the hon. member for Pietersburg. Sir, in view of your ruling regarding certain aspects of his speech, I respectfully want to point out to the House that allegations have, nevertheless, been made in public that we are now meddling with the principles of the Act. I think, therefore, that it may be important for us to explain some of the principles of the principal Act so that they can be clearly understood. In view of the fact that there was a fairly lengthy discussion on the original Bill when it was introduced, I think it is necessary to have a look at certain of the implications of the procedure. From the nature of things, the Act of 1975 was based on the Van Wyk Report on the Mental Health Act and I think what happens in practice is that many of the objections to the existing legislation—we are now amending the procedure laid down in that legislation—arise from the question as to whether mental disorder is not perhaps being abused. The original legislation was drafted very carefully after a very thorough investigation and that is why I associate myself with what the hon. member for Pietersburg has said, namely, that after all these years it has now become necessary to effect only minor changes to the procedure. There is another reason why I think we should refer briefly to certain principles contained in the Act, and that is the remarks made by the hon. member for Bryanston, remarks in which he questioned specific principles in regard to this matter to which the Government was committed. When we test the principles contained in the original legislation against those contained in the amending Bill before us today, we find that the Government highlighted a number of specific principles at the time. I do not intend dealing with all of them but I do think that the important aspects of those principles are applicable to this Bill.

In the first place, sterilization forms part of the subject as indicated by the title of the Bill. That indicates to me that at the time the Government regarded sterilization as a very serious matter. That was why the Government dealt with it in the same legislation. That was done because of the importance of such a step as outlined in the principles submitted by the commission at the time. Pursuant to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bryanston I just want to say that the Government is utterly opposed to any form of abortion on demand. As far as this matter is concerned, I strongly support what the hon. member for Pietersburg has said. On the other hand, however, the Government is very sympathetically inclined towards the principle of therapeutic abortion but then very sound therapeutic reasons have to be advanced. In view of the fact that this legislation provides for the procedure to be altered, I think the people who will have to decide in terms of the new legislation, will have to consider very seriously why the original procedures were decided upon and consider the original intention of this House as to how the legislation should be implemented. That is why I think it is fitting that we refer to this matter very briefly.

The position is that the health or psyche of the mother may be seriously impaired in the case of proven rape or incest which in my opinion is one of the provisions that may be abused, and those responsible for the implementation of the new legislation will in future have to take due cognizance of this fact.

I shall return to the question of the procedure to be followed when an abortion is authorized in the case of rape and incest. But the position has changed somewhat since the original legislation was discussed in this House. You will also allow me, Sir, to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Pietersburg in connection with the whole question of the psychological effects, for example, where the victim is an idiot or someone with some other mental disorder.

It has been proved in practice, that in most cases, especially in England and Holland, abortion is sought on the grounds of this, to my mind, vaguely defined reason for abortion or sterilization. That is why the closest attention should be given to the procedure because if it is relaxed too much it may lead to serious abuse.

I have studied this legislation very carefully to ascertain whether by changing the procedure we are in any way detracting from this principle; in other words, whether on the one hand we are watering down this principle or, on the other hand, whether we are impairing the effectiveness of the procedure. I am satisfied that the change in the procedure which, in fact, is a relaxation—we cannot deny that—ought not to affect the procedure and the intention of the original legislation. As the long title of the Bill indicates, the proposed amendment, in the first place, is only in respect of the consent to be given for sterilization. This consent can now be given by a magistrate when the person who can by law give it, is not readily available. As far as this aspect is concerned, two questions come to mind because I know from experience that the provision contained in the existing Act has caused practical problems quite often. The first question is whether it is clear who the person is who is in law entitled to give consent. In the normal course of events, apart from the person himself if he is an adult, it is the parents, the guardian and a member of his family like a brother or sister. The question often arises as to whether somebody else can consent on his behalf. Arising from that there is this question: What is understood by the words “readily available” as they appear in the legislation? From the nature of things this too is a vaguely defined expression. Perhaps those words have a specific meaning from a legal point of view. Perhaps a specific connotation is attached to them which I fail to grasp. It is often not clear, however, whether those words imply that the person should be a resident of the same town or live in the same district, the same province or even in the same country. In an emergency I do not think that will present a problem because in that case the magistrate can give consent. We should perhaps on another occasion have another serious look at these aspects because they can create certain practical problems.

The question also arises as to what the magistrate is expected to understand by the words “after such investigation as he may deem fit”. I think that too is vague. Surely in practice we need greater clarity as to the specific meaning of such terminology in our legislation. The provision contained in the existing Act is clear, of course, namely, that two doctors have to issue the necessary certificate; and that the person who is legally entitled to give consent must do so. Then there is a provision in respect of the Minister, a provision which is being amended by this Bill. The provision that the Minister may delegate the powers he has under the legislation makes sense to me. I do not think the Minister is always in the position to decide in such cases. I also regard it as unnecessary. He may often simply not be available. We should also accept that the Minister will delegate these powers to a very responsible person in the Department of Health as provided for in the amendment to section 4(1)(c) of the Act. The only question is—and we can discuss this at the Committee Stage—whether the office of the person thus empowered to act on behalf of the Minister should be stipulated in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could at a convenient time give us his views in this regard.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I just want to say that the provision that the magistrate of a specific district can give consent makes sense to me. Although the Bill is not clear on this point, I take it that such consent will only be given after the magistrate has studied the evidence, court documents and files of the court where the case was heard, even if such hearing took place elsewhere.

Sir, I want to return briefly to the problem of the unwanted pregnancies we have today. I think we as the legislators in this country ought once again to give this aspect of the matter our serious attention. Certain steps may in future be taken in accordance with this amending Bill, and I want to deal with them briefly. In practice one is often faced with very doubtful cases. A woman may allege that she has been raped simply because she wants an abortion in terms of the law. Although the law provides very clearly that rape must have been proved, it would be a pity if a person were to suffer due to a lack of certainty in a specific case. It appears to me in any case that there is an increase these days in the number of “rape by consent” cases. In practice one often comes across cases where a woman alleges that she has been raped but when she goes to the district surgeon he cannot find any evidence of it.

That is typical male chauvinist nonsense.

In future the courts will have to decide in such cases, but one should remember that there are often very unfortunate cases as far as the accused is concerned.

This is really a very simple Bill which only deals with procedure and which contains no new principles. We trust it will assist in facilitating the implementation of the law.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speeches by the hon. members for Pietermaritsburg and Newcastle, I must say that all the old rage that took possession of me when I listened to the original debate on the Abortion and Sterilization Bill in 1975 took hold of me again, because it is clear that this is a subject which should not be debated by men with narrow minds who have no idea of what goes on in the real world, who priggishly make statements about “rape by consent”, who have no idea of the agony suffered by women who have been raped should they fall pregnant, and who blithely announce that they hope very much indeed that there will be no relaxation in the law. It brings to mind again the arguments we listened to when the original legislation was debated. The new hon. Minister of Health, to whom I give my good wishes although I am not madly optimistic that he is going to introduce any liberalizing provisions into the Abortion and Sterilization Act …

Perhaps you are a good judge of that.

I know that, because I listened to the remarks the hon. gentleman made when that legislation was being debated. I had hoped that perhaps in the ensuing years his mind would have broadened a little. [Interjections.] We shall wait and see. I do not want to prejudge the hon. the Minister and I also do not want to antagonize him to such an extent that he will not consider any changes in any event. However, I remember the original arguments and I want to point out to the hon. member for Pietersburg that the Lane Commission was chaired by a woman. It consisted of a 90% female membership and it was doing anything but considering permissiveness. It was trying its best to find solutions to a grave social problem in England. The amendments to the Act have not yet been passed in England and if they are passed they will certainly narrow the scope of abortion, but they will not change the grounds on which abortion will be allowed. Mr. Speaker, that is all I want to say on that subject because I respect your ruling, but these arguments should not be allowed to go uncontested.

Finally, before I discuss the Bill itself, I want to say to the hon. member for Pietersburg who adopted such a sanctimonius attitude towards the whole question, that he might take a very different attitude if his own 16-year-old daughter were to fall pregnant. He might then adopt a different attitude about whether or not she should be allowed to have an abortion. It is something that could happen to the children of any hon. member in this House, and we should not forget that. Nobody is above such an unfortunate mishap occurring to their own children.

As the hon. member for Bryanston has stated, the Bill to some extent lessens one of the manifold difficulties that confront a woman who has fallen pregnant as a result of rape.

It makes it a little easier for her to obtain permission to have a lawful abortion and therefore we are going to support this Bill. I want to point out that, of course, my party does not have a party policy on rape. [Interjections.] I mean a policy on abortion; or on rape, for that matter! [Interjections.] It is something that is entirely subject to individual choice.

You are raping your own policy daily.

Oh, well … [Interjections.] However, if it becomes pregnant as a result of it, we shall do something about that.

We are multiplying.

Abortion is a matter of individual conscience as far as we on this side of the House are concerned. It carries with it all sorts of religious and other connotations and we do not feel that it is necessary to have a party policy per se on this subject, the very tricky and difficult subject of abortion.

I want to say that it is now five years since the original Act was passed. It is time we took stock of the situation and perhaps examine statistics which by now must surely be accumulating as far as the number of abortions, illegal abortions, and the removals of the residues of pregnancies are concerned. I know that statistics are now being kept. I shall be asking the hon. the Minister questions, very shortly, to ascertain what is happening in the country. Until we have those statistics, I think it is difficult for anybody, including the hon. member for Pietersburg, to pronounce on whether or not the number of back-street abortions in South Africa has increased, decreased or remained the same as a result of this Act. With those few words we shall, as I have said, support this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to associate myself with the kind remarks of the hon. member for Bryanston and those of hon. members on this side of the House in congratulating our new hon. Minister of Health, the hon. member for Durbanville.

Whilst listening to the hon. member for Houghton, I had a very clear picture in my mind’s eye of a front page headline which appeared a few years ago, a headline which read: “Abortion on Demand.”

I never asked for that!

I did not say the hon. member said it. I was referring to magazines. I understand that these were magazines that appeared a few years ago. Well, of course, one grows older. The remarks of the hon. member for Houghton reminded me of an anecdote about a clergyman who forgot his notes on the pulpit. The following Sunday another clergyman was preaching there and found the notes. He saw that there was a note in the margin of the notes made by the clergyman who had preached the previous Sunday, which was underlined in red: “Argument weak—shout like hell!” [Interjections.]

Very bad language!

The remarks and standpoints of hon. members of the official Opposition convinced me today that they are not concerned with principles here—I am referring to the whole spirit and meaning of the principal Act of 1975—but with mere politicizing, which does not belong in a health debate, because we are dealing here with matters that go very much deeper than the mere screening of people in the gallery and outside, in order to make political capital from it.

I should like to refer to remarks made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Bryanston, amongst others. He referred to rapes and quoted statistics showing what a large percentage of unmarried mothers and others who have had sexual intercourse through rape have found themselves in that situation. I have paged through an article which referred to various institutions which have been accommodating this type of young woman for several years. It is very important to note that the scientists working in those institutions are not “narrow-minded” people like us on this side of the House, as the hon. member referred to us. Their findings indicate that only 5% of those who report to the police that they have been raped have in actual fact been raped. Of the 30% who came to the institutions because they had allegedly been raped, only two cases could be traced over the years where it could be proved that rape had in fact taken place. Mr. Speaker, you have ruled, that we should confine ourselves to the clauses under discussion, but there is …

All the other hon. members have digressed somewhat, therefore the hon. member may do so too.

Thank you very much, Sir. There are specific reasons why—let me put it clearly—when young girls have had sexual intercourse and become pregnant, they go either to their parents or to institutions and say that they have been raped. If one analyses case studies, it is clear that various elements are present. On the one hand there is a degree of unwillingness, but on the other hand there is also a degree of consent, even enjoyment, even if some signs of struggle can be shown or if it can be proved that their clothing has been tom. It is even possible that the girl originally encouraged the man and then suddenly took fright when he became serious. I want to enumerate all these elements here this afternoon, because they may lead the girl to believe that she has been assaulted, that she has been raped.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Newcastle said here this afternoon, viz. that it would be a good thing, when dealing with sterilization, for us to take a specific look at exactly what is being meant, what the method of evaluation should be and which norms should be applied. It would be a great help to the magistrate and other people in determining whether rape did in fact take place or not. I want to allege that it is extremely difficult simply to accept, as the Opposition would like to do, that there has been an attempt at rape in every case. For anyone who is not an expert on the problem of the unmarried mother—and it is their welfare that is at issue here, and I speak of them with compassion—it is extremely difficult, even dangerous, simply to assume, as the Opposition tried to do, that rape did take place in their case. Social workers, the trained people to whom I am referring, speak about the “pleading innocence syndrome” amongst young people when rape is mentioned. When these girls receive therapeutic treatment, they insist that they were in fact raped. However, this is only part of the defence mechanism they are using, and in time they really believe this is true, whilst in reality it is not After studying hundreds of cases, it could be concluded that only in two cases had the girls actually been raped. We should take cognizance of this. When she has been going out with a man and things have gone too far, the easy way out for a girl is to say that she has been raped, and often her parents help her to present this façade to the world. Another way out is to say that the person gave her drugs or that she was under the influence of alcohol. The girl often alleges that she did not know the man and that she was overpowered. Sometimes she says that she cannot remember anything that happened or that she is confused. This is the picture that some girls try to present. However, what do the police and medical practitioners tell us after making an objective, scientific investigation into such cases? Firstly, they state very clearly that amnesia seldom occurs in a case like this. There are always signs of violent struggle and several bodily injuries that have been inflicted. The most important of all—and this is completely contradictory to the standpoints adopted here this afternoon by the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Houghton, viz. that people try to keep it quiet and that they go into hiding—is that the woman who has really been raped, is the first one to go to her parents or to the police in order to report the rape. As regards the cases of girls who only allege at a later stage that they were raped, and then come up with confused stories—just as confused as the Opposition—it usually indicates that one should not summarily accept that those women were in fact raped.

During the course of her speech, the hon. member for Houghton referred to this side as a lot of narrow-minded people. I am not ashamed of taking a stand on a matter of principle on this matter this afternoon together with the hon. member for Pietersburg and the hon. member for Newcastle, and to endorse what they said. I support the spirit of the principal Act of 1975. There are other people who support me in this regard.

The hon. member for Bryanston referred to the less developed people in our country, and I conclude from that that he was referring to the Coloureds and implicitly to the Black people too. He and the hon. member for Houghton will be surprised at the conclusions reached in an article that appeared in the Journal of Racial Affairs. This publication supports the official Opposition and I think it is supported financially by them in its turn. With reference to people of colour, i.e. the Coloureds and Black people in the Republic, we read the following—

Now I want to know whether the hon. member for Pinelands can still remember anything about normative structures. Does he still remember it from the days when he was pope, or whatever it was? [Interjections.] I actually mean when he was still a practising clergyman. [Interjections.] I quote further—

Does this perhaps mean anything to the hon. member for Pinelands? It is mentioned here in this Prog magazine—

What clause is that?

It is not a clause. By the way, we have heard that the hon. member for Mooirivier is on his way out. Apparently he is going somewhere. Of course, we do not know which constituency he is going to. [Interjections.] For his information I may mention that this is not a clause, but a standpoint adopted by a scientist, a scientist who writes in a Prog magazine. In this Prog magazine, this scientist is adopting a conservative standpoint. [Interjections.] Without quoting any further, I should, however, like to add something. I want to refer to two editions of the medical journal Geneeskunde. We are dealing with scientists in these magazines. This is what I have been trying to say all along. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite accuse us of narrow-mindedness. They say we are narrow-minded people. [Interjections.] However, what do the doctors themselves say? It is unnecessary to repeat what Hippocrates said, and we know that every medical practitioner subscribes to the Hippocratic Oath. They also subscribe to the high normative values of the Hippocratic Oath. However, I am just mentioning this in passing. I should like to quote again.

Is it another Prog magazine? [Interjections.]

It is brilliantly summarized here. I quote—

I am now referring to abortions and the value of the foetus—

Now I shall go further and refer hon. members to another matter. After legislation had been passed in England in 1967, and in the Netherlands as well, a group of Dutch medical practitioners, after having had the opportunity of investigating their own legislation for over a period of almost 10 years and assessing its effects, said that this legislation does not seem to be as wonderful as the hon. member for Houghton is trying to make out.

What about the book Treurnicht aan die Woord? [Interjections.]

I want hon. members to listen carefully to this. This is why it has been so emphatically included in the above mentioned memorandum. I quote again—

This is a memorandum that was drawn up by Dutch medical practitioners after they had been in a position to study their liberalized health legislation concerning abortions and related matters over a period of ten years.

Do you realize that we are supporting this Bill?

I want to conclude. However, there is one more very important matter to which I should like to refer. Of course, I realize that my time is limited. However, it is a matter that deserves the attention of this House. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition to give the necessary sympathy to this too. I am talking about sterilization, which is also referred to in the clause from which I quoted. Clause 4 of the Bill refers to it specifically. It deals with those who are not in a position to grant permission for an abortion themselves. In this regard I am thinking specifically of the vast number of young girls, young children, that we find in institutions throughout the country, people who are mentally retarded and in the first place are not in a position to make a normative judgment. Secondly, they are not in a position to control their natural urges. Because they are not answerable for their actions—i.e. they are not responsible for what may happen, because of bio-psychical factors over which they have absolutely no control, and in order to protect them from themselves due to their mental retardation, for which they cannot be blamed, because there may be physical and other reasons for it—I want to ask the hon. Minister this afternoon to look at these particular cases with compassion and to ensure that sterilization is made as easy as possible for them. I am drawing a specific distinction in regard to this group of people in the community. To my mind, the hon. the Minister has succeeded, by means of these two amendments to the Act which he has proposed and which I want to support wholeheartedly this afternoon, in complying with that request, which I also supported, in regard to these children.

In conclusion, Sir, I have referred to the findings of the Dutch medical practitioners after they had studied the effect of their law for a period of ten years. What do the medical practitioners and psychiatrists in South Africa say after a year of studying this Act on the Statute Book, which we are now amending for the first time, and only two clauses of it? I quote from Abortion in South Africa by Westmore, in which we see that after questionnaires had been sent to psychiatrists, they identified the very problems which the hon. the Minister is rectifying here by means of these two amendments—

That sounds familiar.

It seems that that hon. member is also starting to liven up now. Secondly—

This is why the hon. the Minister is prepared to delegate. I think we may congratulate the hon. the Minister here this afternoon on the first measure he has introduced in this House, a measure that corresponds to the scientifically based requests which members of the medical profession have addressed to him and which the hon. the Minister is now introducing here. I am pleased to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon. members for Bryanston, Pietersburg, Berea, Newcastle, Houghton and Brits for the contributions they have made to this discussion. I think it was an important discussion, and while we are making amendments, I think it is important for this House to hear the Government’s standpoint on this matter. I think it was clearly explained by the speakers whose contributions I shall deal with in a moment. I do not think the official Opposition should feel that when they agree with legislation—as the hon. member for Bryanston did on behalf of them—it will handicap the discussion of a very important matter, a matter which, if it is not discussed here properly and the reasons for the amendments not explained, could lead the general public to believe that we are liberalizing this act. I want to say here that it is important for people to express their ideas. The hon. member for Houghton has said that it is not a party political matter in their party. I am sure that it is not a party political matter in this party either. But there are still people who want to maintain the same moral standards, who have the same Christian, ethic norms and principles and who stand by the words of a very famous leader of the party: “Bring together what belongs together.”

I should now like to come to a few matters that have been raised. The hon. member for Bryanston introduced himself as the official Opposition’s genial spokesman on health. I must say he caught me somewhat unawares, because I thought he was referring to the hon. member for Hillbrow. However, as he continued, I realized that when it comes to health, he assumes a completely different personality, a genial personality. We shall be able to have fruitful discussions on that level in the future. I want to thank him most sincerely for the suggestion that we keep health out of the political sphere. He said that he would support me on two conditions: Firstly, if I come to an agreement with the medical profession.

†Perhaps I shall have a surprise for him at some stage or another. Secondly, he says he will support me if I support the hon. member for Hillbrow’s Bill on smoking. The hon. member for Hillbrow has introduced the Bill on the basis of his own evidence. With him it is a grudge Bill. He says he smoked for a number of years, but gave it up 17 years ago, so he evidently hates smoking, for some reason or other. I have no hang-ups. I have never smoked, but I can tell the hon. member that I feel the same about smoking in relation to health matters. I cannot, however, accept that as a quid pro quo for the hon. member’s support of this Bill. I think he must support it on its merits.

*The hon. member raised one matter which to my mind is important. He said that only 5% of the persons who are raped report the act, and that consequently one cannot get to the heart of the matter, where the people have to be helped. However, the hon. member should examine section 6(4)(a) in the existing Act. This in fact provides that the case need not have been reported to the police. Nor need there have been a trial. A person can quietly visit a magistrate in his chambers and tell him what the problem is. According to the existing Act he may then give permission for the medical practitioners to go ahead with the investigations in order to determine whether they should resort to legal abortion. This is not a new principle. All that is being done here is that the administration is being facilitated.

†It is not a liberalization of the law. It is only an administrative improvement so that action need not be taken by any one particular magistrate. It can be done by the magistrate in the district. The person does not have to wait until there is a complaint. So any person who has had a problem—definitely a most harrowing psychological problem—and who does not want to go into all the rigmarole of ending up in court, has a remedy.

*If a person has to go to court, there is the humiliation this involves. Now the person concerned can simply go to the magistrate and talk to him confidentially, and the magistrate can then carry out an investigation. The hon. member for Newcastle asked what was meant by all the investigations. I think we are simply leaving the matter open so that the magistrate can collect evidence, if he wishes to, or can decide for himself. I think this is merely opening up the matter. Otherwise the magistrate could simply say: “How do I know? I cannot decide.” Consequently this is really just an improvement. Our intention with the existing Act, and this amendment, is precisely to help those who do not want to go on.

There is something I want to tell the hon. member for Brits as well as this House. The task of this department is to make legislation relating to this matter. It is not the department’s task to determine whether a person was raped. It is not for me to say whether it is good or bad; I am simply trying to formulate the law, because I do not think there is any one in this House who does not wish rape to remain on the Statute Book as a legal reason for abortion. Is there anyone who does not? The hon. member for Houghton will probably support it too. We do not always agree, but I think she will support this too.

Dead right.

Once we have said that rape is grounds for abortion, it is for others to determine whether rape did in fact take place. I would never see the end of my work if this, too, were part of my task.

The principle I want to emphasize—and I am grateful to the hon. members for Pietersburg, Berea, Newcastle and Brits who stated this very clearly—that a Christian moral principle is at stake here, and if one liberalizes the abortion law, one is back to where the argument of the hon. member for Houghton was in 1975 when she tried to persuade this House—she may not have put it this way, but she came very close to this—virtually to allow abortion on demand in South Africa.

I said …

She held up the laws in Britain to us. The hon. member stated that “statistics for illegal abortion are available”. Can the hon. member tell me where those statics are available? Perhaps those that come in as septic abortions, perhaps those that show complications, yes, but of course one hears nothing further about the successful back-street abortion. Who is going to have statistics about that? The hon. member for Pietersburg stated very clearly that some of the experts in Britain are now saying that the liberalization of the abortion law has not contributed in any way to reducing the back-street abortions. That was the real reason for her statement in 1975 that liberalizing the legislation would put a stop to back-street abortions. I remember it as though it were yesterday. That was what the hon. member said, but I do not want to cross swords with her today; she has enough problems.

That hon. member said that “we narrow-minded men must leave this to people who know more about it”. That may be the case. I admit that the Chairman of the Laing Commission was a woman. At this very moment the proposals that commission made for the liberalizing of abortion in Britain are being rejected, if I read correctly. When they eventually introduce legislation in Britain, they are going to have almost the same legislation as we do, where there are only specific conditions on which legal abortion may be obtained. Thus, as we predicted in 1975, the picture has changed, if other countries now regard our law with respect and wish to emulate it. Their laws were passed when permissiveness was at its height. Thank God that South Africa never went so far as to surrender to that permissiveness like the rest of the world.

I want to thank the hon. member for Berea for his support of this legislation. He said that the criterion should be how one solves one’s problems. I think that is correct. He raised an interesting point and said: “We must look at this legislation without getting excited.” I do not quite know what the hon. member meant by “getting excited” or “worked up” by this legislation. This legislation is of such a nature that nobody should really get heated when discussing it. I want to thank the hon. member once again for his support and I am sure that in future I shall co-operate very well with him as his party’s spokesman on health matters.

The hon. member for Newcastle raised a few very interesting points and I think I should clear up one aspect for the hon. member. We are really concerned here with permission for persons older, than 18 years. In respect of persons under the age of 18 years, there is a section in the Act which provides that ministerial approval may be obtained, but I as Minister cannot give permission for persons over the age of 18 years. There are certain legal requirements that have to be complied with. We place those obligations on a magistrate if there is no one else who can assume the responsibility. I think a magistrate, as a person trained in law, will know when to give permission and when to refuse it. The hon. member also used the word “relaxation”. Perhaps it would have been better to speak of an administrative improvement or administrative relaxation. The legislation is not aimed at encouraging abortion. We simply want to attempt to make it easier for those who ought to obtain a legal abortion.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Houghton for the back-handed compliment she paid me when she said that my mind had been broadened. That may well be so, but on certain matters of principle she will find that I have not renounced the principles which have carried me through a large number of years in the particular political party which I still support.

*I want to conclude by also thanking the hon. member for Brits. He stated very clearly that abortion should not be made easier. He also explained very well how matters in Holland have gone wrong and that they are now watching our legislation. It is not that we believe that our moral standards should be accepted by the rest of the world. However, I am sure that it is the earnest desire of the hon. members on this side of the House that we should adhere as closely as possible to the ethical, moral and Christian standards and that we should try to help people who have problems, in a legal manner.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a point to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. I choose this method of doing it rather than by way of an amendment, because I do not know quite what the hon. the Minister has in mind. The proposed new section 4(1)(c) extends the previous authority of the Minister also to “an officer of the Department of Health authorized thereto by him in writing”. I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has in mind a medical officer of the Department of Health or just any officer. If it is just any officer he has in mind, I should like to suggest that consideration be given to making it a medical officer of the Department of Health. I do not think it needs very much motivating. I think that in matters like this it would be advantageous for it to be a medical officer. I think that if the hon. the Minister agrees with me, it would be a fairly simple matter for such a minor amendment to be effected.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to accept the insertion of the words “medical officer”. I think it was intended to be so. Difficulties could possibly arise when certain doctor’s reports have to be signed by a particular officer. I have no objection to inserting the word “medical” before the word “officer”.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his comments. I accordingly move as an amendment—

to substitute “a medical”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The department has been approached by the S.A. Homeopathic Association in order to effect certain amendments to the Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Herbalists Act, 1974. Representations were received from the association that the word “list” be replaced by the word “register” and that all practitioners previously enlisted be deemed to be registered in terms of the Act, on the grounds, inter alia, of the political connotation attached to the words “list” and “enlisted”. The word “register” is generally used in this context and it has therefore been decided to include the amendments in the Bill in order to bring the law into line with other laws.

Since the commencement of the Act in 1974 it has become clear that the Act does not lend itself to effective control over the conduct of practitioners in that the Act does not make provision for disciplinary action against a practitioner by his peers.

The practitioners have, as far as possible under existing legislation, endeavoured to put their house in order, but in the absence of any ethical rules and disciplinary powers they cannot make any further progress.

No statutory council or body has been established to control the professions concerned and it has been decided to empower the association to conduct the necessary inquiries into charges of misconduct or into the mental or physical condition of the practitioners concerned. The provisions concerning an inquiry are the same as those of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, but adjudication after the inquiry differs entirely. The association is a voluntary association of practitioners and adjudication in terms of the law cannot be left to such a voluntary body. Provision is therefore made that the designated officer in the Department of Health adjudicates the case against the accused practitioner after the association has submitted the minutes of the proceedings of an inquiry to the said officer. The position, as far as the inquiry is concerned, is therefore the the inquiry will be conducted by the association and that the adjudication process will rest with this particular designated officer. The designated officer is at present a deputy secretary of the Department of Health. In order to protect the interests of the practitioner and to limit costs as far as possible, provision is also made for appeal to the Minister by any person feeling aggrieved about any action by the designated officer.

The association is entrusted by law with certain functions and duties, and the payment of annual fees by practitioners to the association is necessary in order to enable the association to perform its functions in terms of the Act The payment of an annual fee of R40 to the association has already been prescribed under rules pertaining to the conditions subject to which practitioners may pursue their practices. Doubt exists as to the legality of the rule and in order to remove any doubts the provisions concerned are now incorporated in the Bill.

The Bill was published in the Gazette for information and comment.

Mr. Speaker, once again we find ourselves in the position where we as a party will support this particular Bill, but in doing so we should like to comment on some of the matters contained in the Bill and also to ask the hon. the Minister certain questions. We ask him to comment further and to provide further explanations.

In the first place, quite clearly, the history surrounding homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists—and the need to place them under professional control—is an interesting one. It is also interesting that they, in fact, via their association, have requested that this amending Bill should be placed before Parliament in order to provide regulations which they deem necessary in order to control the affairs of their association properly and to be able to exercise sufficient control and discipline over their members.

The considerations that are involved are, in the first place, the protection of the public. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the Minister and his department in all matters of this nature to see to it that they have available the legislative procedures whereby they can ensure that the public’s interests are properly protected in respect of the exercise of the services rendered by these professions. Secondly, it is a major consideration, once again in the interests of the public and the country, to see to it that these professions be practised according to the highest possible standards and to see to it that the professions as a whole are well ordered and subject to effective control. I think that, by and large, this amending Bill goes a long way to meet those particular objectives.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions and to make a few points with regard to some of the provisions of the Bill. The first one to which I should like the hon. the Minister to give his attention is the proposed new section 4(1)(b) where there is a change. The legislation previously read “the fees to be charged”. Now it is to be changed to “the tariff of fees that may be charged”. In other words, there is a slight improvement there in that there is a certain amount of discretion given to the profession in respect of the fees that will be charged. However, I think that at this stage the hon. the Minister could comment on the situation whereby he as Minister will in fact be determining the fees for these particular professions. It is a problem which is going to come to the fore very soon with regard to doctors and dentists and one which also appears in this legislation. The hon. the Minister gave us very welcome news in that he hinted—and I hope it was a substantial hint—that there are negotiations going on behind the scenes and that the outcome of those negotiations may very well be that an agreement may be reached between the hon. the Minister on the one hand and the Medical and Dental Council on the other with regard to this very vexing question about whether or not the hon. the Minister should have the final say over fees. We feel that if an amicable agreement can be reached between the hon. the Minister and the people concerned, it would be a very good thing. I would like the hon. the Minister to comment on that particular aspect in this legislation. The association specifically asked for the legislation to provide for inquiries to take place—

1. (a) into any complaint, charge or allegation of improper or disgraceful conduct against any practitioner or conduct which, when regard is had to his profession, is improper or disgraceful; or
2. (b) in respect of any practitioner who has allegedly become mentally or physically disabled to such an extent that it would be contrary to the public interest to allow him to continue to practise.

The proposed new section 4A, inserted by clause 5 of the Bill, then further sets out in what circumstances inquiries can take place, how they are to take place, that witnesses can be called, under whose supervision the inquiry should take place, and so on. We do not have any problems with most of the provisions contained in the proposed section. However, it is interesting to note in the proposed new section 4A(3)(c)(iv) that any person who is called to give evidence, is subpoenaed as a witness, is liable to a fine if he does not do so—

This is a provision we certainly welcome, because we believe it is a very good one. The proposed new section 4A(4) provides—

We feel it would be preferable if that particular provision read that the chairman of the association “shall” appoint a person with adequate experience in the administration of justice. In order to leave no doubt as to the manner in which such an inquiry takes place and about the status of the inquiry and the competence of the people conducting that inquiry, I should urge the hon. the Minister to consider that very small change. This additional assurance will provide for more confidence and trust in the provision. The hon. the Minister has explained that since the association is a voluntary association, differing from the Medical and Dental Council which is a statutory body, the association, while it can conduct the inquiry and report on its findings, cannot as such adjudicate on its findings and cannot impose any penalties in respect of this matter. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has elucidated that point, because it is something which, in fact, worries us. In this Bill provision is made for a person now to be in a position, as the hon. the Minister put it, to be judged by his peers. He is going to have to answer to his peers and explain to them any conduct which is felt to be contrary to the norms and the regulations which apply to his particular profession. However, having done that, when it comes to deciding whether he is guilty or not of any malpractice and when it comes to the punishment that must be meted out, the record of the proceedings goes to a person who was not present at all during the proceedings, someone who did not have the benefit of sitting in on the proceedings and who did not hear the evidence that was led and also did not observe the witnesses that appeared. In a purely isolated position this person then has to study the record, after which he has to decide about the guilt or otherwise of the person concerned. He must then decide what penalty should be imposed. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider the following suggestion. I assume that the designated officer will be a very senior person. I think the hon. the Minister said this person would be an Under-Secretary of the Department of Health. I should like to suggest that this person, who must be a senior official of the department in question, someone who will obviously be in possession of suitable medical qualifications—it would also be a recommendation if he had legal qualifications as well—be allowed to sit in on the investigation.

That means that he will not be a stranger to the case and that he will be fully informed about the investigation that is taking place. It really means that he will in fact be part and parcel of the investigation. He will then have the benefit and the advantage that will flow from his being present and being able to observe the entire investigation. He will hear the evidence. He will see the witnesses in person. We believe he will then be in a far better position to decide about the guilt of the person involved. He will also be in a far better position to decide about a suitable, adequate and appropriate penalty to be imposed in the circumstances.

We are also delighted to note that there is provision being made for appeal. We find that provision in clause 5 of the Bill, which seeks to insert certain sections in the principal Act after section 4. In the proposed new section 4B(9) we find the following, and I quote—

I do not believe that the appeal procedure is entirely adequate. However, under the circumstances it is reasonable. It is pleasing to note that provision has been made in this Bill for an appeal.

In the circumstances we will support this Bill. We believe it is a good thing that provision has been made for these procedures, and we should like the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the Second Reading debate, to consider the two recommendations we have made regarding the legally trained person whose presence, we feel, should be mandatory at all hearings of the association, and also, in the second place, the advisability of the designated officer’s also being present at such an investigation so that there can be no doubt about the justice meted out to persons who fall foul of the regulations of the association.

Mr. Speaker, the practice of homeopathy, nature cures, osteopathy and herbalism are very old methods of treatment of diseases and still enjoy the full support of a vast number of patients, particularly people suffering from chronic illnesses. Such people are often very partial to consulting practitioners of this type. It is also true that a great deal of criticism has been levelled at these practitioners. However, I do think that one can say without fear of contradiction that there is a place for these practitioners too and that they too can make a valuable contribution to the art of healing.

It is well known that there have been strong representations requesting statutory recognition of this group over a very long period. Probably, therefore, it is for that reason that when the legislation on the health professions was reviewed in 1974, the Government had to endure sharp criticism and bitter reproaches. Criticism was levelled in strong terms at the S.A. Medical Council in particular. Notable among the accusations were the following—I quote from the Second Reading speech by the hon. the Minister—

1. (a) Sought to prohibit all other forms of health care so as to create a protective field of employment for medical practitioners; and
2. (b) Sought to protect the income of medical practitioners against competition from homeopaths and other practices of that nature.

The fact is that up to that stage, viz. 1974, the homeopathic and other practices had not been controlled by law, and because the Medical Council did not see its way clear to controlling this sector of the health services, the department decided that it had become imperative to introduce separate legislation for this profession with a view to ensuring that the profession would be placed on an orderly footing, for example, that such a person offering his services for remuneration would at least have to possess a minimum acceptable standard of knowledge, and also to protect the user of the service. On the other hand, the practitioner had also to be afforded an opportunity of practicing his profession on an orderly basis.

Due to the position in which the department found itself, it was necessary to investigate possible methods of control. Legislation in countries such as Germany—which is regarded as the home of homeopathy—France and Britain was considered. It is interesting to know that there is a great deal of disparity in the legislation of all those countries and that there are major differences between the requirements for such practitioners.

After due investigation and a series of consultations, the conclusion was reached that at the least, we had to make statutory provision for, in the first place, an increase in the standard of training, secondly, the implementation of a uniform ethical code, and thirdly, lawful control over persons practising, for the protection of persons as such, but also for the protection of the public. The 1974 Act certainly satisfied those practitioners, but on the other hand also had shortcomings. Because the homeopaths and the others are proud of their professions, this amendment Bill is before the House at the request of the South African Homeopathic Association. It is the logical consequence of the 1974 Act and is aimed at putting their house in order.

The proposed amendments to the Bill provide that the words “list” be replaced by the word “register” and that the word “person” be replaced by the word “practitioner”. At every place in the text where the Act refers to “list” and “persons”, these words are replaced by “register” and “practitioner” respectively. The Bill also seeks to establish control and regulation of medicine and prescriptions.

In terms of clause 5 of the Bill the South Africa Homeopathic Association is empowered to investigate accusations of misconduct on the part of practitioners and the mental or physical condition of certain practitioners. Certain steps and arrangements are also prescribed with regard to actions which could lead to disciplinary steps or even suspension.

This amendment Bill is a logical outcome of the 1974 Act in improving and protecting the position of the practitioners and also in affording them status. It comes before the House at the request of members of the profession itself and it is a great privilege for me to support this amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be supporting this legislation, but we do want to make a few comments in the course of this Second Reading debate. I think it is probably in order to approach the debate from the point of view of saying that when one uses the terms contained in the title of the Bill, viz. homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists, to the average man in the street they sound like some high-faluting mumbo-jumbo reminiscent of witchcraft. I think that many people are not at all certain where these practices fit in in the general system of medical services. I also notice that in the Bill there is a lack of definition of these particular practices. Because of this and because, later in the Bill, in the proposed new section 4(1)(c), these terms are related to the types of drugs which the different practices may use and prescribe, I should like to quote to the House modern definitions of the three practices in order to bring our discussions within certain parameters and shed a little light on what might be regarded as medicine out of the dark ages. If one looks at the definition of homeopathy in Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 24th Edition, one sees it defined as—

We know that the doses referred to are, in fact, usually of the order of 1 000th of the normal dose prescribed by the British pharmacopoeia or any standard book of reference. It is quite an interesting definition.

Secondly, there is the definition of naturopathy—

I like that.

Body rub.

I was not quite thinking in terms of body rub, but it does create a somewhat lighter side to the debate. That is perhaps something we could turn our attention to at some other time, but not today. I quote the definition of osteopathy—

That sounds a bit complicated, but reduced to simple terms, what those definitions are really saying is that one discipline is using the most natural, simple and least complicated systems and medicines to treat conditions which a previous speaker referred to as very often being chronic conditions from which one could suffer a great deal of pain, conditions very disruptive to a normal way of life. If one looks at those definitions one can see that there is a very clear place for the three types of treatment in the normal run of health services that are available to anyone who suffers from any form of illness or complaint requiring attention. In that regard I think that it is clear that there is a need for this sort of service and that there will always be people who will have need of calling for this type of service. This even applies to herbalism, the fourth category mentioned. In this regard it is interesting to note that so many of our modern medicines are synthetically produced and are likened in their structure to drugs originally obtained from herbs. Obviously there is a very clear place for this type of treatment in the medical field.

The relevance of those definitions becomes apparent when one looks at clause 4 on page 5, more specifically the proposed new section 4(1)(c) which states—

Thus the position is established whereby remedies may be prescribed by these practitioners, mentioned in my definitions. This is really, as I see it, the nub of the Bill before the House because we are now going to establish very clearly not only which medicines these practitioners can prescribe, as the position was previously, but also, once a practitioner’s name is in the register, the conditions under which he may “prescribe, prepare for or supply to a patient of his, or may have in his possession” any remedy. I think this is going to be a major advantage of the amendment before us today. I read in the Press recently that one such practitioner—I think this was in Ladysmith, Natal—was charged with possession of scheduled drugs which legally he had no right to be in possession of. The situation is understandable when one realizes that the normal appellation of these practitioners is that of “doctor”. It can very easily happen that a homeopath, who refers to himself as “Dr.” and whose patients refer to him as “Dr. X”, telephones a supplier of drugs and orders a wide range of drugs, many of which he is legally entitled to prescribe but some of which he is not legally entitled to prescribe at all because they fall within schedules which make them available only on the prescription of a medical doctor.

I have been in pharmacy and have had personal experience of this. A practitioner will telephone and order certain hormonal preparations which, as the hon. the Minister will know, are scheduled and only available on a medical prescription. It becomes embarrassing as a fellow-professional in the health team to have to turn around and say: “I cannot supply you those drugs legally.” I believe that by establishing these lists one will be clearing up a potential situation of conflict between different practitioners in the health team generally. I welcome that clause and hope that the lists will be very carefully drawn up after the necessary consultation has taken place. I hope, too, that in the future this type of conflict situation is not likely to arise. Obviously this is also going to have the spin-off that one will not find practitioners, as mentioned in this Bill, in possession of drugs which fall way outside of the scope of their particular training and treatment. In that respect it is a very important amendment we have before us.

The hon. member for Bryanston has dealt with the actual powers of the association in connection with the inquiry and the penalties that may result from any contravention of the regulations. I do not have much to add to what he has said in that regard. I do, however, have one query in respect of clause 6. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to enlighten me on this matter. Clause 6(a) provides for the substitution of section 5(1)(c) of the Act. The amendment serves to redefine the withdrawal of blood from any person. Previously that paragraph read—

Now it is being changed to read—

I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether it is intended that the removal of blood from any person be totally prohibited. Generally, if blood is to be analysed, it is removed intravenously in small quantities—a matter of a few cc’s. Alternatively, is the effect of this amendment merely to prevent the withdrawal of intravenous blood, as the wording appears to indicate? One would think that, surely, that is the only way to get a blood sample, although in fact that is not quite true because blood can be obtained by pricking one’s finger. I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate his intentions in this regard. Is it purely aimed at stopping the intravenous withdrawal of blood, because there may be conditions where by pricking a finger and analysing the droplet of blood which appears, a quick diagnosis could be achieved? In this regard I am thinking, for example, of the procedure adopted when a person donates blood. The would-be donor’s finger is pricked and the droplet of blood which appears is dropped into a bottle of copper sulphate and depending on whether it sinks or floats a quick idea can be obtained of the iron content of the blood. The hon. the Minister may have in mind allowing this type of basic procedure, which does not involve withdrawing of blood intravenously. Perhaps he can also comment on this aspect.

Apart from that, as has been stated, the legislation has been requested by the people concerned. As far as the regulations regarding the investigation of malpractices are concerned, these regulations are fairly similar to those relating to other aspects of health services. I do not think there is anything contentious in that regard and, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that you afforded previous speakers the opportunity to digress a little. I hope that your decision will apply to me, too, and that I shall not get right off the track. To begin with, I should like to thank everyone who has gone out of his way to make matters easier for me, as a newcomer, to tread this path. I have already said this to many hon. members both in this House and outside. I do just want to avail myself of this opportunity to single out two groups of people. In the first place, I want to mention specifically the police at the gates of Parliament. When I made my appearance here on the first day, they were among the first people I met, and I am grateful to be able to say that I was assisted in the most friendly manner. I want to convey my sincere thanks to them. The second group of people whom I wish to thank are the service officers who, with great cheerfulness and patience, make it very easy for a newcomer to find his feet here.

I should also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, who is at present ambassador in The Hague. He is a man who is performing his task there with great dedication, according to reports we have received. He showed the same dedication in the work he did in the constituency that I now represent, and I should like to follow in his footsteps.

When one discusses legislation relating to medicine, it goes without saying that in a country like South Africa, where medical science is already at such a high level, one will have legislation which may not exist in other countries where medical science is not yet at the same level. It is also as well that in this super-specialized period in the medical field, we should have super-legislation. For the purposes of my argument I want to try this afternoon to link an idea to a relatively new instrument being used in medical science, namely the pacemaker, which, as hon. members are aware, is implanted in a person to stimulate his heartbeat so that his body can function normally.

I want to link the ideas I am expressing here to the idea of a pacemaker. This country in which we are privileged to live is the pacemaker not only in the medical field, but in innumerable other fields as well in Southern Africa, and in fact in the whole of Africa and to a very large extent the rest of the world as well. It is wonderful to realize that this is so. This is something about which we are very grateful. It is wonderful to know that people do not want to look our way but nevertheless are compelled to do so and to take note of what is going on here in our country. The fact that we are the pacemaker on this continent entails a very heavy responsibility which, in my opinion, will enable us to continue to set that pace with the resources at our disposal in the times that lie ahead. We have the manpower—we have not the slightest doubt on that score—to venture to accept this responsibility and this steadily growing role of increasing importance that we have to play on this continent and in the rest of the world.

In passing, the word “manpower” is one which really fascinates me. I think the people who changed the name of the Department of Labour to the Department of Manpower Utilization deserve a compliment. Why is this such a fascinating word? Why does it have such impact? To me it bespeaks action, systematic work and orderliness, and indeed this word will in these times have to be symbolic—and is indeed symbolic—of the people of this country, who are the pacemakers in this part of our world.

It goes without saying that in this process there is no place whatsoever for the leadswinger or the hanger-on, and least of all for wrongheadedness, because if such people are present in this process, the heartbeat will be upset and the pacemaker will not be able to perform its task properly. There is always place for the positive, but never for the negative.

Success, growth, progress and eventual victory in this country of ours will only be possible if we can utilize the manpower at our disposal to the best of our ability. I think it is possible, but there are a few requirements that have to be met. There must be a will to serve and a will to succeed in what we are doing. There must be no physical obstruction in our path, and the schooling of our people must be rounded off and polished, because then everyone will qualify for this service battalion that we are forming, a battalion which must advance with the sole purpose of closing the door to the effect and infiltration of communism in our country.

Who must qualify for it? Everyone must qualify for it. No one is less important and no one is more important in the process. But now, owing to my limited time, you must excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I single out two professions with the aim of exchanging a few brief ideas about them and looking at their importance in this overall structure. The professions are that of medicine man, naturally, because I myself am a medicine man, and then, too, the teacher. Hon. members of this House may differ on many things and may also adopt very divergent standpoints, and we may debate many matters across the floor of this House, but this House must never doubt the role, the share and the need for those two professions to serve as vital cogs in the machinery of our national economy. We are living in a time of specialization and super-specialization, and we have the wonderful privilege, when we talk about medicine, of moving at a high level. In this regard I want to pay tribute to the researchers, the technologists, the nurses and the laboratory assistants, people about whom we do not hear or see a great deal. I think it is time that a monument should also be built one day for the unknown researcher, the unknown technologist, the unknown nurse and the unknown laboratory assistant.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will be able to understand that for the purposes of my discussion today I wish to narrow the field down to the general practitioner, since I have had the privilege of being a general practitioner for 25 years. I do not think that this House underestimates the share which the general practitioner has had, has and ought still to have in future in keeping our labour force capable of being employed for what we have still to do in the future. I think that in spite of unreasonable attacks, in spite of sustained criticism encountered in the newspapers and elsewhere which is often based on ignorance, this House may never do anything which will handicap the work of the medical man and make his task more difficult.

I want to dwell for a moment on the teaching profession. We have wonderful human material in our children. We must have no doubt on that score. Those children are like clay in the hands of a potter—the potter is the teacher. I also ask—I know that it has been so in the past and we hope that it will always continue to be so to an increasing extent—that we shall always seek only the best for the teachers who have the task of looking after our children. We have the teaching staff. We have the men with spiritual power in the ranks of our teachers, and we have the resources. The result of these forces must be a man whom we can allow without hesitation to look after our children—a man about whom there must be no question.

We must guard against the ills of the flesh and the spirit among our people and we must give the potter the opportunity to continue with his creative work and his rounding off work. If every member of this House goes home this evening knowing that we have negotiated only the best for all our people—I repeat, it is not only the medical man and the teacher that are concerned here—then I believe that we have done our best in this House. Then the people of this country of the South will be pacemakers and may be able to offer a cure for a sickly Western world.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Rustenburg on a speech which moved me deeply. What struck me in particular was the humility which was evident throughout his speech. At the beginning of his speech he paid tribute to those who, as guides, had facilitated his path to this House. His reference to the police officers and the service officers of this House was striking. To me it attests to a fine characteristic of a person who I believe will make many positive contributions in this House in more than one respect. A further aspect of his speech which also struck me was the tribute he paid to the general practitioner and the teacher in our ranks. I want to congratulate him on having laid emphasis on two groups of people whom we do not always, perhaps, do justice to. Personally and on behalf of this House I want to thank the hon. member for Rustenburg for a fine speech, and particularly for the attitude he displayed in his speech. We wish the hon. member all the best in his parliamentary career and a long and happy life in the service of the constituency served with such distinction by his predecessor. Our best wishes accompany him.

In taking part in the discussion of this Bill, which was in fact introduced at the instance of the Homeopathic association, I wish to concentrate in particular on the role of the herbalist. This calls to mind my childhood days in the Boland when I was sometimes sent by my late father to pick certain species of herb, e.g. Hottentot bedding, a herb known as a remedy for diseases of the heart. That reminds me of another herb remedy, viz. the “gansiebossie” or, as I came to know it later, the cancer bush, a herb which was very popular at the time. When I think about those two herb remedies from my childhood days, often with nostalgia, I also recall the role played by herbs, alongside the role of the medical profession, in my personal illness. Hon. members are probably not unaware of my recent past and everything that has happened to me. I want to praise the medical profession for having made such progress over the past number of years. Ten years ago, if one had contracted an illness such as mine, the medical profession would not have been able to do much for one. However, thanks to the wonderful development of medical science, I can still be in your midst today, by the grace of God. I also wish to refer in particular to the role which the herbalist played during my illness and still plays now. This brings me to the fact that we are dealing here with a profession which has been undervalued over the years. These people used remedies put at our disposal by a higher Power to be of great benefit to the human physical condition. We often disparaged those people by calling them “bossiedokters” and often said nasty things about them, and rightly, too, perhaps, since cheating did sometimes take place.

But this profession, too, has developed to such an extent that it is now entitled to apply for a better regulation of its affairs. For this reason I have the greatest appreciation for this profession and I think it deserves the appreciation of the whole House. The hon. Minister of Health also deserves the praise of the House for the attitude with which he approaches this profession and for this legislation he has introduced.

Having paid tribute by way of these few thoughts, and having conveyed my appreciation to this fine profession, I also wish to say that I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to enjoy the degree of good health that I do, partly as a result of the work of members of the Homeopathic Association.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. the Minister for giving us such a very clear exposition of what is contained in this Bill. His explanation leaves very little room for uncertainty as far as this Bill is concerned. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for his comments on the Smoking Control Bill and I note with great interest his long abstention from smoking. I look forward to the time, which I hope will be in the near future, when we will be able to discuss our common objective with regard to the health of the South African nation, when the Smoking Control Bill comes before the House. I trust the hon. the Minister will expedite the opportunity for us to do so.

In the Bill before the House we are dealing with a category of paramedical people such as homeopaths, naturopaths and osteopaths. I am grateful to the hon. member for Berea who has tried to define exactly this category of persons.

He did not try to do so. He did do so.

The principal Act, which was passed in 1974, did not contain any definitions, and I can imagine that it must be pretty difficult to frame a definition for this category of persons. It is important to deal with this because I think that we are basically dealing with the status of people who are treating the public. We are talking about a category of persons who do not qualify, like medical practitioners who, after years of university and proper hospital training, treat patients who entrust their lives to them. When the Act was framed in 1974 this was clearly contemplated because in terms of section 5 of the Act there are obviously certain things these people cannot do. For example, they cannot perform an operation, practise midwifery, withdraw blood—contrary to what has been suggested here—treat or offer to treat cancer or perform internal examinations. That being the case, how then do we, as legislators, treat this category of persons? We gave them status and recognition in terms of the Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Herbalists Act of 1974. We also gave their association the right, in terms of section 4 of the Act, to make their own rules, viz. to prescribe conditions subject to which persons whose names appear on the list may pursue their practices, the fees to be charged and, subject to the provisions of Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, the remedies which may be prescribed by a person whose name appears on the list.

The hon. the Minister has told us that the association representing all homeopaths, naturopaths and osteopaths, has made representations to him in order to achieve better and stricter control of the association. For this they required amending legislation to give them the power to tighten up the rules. Consequently, we have a Bill before the House, clause 4 of which provides for an extension of powers to the association. In dealing with the status of this category of persons, however, I have a difficulty. I think we recognize that there is a need for these persons to practise. I have gathered from conversations I, and I am sure many other hon. members, have had that they do help people. They claim to, and do, cure people of certain medical illnesses. People have told me that in some cases, where medical practitioners have been unable to effect a cure, they have actually been cured by these people.

Whether that is correct or not from a medical point of view is something I shall not argue about, but from the practical point of view I think we have to accept that some people have been cured in that way. In the light of the fact that the association approached the hon. the Minister—and this Bill had not yet been published then—I want to ask him whether they as an association approved of this Bill as it stands and whether they had any difficulties with it. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can help us in this regard. I think we are all feeling a little sensitive at the moment as a result of the publication of the Bill—I think it was on 12 December—with regard to the medical and dental professions.

It was published for comment…

It was published for comment and the comment had to be in by 23 January. Is that not so? That is a very short period.

I am trying to draw a comparison between the principle contained in the Bill which was published for comment and the Bill before us. What degree of viability is the hon. the Minister prepared to allow this association? Does he want to control them without giving them the right to put their own house in order and to keep it in order? In the legal profession, for example, the law societies can take disciplinary measures with regard to their own members. The same applies to the medical and dental professions at the moment. Does the hon. the Minister want to do the same thing in respect of this category of people, and if not, why not? I want to ask him why, if he is going to allow them to make their own rules, the proposed new section 4(3) stipulates that—

In other words, they can make their rules in respect of any matter, but they will be of no force and effect until approved by the Minister and published in the Gazette. One of the rules they may make is contained in the proposed section 4(1)(b), which stipulates that they can prescribe their own tariff of fees. In other words, the hon. the Minister now has the right not only to control their rules, but also to control the tariff of fees according to which they are now going to charge the public.

I am not asking for those powers now.

Well, that is the way it stands at the moment. It is now a question of what status the hon. the Minister wants to give these people. Is he going to keep them a second class kind of association? I believe there is a principle at stake here. If one is going to recognize the association, one must surely accept that its members are sufficiently educated and advanced to impose their own discipline and to prescribe their own tariff of fees as far as that is concerned.

I now want to refer to another aspect, which concerns the question of the disciplinary measures which are taken. Here another principle is involved. Speaking as a legal man, I think it is very hard to exact justice by hearing evidence, listening to witnesses and recording that evidence and then passing the whole thing on to somebody who has not been there, viz. a designated officer as contemplated here in the Bill.

What about the Supreme Court?

That is a different story, because there the judge gives a judgment in the court a quo and then he gives his reasons for judgment. The evidence and the reasons for judgment are then examined by the higher court. That is the difference.

On a written record?

Yes, on written evidence; but in this case no judgment is given. There is merely the evidence heard by the association. Purely on that evidence and without hearing the witness himself, the designated officer then makes a disciplinary finding.