Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to furnish the necessary explanations with regard to this Bill. In terms of the provisions of section 25(1) of the National Road Safety Act, No. 9 of 1972, the National Road Safety Council receives a levy of 50c per motor vehicle, as defined in section 1 of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, No. 56 of 1972. The income from this source represents approximately 90% of the NRSC’s total revenue.

During the first few years of the existence of the NRSC, it was able, together with a small cash reserve which it had inherited from its predecessor, the S.A. Road Safety Council, to build up a considerable cash reserve. Over the years, the NRSC began to operate smoothly and its activities were greatly expanded. As a result of this, and also because of certain events during the past year or two, which have caused its income to decline, it is clear that the funds which will accrue to the Council in the future by means of the present levy of 50c per vehicle will be quite inadequate.

In order to conduct an effective campaign against road accidents and casualties, the council has to step up its efforts in several directions, for example, with regard to the training of drivers, publicity and education, research, etc. With the funds presently available, however, these functions cannot be performed effectively. I believe that hon. members will understand the gravity of the matter in the light of the facts I should like to mention to the House.

Road accidents cost the Republic of South Africa about R600 million every year, and this is a very conservative estimate. Compared with that of other developed countries, the death rate on the roads of the Republic is excessively high. The following figures show the number of people who died in every one hundred million motor vehicle kilometres that were travelled, and also show how South Africa compares with other developed countries in this respect. The figures concerned are those for 1977, the latest year for which comparative figures are available—

In 1978—the latest complete figures available—the Republic was faced with the following—

I shall mention only one more example in this connection. When we look at the high number of single vehicle accidents, it is clear that everything possible will have to be done—and far more than has hitherto been done—in the sphere of the training of drivers, to which I have already referred. From the other figures I have mentioned it is also clear that the Republic compares extremely unfavourably with almost all other developed countries, and we have a long way to go before we can remedy the situation.

The expected economic upswing, as well as the large increase, not only in the population, but also in the number of motor vehicles, is bound to lead to an increase in road accidents, unless effective countermeasures are taken. This will be possible especially if the NRSC has sufficient funds available to it to conduct an even more vigorous campaign against this.

Third-party insurance premiums are determined by the Minister of Transport Affairs, in terms of section 9 of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, No. 56 of 1972, and are promulgated by way of Government notice in the Government Gazette. However, the levy in favour of the NRSC forms an essential part of third-party insurance premiums, and for this reason, I believe it is also appropriate that the latter levy should be determined in this way. I therefore propose that the Minister of Transport Affairs should henceforth fix the levy of the NRSC by Government notice, as is done with regard to the premiums for third-party insurance of vehicles.

Furthermore, I propose that the amount for the present year be 75c per motor vehicle. Finally, I wish to point out that clause 2 is merely intended to substitute, for the sections and wording still quoting the 1942 Act—and Act which has subsequently been repealed—corresponding amendments in the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, No. 56 of 1972.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has quoted some horrifying figures about the seriousness of the situation regarding road accidents in South Africa. We on this side of the House agree that it is necessary to take efficient action if we possibly can in order to combat this rising accident toll. There are so many deaths per year on South African roads that it is a matter for serious concern. Certainly, as far as the Road Safety Council is concerned, we would support any moves that will bolster the efficiency of that council in the work it is doing. We have slight reservations about this Bill, however. Normally we would not go along with anything which diminished the power of Parliament by putting the Minister into a situation where he could decide what the levy was going to be. The hon. the Minister has been good enough to tell us what his intentions are, i.e. to put the levy up from 50c to 75c a year. In the circumstances, in view of the fact that the levy has not been raised since 1972, and also in view of the important work the council is doing, this seems reasonable enough to us. We shall therefore be supporting this Bill, but I must say that we took, as a very important consideration, the fact that it is already within the hon. the Minister’s power to declare, by Government notice, what the annual premium for third party should be. So because this levy constitutes part of that third party premium, there would seem to be an anomaly in the fact that for just that very small part of the premium—it used to be 50c and will now be 75c—it must be necessary for this Parliament to make a decision. So although, in general terms, we do not like giving Ministers additional powers, in this instance we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by availing myself of this opportunity to extend to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs a very hearty welcome to this department. I want to tell him that we are particularly grateful that he is now at the head of this extremely important department. Then, too, I want to congratulate him on the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister had the confidence in him to appoint him as head of this department which is, as I have already said, an extremely important one. I also want to assure him that he can rely on hon. members on this side of the House at all times in the future.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for his party’s support of this legislation. As he correctly said, this is legislation which is aimed at promoting road safety in South Africa. We are sincerely grateful to him for this. He also mentioned some other aspects, however, which I believe the hon. the Minister will reply to and enlarge upon.

In dealing with the Bill, there is one very important aspect to which we must give attention at the very outset, and this is whether this increase from 50 cents to 75 cents in the levy is going to cost the motorist in South Africa any more in the overall picture of third party insurance. To my mind, this is the first important aspect. It is a pleasure for me to be able to testify here today that in view of the sound financial position prevailing in the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund today, and in view of the fact that the premium committee investigated this whole matter and made recommendations to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, we are all grateful to hear that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to agree with the recommendations of the premium committee.

I think it is important that third party insurance in South Africa has been decreased considerably for the coming year. That is why I say there should be no misunderstanding on the whole matter. In spite of the fact that the levy has been increased from 50 cents to 75 cents, we must not think that the motorist in South Africa is going to be paying out any more money.

What is the true position in regard to this matter? In the case of motor cars and motor vehicles with a gross vehicle mass not in excess of 3 500 kg used for private purposes, there will be a decrease in tariff from R20 to R17. In reality this means that a motorist who is at present paying R20 in third party insurance plus a levy of 50 cents, therefore R20,50 altogether, will find that it is decreased to R17. Therefore, he will be paying an amount of R17,75 in the coming year. In effect, this means a decrease of R2,75 for all our motorists in South Africa, and we are particularly grateful to the hon. the Minister for this.

Now I come to further third party tariffs. I should like to mention a few figures here. For motor cars and goods vehicles that do not exceed the gross vehicle mass of 3 500 kg and are used for private and business purposes, there will be a decrease in tariff from R21 to R19. For motor vehicles used in lift clubs there will be a decrease in tariff from R21 to R20. For motorbikes with a maximum cylinder capacity of 50 cc there will be a decrease in tariff from R5 to R3.

In spite of the fact that third party insurance in South Africa has been decreased—and we are very grateful for this—at the moment we also have legislation that has been laid on the table, legislation that envisages extending the coverage of third party insurance. I do not want to go into this in detail, but perhaps I should just mention the following. We are particularly grateful for this. There is something that I feel should have happened a long time ago, and that is that there should be unlimited coverage for all members of the Defence Force when they go on leave or return to their camps and are picked up by motorists. We are pleased that this is happening now, because it is a very important provision.

Another important provision concerns limited coverage for passengers in motor vehicles, with the exception of members of the driver’s family. The limit of R60 per incident for bus passengers has also been lifted. I shall content myself with that.

Order! The hon. member must…

I want to content myself with that, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to express the sincere gratitude of this side of the House towards the hon. the Minister …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the Bill in a moment.

Order! The hon. member must not break the rules intentionally. He is dealing with matters that are not before the House. The hon. member may proceed.

As you wish, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the question of road accidents in South Africa. Let me say at the very outset that this is a matter that is cause for grave concern on the part of each one of us in this House. I think it has become of prime importance to increase the levy from 50 cents to 75 cents in order to enable the National Road Safety Council to carry out its business more effectively with the larger funds at its disposal.

Speaking of road accidents, I want to tell you, Sir, that one sometimes has the impression that we in this House and even the public at large simply accept as a matter of course that road accidents will occur in South Africa. It is a well-known fact that this has already become such an everyday thing in our lives that we simply accept it, as it were. In actual fact, it is no longer newsworthy. If a shark devours someone on our coastline, that report is given huge headlines in our newspapers. However, road accidents are occurring in South Africa everyday with hardly any news coverage.

The hon. the Minister quoted a few shocking statistics in regard to this major evil that we are faced with in South Africa. During his Second Reading speech he referred to the fact that road accidents cost South Africa approximately R600 million annually. This is an alarming figure. He added that this figure was a conservative one. What I am particularly concerned about, is that if one compares the road accident rate in South Africa to that of other comparable developed countries—and the hon. the Minister referred to this too—one finds that the road accident rate in South Africa is much higher in many respects. I find this shocking. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that for every 100 million km travelled, more than 14,5 people are killed on our roads, in comparison with five in France.

I have here a cutting that appeared in Robot last year. It is an illuminating cutting because it clearly enumerates the whole argument concerning road accidents in South Africa. The heading reads: “S.A. has worst accident rate in the world.” I quote from it—

These are shocking facts—

I could go on to quote other comparative figures in order to bring home to hon. members the gravity of the matter we are dealing with. However, I want to content myself with that. I just want to say that I feel, as the hon. the Minister said too, that with the anticipated economic boom, the growth of our population in South Africa and the concomitant increase in the number of motor vehicles, we can understand and expect an increase in the number of motor accidents in the future too.

I want to say at once that I definitely do not want to give the impression that the activities of the National Road Safety Council are such that they are the only body in South Africa that is trying to bring down the number of road accidents. I do want to say, however, that I want to express the greatest praise for, and pay tribute to, the activities of the National Road Safety Council and the purposefulness with which it fulfils its duties and tries to perform its task. I am aware of the fact that there are certain other factors that have made a positive contribution towards bringing down the number of road accidents in South Africa. Sometimes we have crises in South Africa that are a blessing in disguise in other spheres. I want to mention one practical example. When an arms boycott was imposed on South Africa, it made the country prepared so that at the moment we are almost self-sufficient as regards arms. When an energy crisis arose, affecting South Africa seriously, this was a blessing in disguise too. The full conservation measures introduced by the hon. the Minister, who was Minister of Economic Affairs at the time, for instance decreasing the speed limit, limiting hours during which fuel could be sold, etc., were also in themselves a blessing in disguise for South Africa. These measures were factors contributing towards a decrease in the number of road accidents in South Africa. To my mind, the compulsory wearing of safety-belts also made an important contribution.

We cannot for a moment disregard the important, purposeful work that is being done by the council. I want to single out a few aspects of the council’s budget of a year or so ago in order to enumerate what this body is doing because I believe it is extremely important. As regards library, film library, film and slide production we find that they budgeted an amount of R24 900 for the 1979-’80 financial year. As far as the library is concerned—this is important—queries were received from several sources during the financial year. This includes universities, traffic departments, scholars, professional people such as lawyers, the S.A. Defence Force, the Department of Justice, the CSIR, Iscor, Sasol, Escom and the press. In the case in question, inquiries were also received from Australia, Sweden and Britain. Inquiries concerning and applications for films that the council produces from time to time or purchases abroad in order to make people in South Africa more aware of and attuned to the whole problem of road safety have been received from Spain, the USA, Israel, Rhodesia, South West Africa, Botswana and Swaziland.

Over the past year or two, the National Road Safety Council has produced a series of films, including a film called Big Buster which was made especially to bring home the importance of road safety to our Black people in South Africa. It is calculated that a film like Big Buster is seen by approximately 400 000 Blacks annually. Other films are aimed at primary school children, in order to convey well-known racing driver’s opinions on road safety to the parents of young children.

An amount of R451 000 was budgeted for contract research during the 1979-’80 financial year. What does the whole question of contract research entail? By means of contract research an attempt is being made to get a better idea of the ability of pedestrians to judge the speed of oncoming vehicles. This includes the influence of environmental factors on the driver’s observation of road signs and road structures, the influence of driver fatigue in contributing towards accidents, methods and procedures to improve the implementation of legislation relating to pedestrians, seat belt wearing rates, the effect of the compulsory wearing of seat belts on road accident figures and the role of un-roadworthiness in commercial vehicle accidents. A whole series of aspects is therefore being investigated by the National Road Safety Council by means of contract research in an effort to contribute towards promoting road safety in South Africa.

Education entails a number of aspects such as educational aids and publications. An amount of almost R300 000 was budgeted for this in the 1979-’80 financial year. Competitions and assistance to scholar patrols increased the amount to R330 000. In regard to publicity I can mention advertisements, exhibitions, publications, competitions for drivers of heavy vehicles, etc., that are held from time to time. It is interesting to take note of two practical aspects that I want to single out in order to illustrate my argument more clearly. One of them is educating our people to develop a positive attitude towards the subject that we are dealing with. We discovered that since 1974, the emphasis in South Africa has been on changing the attitude of our people towards wearing seat belts. Market research carried out by the National Road Safety Council in 1977, showed that the public of South Africa is ready for it now and has accepted the compulsory wearing of seat belts, and consequently legislation was introduced accordingly. Research also indicated that since this legislation was promulgated two years ago, the general public had been educated to such an extent that at the moment the wearing rate of seat belts in South Africa is 70%. If we bear in mind that this legislation came into effect a mere two years ago, we realize that this compares very well with other countries. The wearing rate in a country like Switzerland is 78%; in Belgium it is 87%; and in Australia it is 85%. I could continue to elucidate these aspects. However, I want to content myself with that, because another hon. colleague of mine will enlarge on that.

It is a fact that the levy of 50c per motor vehicle must definitely be increased. Whilst this levy was introduced as long ago as 1972, and there has been an escalation in costs since then, as well as an unprecedented increase in our cost of living, this levy has never been increased. Another factor is that the number of vehicles in South Africa has decreased and consequently the council’s source of income has shrunk. I want to interrupt my argument to say that 90% of the income of the National Road Safety Council is made up of the third party levy imposed on motor vehicles. Other aspects to which I can refer, are the independence of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, the closure of approximately seven border posts and a decreased growth rate in the motor vehicle population.

I now want to refer to a positive aspect. It is a pleasure for me to be able to state today that over the past two or three years there has for the first time been a decrease in the number of deaths on our roads. As a matter of interest, I just want to give a few statistics in this regard. In 1973 the appalling total of 8 580 people died on our roads and in 1974, only 6 346. To my mind, this decrease is ascribable to the measures that were announced as a result of the energy crisis at the time. In 1975 the death rate increased to more than 8 000. In 1976 the death rate was 8 030. In 1977 the death rate decreased fairly dramatically to 6 420. In 1978 the figure was 6 550. We are grateful to learn that the death rate for the past year was 6 031. Therefore, it is clear to us that the activities of the National Road Safety Council, the measures which emanated from the energy crisis and other concomitant factors, had the practical effect of bringing about a considerable drop in our accident rate in South Africa.

Now we can only hope and trust that in the years that lie ahead, the National Road Safety Council will continue, in their purposeful way, to do just as much good work as they have done in the past eight years. I am not so naïve as to think that the National Road Safety Council can prevent road accidents at all times. However, I want to request that they continue with that work. I ask our people to be geared to maintaining road safety in our country at all times. The figures that I gave you, Sir, are appalling, quite apart from the heartbreak, the misery, the maiming of people on our roads. I only hope and trust that, with the introduction of this Bill, and the increase from 50c to 75c, by means of which the financial resources of the council will be improved so that more effective work can be done, we can look forward to a drop in the death rate on our roads at all times in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the speech of the hon. member for Welkom, I should also like to welcome the hon. the Minister to his new portfolio, that of Transport Affairs. During the past few years we in these benches, and myself in particular, have often engaged him on economic affairs. As I am also the transport spokesman of the NRP, I am going to enjoy engaging him on transport matters in future. I sincerely hope that he will enjoy his new position and his new portfolio, and I am sure that he is going to enjoy the interesting debates of the future.

Coming to the speech of the hon. member for Welkom, I should just like to say that he has gone to great lengths to explain the work of the National Road Safety Council and its importance to the road-users in South Africa, and I want to make it quite clear to him that we are very much in favour of the work that this council does. We think, as he has clearly indicated he also thinks, that there is far more educational work to be done concerning the people who use the roads, in order to ensure that the number of accidents on our roads can be decreased and kept to a minimum.

There is no doubt that we have some of the worst statistics in the whole world regarding road accidents. That, I think, just emphasizes the need for this particular council. I should like to put it to him that each year we receive an annual report from the National Road Safety Council. It is a statutory body and I believe I am correct in saying that it is obliged to submit to Parliament a report on its activities of each year, so that we can debate them and determine whether it is doing a good job or not. The speech the hon. member made, should possibly therefore, rather have been made during the debate on the Transport Vote, when, I believe, this statutory body’s activities would come before this House.

However, while we support the work of the National Road Safety Council, I am afraid that we will be unable to support this Bill. At first appearances it seems to be a very simple Bill. It is very neat and I am quite sure the hon. the Minister chose this simple one as his initiation in his new portfolio and I therefore regret that I have to oppose him, seeing that this is his first transport Bill he has presented to this House. I believe this Bill affects an extremely important principle, viz. one that the NRP firmly believes in, and that is that where a tax is levied upon the people of South Africa, the imposition and the amount thereof should be brought before Parliament for acceptance by this Parliament. We believe that this is in accordance with the good traditions of Parliament, because this is a form of tax, a tax upon every motor vehicle owner in South Africa, a tax which is levied in order to supply the funds for a statutory body which has been set up to educate people in the safe usage of vehicles on the roads. I submit to the hon. the Minister that he is in error in including in this Bill a provision which gives him the power to set a levy, rather than bringing an increase or a change in the levy to Parliament as and when it is required. Therefore I move as an amendment—

In motivating this amendment I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is a form of taxation. Now, the powers to tax are vested in Parliament, and it is not for an hon. Minister to decide from time to time whether or not the level of the taxation should be increased or decreased. It is for these reasons that we feel we cannot support the Bill, because it takes from the hands of Parliament the power to change the amount of the levy. I want to make it quite clear that the amount which the hon. the Minister has mentioned—an increase from 50 cents to 75 cents—is quite acceptable to us, especially when one considers that the 50 cent levy was imposed in 1972, which is eight years ago. Taking into consideration how inflation has taken its toll,

I am very pleasantly surprised that the amount has only been increased by 50% over a period of eight years if viewed in the light of the great work and need for the work of the National Road Safety Council. Sometimes, however, after listening to the hon. member for Welkom I wonder whether the reduction in the number of accidents which have been recorded in recent years is not due more to the lower speed limit than to other reasons.

I was responsible for reducing the speed limit.

I do believe that the lower speed limit definitely has played a very important part in this regard.

It was mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove that the hon. the Minister already has the powers to change the premium for third party assurance. I should like to submit that these two issues are totally different and separate. Third party insurance is a business undertaking, and if that fund does not derive sufficient income, then premiums have to be increased, and if there is a surplus, then premiums are decreased, as has happened recently. This is a business undertaking, and in the Act which governs it, I believe it is clearly stated what its role is and how its money is to be spent. If there is a saving, then the premiums can be reduced. But the National Road Safety Council is a totally different thing. This is a statutory body set up to educate the public in the safe usage of roads.

A very important body.

A very important body, I agree wholeheartedly and I am not for one moment knocking the National Road Safety Council. I think I made that quite clear. But the point is that it is a statutory body which is responsible to this House and has to report back to this House. It is financed to the tune of 90% of all its revenue by means of a levy which was set in the past by this House. I should like to put the following point to the hon. the Minister: Would it have been such an onerous task to have come to this House every time he wanted to increase that levy? The last time it was set was eight years ago. To have a simple Bill such as this every five to eight years to increase the levy, a Bill which would give this House the opportunity to debate the functions and activities of the National Road Safety Council, would not have been an onerous task on Parliament. I do not think any money is being saved, and furthermore, if he had not included this provision which allows him instead of this House to increase the levy from time to time, we could have debated whether the council was doing a good job or not.

This is democracy.

The hon. member for Durban North says that this is democracy. This is the kernel of our opposition to this Bill. A very important principle is involved here. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will concede us this point. I do not think it is necessary for him to take unto himself these powers. He may say this is just a small thing, but a principle is a principle. The principle here is that the power to tax is vested in Parliament and not in an individual Minister.

I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider our view. It is a very important principle to us. If we give way on this principle in such a small thing as this, then one might ask why not give the powers to the Minister to increase many other forms of taxation, purely on the grounds of ministerial sanction. So I put it to the hon. the Minister that he is possibly in error in this matter. I sincerely hope that at some stage he may withdraw this provision. If he wants to increase the levy to 75 cents, we will support him all the way. We shall support the National Road Safety Council, but in so far as he takes away from Parliament its rightful powers, I am afraid we cannot support him. That is why I have moved this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister of Transport Affairs to those expressed by the hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Welkom. We know that he will make a success of this task as well.

It is regrettable that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has now seen fit to oppose the legislation on behalf of his party. We have here a statutory body which has to submit a budget to the Minister annually and has to report to the Minister annually on its activities. In other words the body is fully responsible to Parliament, and one simply cannot visualize the Minister announcing an increase in the levy if it had not been requested by the Road Safety Council. Therefore I do not think the NRP need fear any abuse of the situation.

I want to examine the history of this legislation. Road safety is a recognized problem in South Africa, as it is in the rest of the world, and it was the work of various commissions of inquiry during the ’sixties, as well as the opinions of various authorities on this subject which led to this Act. The major problem at the time was that each of the four provinces had its own ordinance and that each was jealous of its own ordinance. A new commission of inquiry was then appointed and this commission found that the only way in which the situation could be rectified would be to have central Government authority to enforce uniformity on the provinces. That was consequently what happened, and the provinces then adopted uniform legislation.

The commission also found that the old Road Safety Council was too cumbersome and that it was, for lack of any overall authority, powerless to implement essential measures. It was also found that its funds were quite inadequate and the source uncertain. As a result of the investigation the National Road Safety Council was subsequently established in 1972 and it was stipulated that it would obtain funds directly from motor vehicle owners by way of a levy. This is what we are discussing today. What this Bill is concerned with, therefore, is that the council has to be provided with more funds because the 50c appears to be inadequate.

The hon. member for Welkom has drawn attention to the great job that the Road Safety Council is doing. As far as gathering information is concerned, this is being done in South Africa as well as abroad, and the information is then used by the council in determining priorities.

I want to raise a few matters which the hon. member for Welkom did not raise. Investigations have been carried out on speed measuring instruments, a matter which can arouse great public indignation. Tests have been carried out and proper specifications laid down and these were announced by proclamation. The breathalyser device was evaluated in co-operation with the SABS and a code of application was introduced in co-operation with the Road Safety Council.

Order! The hon. member must not digress too far from the amendment in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the great job that is being done by the Road Safety Council. I shall leave it at that then, but I just want to point out that the publicity that the National Road Safety Council has received in the newspapers, over the radio and on television has ensured that almost everyone in our country is aware of the necessity of this work. I believe that we are achieving a great deal through this publicity. I am sure many of us saw the interesting film that was shown on television last week, illustrating many of the tasks of the NRSC. I also believe that the council will, through this increase, be able to perform its task even more satisfactorily, and that every member of the public will agree with me.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Humansdorp has not really answered the basic question which was put by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The basic reason why we in this party are opposing this Bill is because of a very fundamental principle underlying taxation. We do not believe that the power of taxation should be put totally in a Minister’s hands without his having to come back to Parliament if he wants to increase that taxation. The hon. member for Humansdorp has seen fit to give us more detail of the work being done by the National Road Safety Council. We do not contest this for one minute, because we in these benches believe that they do in fact do extremely good work. We believe that this body is a great necessity, that it should have money with which to carry out its work and that from time to time the amount of the levy that it gets from the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund should be increased. We have no difficulty with this in any shape or form. What we do object to, however, is that in the Bill before the House there is a provision that “a levy at a rate which the Minister may from time to time fix by notice in the Gazette shall be payable on every motor vehicle”. This is a very open-ended situation. The hon. the Minister will now have the right to impose a levy, which, he says, will be 75c. We are quite happy about his imposing a levy of 75c, but let us assume—I do not say for a minute that this will happen—that the National Road Safety Council suddenly needs a tremendous amount of money. The hon. the Minister might then take it into his head to increase that levy to R3. What we are asked to do here is to give the Minister the right to fix the levy at any amount he likes. I believe it is a basic part of any member of Parliament’s duty to look after the interests of his constituents. As the member for East London North, I also believe that I would not be doing my constituents a favour if I were to allow them to be taxed by the hon. the Minister as and when he feels like it. Basically this is nothing other than a measure of taxation. It is taking money from the public and he is utilizing it for a statutory body.

My hon. colleague mentioned third party insurance generally where the hon. the Minister does have powers to fix rates, but, as my hon. colleague rightly said, there is a very great difference. In the case of third party insurance we are dealing with a number of private companies who transact third party insurance, who provide cover and who therefore have figures which are readily available to the hon. the Minister whenever he requires them … [Interjections.] They must be. I cannot believe that they are not readily available to him. These figures will enable him to judge, in consultation with those private companies, whether they need an increase.

I am certain the hon. the Minister is not going to increase those premium rates. Unless he has a very strong representation by the companies concerned, it would not be in his interest to do so. There we have a situation where, I believe, a completely different position obtains to what we have here. Here the hon. the Minister can simply increase without anybody’s by your leave whatsoever.

I would go so far as to say that if the hon. the Minister would be prepared to consider putting an upper limit on this, it could perhaps be a compromise solution. If he were to say, perhaps, not more than R1 without the consent of Parliament, then we on these benches would feel a lot happier. To give him an open-ended mandate, however, I do not really think we can see our way clear to allow.

I want to reiterate that we are not opposing this Bill because we are in any shape or form opposed to the National Road Safety Council. I want to go further and say that, if the hon. the Minister is so keen to bring down this horrific rate of death in the country as the result of accidents on our roads, he will perhaps be more effective, not necessarily by giving more money to the Road Safety Council, but by taking it into his own hands to introduce legislation into this House which in my view would have a tremendous impact on road deaths in South Africa. The legislation which he should introduce should be aimed at enforcing far stricter rules and regulations on people who are found to have driven a motor vehicle after indulging in alcohol in any shape or form. I think that single factor alone could do more good to the death rate on South African roads than any amount of money that this Parliament could vote to the National Road Safety Council.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister seriously to give this matter consideration. I believe it could do a tremendous amount of good. We know that in other countries of the world they have tremendously strict laws. If in Scandinavian countries one is found having taken one drink before driving a motor vehicle, one is put into prison without the option of a fine. [Interjections.] On the other hand it might cause the hon. the Minister of Prisons a certain problem if we were to introduce legislation of such a nature. I think, however, that I am now also getting somewhat off the subject under consideration, which is an open-ended power put into the Minister’s hands. I regret that unless he is prepared to come back to us with some sort of a compromise, we cannot support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I commence with the general remark that I thank hon. members very sincerely for welcoming me in my new capacity. I wish to tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that regardless of what may happen to me in future, I should always like to be connected with a department where he and I will be able to have dealings with one another. It is pleasant for me to be able to have his co-operation. I also thank the hon. members for Welkom and Humansdorp for their kind remarks.

I do not intend taking up a great deal of the time of the House, but I do wish to contend that a few errors of reasoning are being made in dealing with the legislation before us. Before enlarging on that, I wish to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove, who supports the legislation on behalf of the official Opposition. In my view there are two elements in the legislation before us. The first is the question of whether there is a need to increase the funds of the National Road Safety Council. I think that on the basis of the testimony of all the hon. members we are satisfied that the House has reached unanimity on the fact that there should be an increased allotment to the National road Safety Council. In my view that underlines the importance of the activities of the National Road Safety Council in view of the high incidence of road accidents and their consequences for people and for the country in general. In this connection I wish to thank the hon. member for Welkom very sincerely for the strong motivation, statistical and otherwise, which he submitted to this House.

If we accept, then, that we have reached consensus on the need for an increase in the funds of the National Road Safety Council in view of the importance of the work it has to do, we come to the second important point in the legislation before us and that is whether the funds to be debited against the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund should be increased by way of a resolution of Parliament, or whether they should be increased by way of a decision by the Minister, made known by way of publication in the 2 Government Gazette. I believe hon. members will agree with me.

†The arguments used by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, supported by the hon. member for East London North, have in fact been that this Bill abrogates from the powers of Parliament in the sense that what we are dealing with is in fact a tax, and furthermore that we now want to put the powers to determine a tax rate for this particular purpose in the hands of the Minister instead of Parliament. Sir, I submit that there is a basic fallacy in their argument. Firstly, I submit that this is not a tax, but a levy. The levy is imposed on another statutory fund, viz. the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund. Like the National Road Safety Council and its funds, which are statutory, this other fund is also a statutory fund.

However, in my opinion there is even a stronger argument. Although it is true that the people participating in the consortium are private sector companies, the fact is that the fund itself is a statutory fund. The second point I should like to make is that the contributions that are being made towards that fund are also determined by the Minister in terms of a statute, viz. Act 56 of 1972. The third point I should like to make in-this regard is that hon. members should certainly understand that the bigger levy, or imposition, or premium—whatever we should like to call it—is the premium itself. The levy paid by the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund to the National Road Safety Council represents a very small proportion of the total income of the fund. Therefore I submit in all fairness—and I believe hon. members will agree with me—that it would be wrong in principle to argue that there is a difference between the two. I submit that if Parliament in its wisdom should decide that the Minister could, by notice in the Government Gazette, impose the higher one, hon. members will only be fair in accepting that to allocate the smaller proportion of that premium to the Road Safety Council should be done in terms of amendments to the Act from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Minister tell us what effect this Bill is going to have on third party insurance premiums?

Mr. Speaker, the position is that the state of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund is such that although the allocation therefrom to the National Road Safety Council is to be increased by 50%, it would not entail an increase in the premiums of motor vehicle insurance. Therefore I want to ask hon. members opposite, in all fairness, whether they would not reconsider their position. If we have to argue it on principle, let us do so then. Hon. members opposite have already agreed that tax could be reduced by the Minister. If we want to argue on principle then it works both ways. We cannot have it only one way. That we have already accepted. What is more, we have—if my memory serves me correctly—also agreed that the loan levy could be increased by the Minister of Finance without the sanction of Parliament. My submission therefore is that we are now arguing on the principle that was accepted long ago.

But it is repayable.

Of course it is repayable. The question, however, is not whether it is repayable or not. The question is whether the Minister can increase it without the sanction of Parliament. That is the point that is involved. Is it not a fact that what we are really dealing with is not a form of taxation, but rather a question of payment for services rendered? [Interjections.] May I explain that to hon. members?

You can try.

It is the responsibility of the provinces to provide hospitalization, and they can increase the charges for hospitalization, without passing an ordinance in the province concerned, by the allocation of total amounts. I therefore submit that hon. members must agree with me when I say that what we are dealing with here is a service that is to be provided to the general public by the National Road Safety Council, that Parliament has accepted that it has a responsibility towards the funding of the activities of that council and that Parliament does not vote money, i.e. Parliament is not taxing people to finance it. Parliament has indicated that there are funds and Parliament has given powers to have some of those funds transferred to the council to enable it effectively to do the job. Therefore I quite seriously ask hon. members to reconsider their opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I did ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to whether he would not be prepared to place an upper limit on this, but he did not actually react to that in his reply. Could he perhaps do so now?

Mr. Speaker, my reply to the question is that I should like to have the powers to do it either way. May I just explain this to the hon. member? If it had not been for the provisions of the third party insurance legislation, I would not have been able to reduce the premiums and announce accordingly. As hon. members know, in terms of that legislation the Minister is entitled to adjust the premiums upwards or downwards. With due respect—the hon. member has said this himself—we would be able under the Transport Vote to discuss the question of the activities of the council and its finances. We can discuss that fully when that Vote is under discussion. I agree with the hon. member in his reaction to the hon. member for Welkom. So, if hon. members would work with me in this particular regard, we would have every opportunity during the year to discuss the matter of the Road Safety Council, and its activities and financing.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not agree that if we give him the powers he is asking for, is there not a danger that some time in the future, because of the age-old problem of empire building, we might suddenly wake up and find that there is far too much money going into the Road Safety Council than is necessary, and then how does Parliament control it?

Order! That is not a question, but an argument.

Mr. Speaker, let me just explain the situation to the hon. member. Any limit that one would now fix would be an arbitrary limit. One need only look at how we have had to curtail the activities of the Road Safety Council this year because of a lack of funds. Taking that into consideration, hon. members will understand why it would be very difficult to foresee what such a limit should be.

*Just let me explain a little further. There were a host of factors that caused the funds of the National Road Safety Council to show serious deficits this year, or rather had the effect that the funds were lower than had been anticipated. Allow me to mention just a few. In the first place, there was the fact that Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda became independent States. The revenue from those particular sources is now going to other Governments. Then there was also the closing down of seven border posts of the S.A. Police, and the linking of compulsory third party insurance to the vehicle instead of the owner. Hon. members will recall that there has been a change in this regard and that the third party insurance is now linked to the vehicle and not to the owner, as before. All these factors have brought about a reduction in the funds of the council. In fact, according to the information placed at my disposal by my department, the budget for the National Road Safety Council for the current financial year, 1979-’80, has had to be cut back by R730 000 owing to these factors. It is simply not good enough that, in respect of this very sensitive and crucial aspect, we should be placed in the position—whatever the cause may be—that we do not have the funds with which to continue the activities to the extent we think they should be continued.

†I want to come back to the question asked by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I concede immediately that, as he anticipates, people will start with empire building. That is a natural tendency wherever one goes. The point is that I can be called to task in the House every year in terms of the report of the council. I therefore suggest, in conclusion, that we are not dealing with a tax here, but with a levy which is imposed not on the Revenue Account, not on public funds voted by Parliament, but on a premium which is collected to render a particular service in order to finance another service. I am quite prepared to discuss this in more detail when we discuss the relevant Vote. For the moment, however, I think that, in all fairness, hon. members should concede my point.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (New Republic Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when we last debated this matter, in the House on Thursday, I was about to summarize the point of view of the official Opposition by stating the main reasons why we support the Bill. If I may put it this way; We welcome the fact that the homeopaths, osteopaths and naturopaths have, in forming their association, come to the hon. the Minister and asked him whether they can now put their house in order. He responded to that request by coming forward with this Bill. Secondly, the Bill serves to provide effective control over the practitioners enabling them to take disciplinary action amongst themselves. Thirdly, we welcome the fact that they have the right, through their association, to conduct an inquiry into their own affairs. On that basis the issue is then whether they are in a position to control everything themselves and to keep their own house in order as a body. In this case, however, the Bill gives the hon. the Minister complete power over the association. It gives him the power not only to veto and sanction their rules, but also to control their tariffs. In agreeing to this principle one has, at this stage, to balance the demands and points of view of the association on the one hand, so that its members may keep their self-respect as members of a profession, and those of the public on the other hand, because I think we, as legislators, have a duty to protect the public from exorbitant fees being imposed upon them without any protection. So, somehow or other there must be a balance between these two aspects. Since the debate on Thursday a significant event has taken place. The hon. the Minister of Health has made an announcement which has a lot of bearing on this Bill. He has announced welcome concessions, in so far as the Bill is concerned, to control the medical and dental professions. He has met them half way in the sense that he is prepared to allow them to contract out, but with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in the sense that he reserves the right to review the matter at a later stage. He has also agreed, in so far as the fees are concerned, that he will have to control their tariffs, but has said he will confine this to those who are contracted in. This is to be welcomed. I mention this because the principles before us are the very same ones that affect the association. In this case, however, the members of the association do not have the right to contract out, but the hon. the Minister has the power to control their fees in terms of the Bill.

The hon. member for Bryanston issued a s statement in response to the hon. the Minister of Health’s statement. He stated very clearly that the viewpoint of this side of the House was that we would examine the Bill when it came before the House and reserve our right to criticize it when that took place.

Where did that statement appear?

I have a signed statement that was issued to the Press. I do not know in which newspapers it appeared but I can give the hon. the Minister a copy because I have one here. Arising from that statement, I want it clearly understood that while we are supporting the Bill in principle, in so far as this association is concerned, it must not be construed that we are in any way bound to support the principles I have just referred to in so far as the medical and dental professions are concerned. I say this for the very simple reason that we draw a clear distinction between the Medical and Dental Council, which is a statutory body of Parliament, with powers given to it by statute, as against a voluntary association of people who have, by their own volition, come together, formed an association and then asked the hon. the Minister to put their house in order, which is what he has allowed for in this Bill. I should like to make that distinction quite clear.

On the question of the fees, we know that we can look to various precedents which have been set. If one, for example, looks at the magistrates’ court rules pertaining to the legal profession we find that in terms of section 25 there is a special Rules Board, consisting of the Chief Magistrate, an attorney, advocates and a representative of the Department of Justice. In terms of section 42 of the Supreme Court Act, the Supreme Court tariffs are controlled by the Chief Justice and Judges-Presidents. These fees have to be promulgated. So, there is a precedent for this. With regard to the question of contracting out, as far as the association is concerned, I want to mention in passing that there is nothing to stop any medical aid scheme from providing cover for fees payable to the very members of this association I am referring to. In that case, it should be remembered that they are contracted in and will therefore be bound by the fees stipulated by the hon. the Minister.

I now want to refer to clause 5. This does present a bit of a problem. We are not now dealing with a principle but only with a procedure. I think it is true to say that we want a procedure that is going to be efficient and effective because important decisions will have to be made. The association is going to have to decide on the disciplinary action taken against a member, which could lead to that particular member being suspended from practising his profession, or to the member’s name being removed from the register of names. Because of these provisions it is important that we follow the type of procedure which is normally followed in South Africa When initial evidence is heard by a court a quo, the court makes a finding, which is then subject to review, but I think that in this instance the procedure is a little unique. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can help me by advising me as to whether a precedent exists for this. I did try to think of a precedent for the situation where one hears all the evidence and then submits it holus-bolus to somebody, in this case a designated officer, who then makes a decision as to the disciplinary or other action that should be taken. The position can be remedied very simply. In the Committee Stage we on this side of the House shall be moving amendments in this respect. I hope the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to these amendments. We think the procedure can be remedied by firstly having the designated officer serve on the disciplinary committee of the association which hears all the evidence. After the evidence has been heard, the decision in terms of the rules as they are set out here on what action should be taken—whether further evidence should be heard, disciplinary action taken, or whatever—should be made jointly at the same meeting, where the designated officer is present, with members of that association. We think that this line of procedure will go a long way towards remedying the position.

I want to refer to one other important provision, viz. that contained in the proposed section 4A(4). It stipulates that a person with experience in the administration of justice “may” be appointed, but we think that it should read that he “shall” be appointed. We think that that is absolutely essential for the very simple reason that in the provisions before us allowance is made for attorneys and advocates to appear before this association in the hearing of a disciplinary matter. This being so, I think it is only right and proper that a person who is sufficiently well versed in the administration of justice should deal with legal arguments put forward by an attorney or advocate on behalf of his client, particularly in respect of procedural matters.

I think that, if those two amendments, which we shall move in the Committee Stage, will be considered favourably by the hon. the Minister, we will have a Bill which will give status to this profession. We have accepted that there exists a need for the community in South Africa to be served by such a profession. We therefore accept that this association should be happy and that the public should be sufficiently protected by the Bill that is before us.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member for Hillbrow on a few points. I shall elaborate on those points in the course of my speech.

Not only is this Bill very necessary, it is also interesting and even exciting to some extent. The Bill deals with four important groups, groups which do not really operate in the same way but which will in future enjoy a certain measure of protection in terms of this umbrella Bill. This is an extremely interesting Bill when one considers the people one is dealing with. I did some research myself and that research brought certain aspects to light. The first is that a homeopath is a practitioner who believes in the use of remedies which, if taken by a healthy person, will cause the very illness for which they are being taken but which, if taken by an ill person in small doses, will stimulate the natural healing power of that illness. This is very interesting and very different from what I myself believed the functions of a homeopath were.

A naturopath is a practitioner who believes that the forces of nature, for example, light, air, heat and water must together with massage be harnassed to cure some illnesses.

An osteopath is a practitioner who believes that some illnesses are caused by the malformation, the moving or the dislocation of the bone structure, which in turn disrupts the nervous system and the circulation and that such complaints can be cured by means of therapeutic treatment.

The last type of practitioner dealt with here is the herbalist, a word which is really self-explanatory. A herbalist is a practitioner who believes that some illnesses can be cured by the use of herbs. In this case I have something of a problem. I cannot give hon. members a proper definition of “herbs”. I do not know whether they mean herbs that are cultivated, whether they mean herbs obtained from trees and plants that grow wild or whether they mean the two combined. Neither can I say with certainty that they include the leaves, the bark and the roots of some trees that grow wild. I shall return to this aspect at a later stage.

To start with I should like to deal with the Homeopathic Association of South Africa. This is a body which has apparently already developed a sense of pride and which is now seeking a more permanent basis but which no longer feels happy about a list that is being kept in connection with these professions. They are now asking for something more than permanence. They are asking for a register which is now being provided for in this legislation and which will confer greater permanence on these four professions. That is why the first three clauses of the Bill deal with the substitution of the word “register” for the word “list”. The Association is now being given the statutory right to exercise proper control over and to discipline the professions that fall under it. Clause 4(1)(a) empowers the Association, in the event of any complaint, charge or allegation of improper or disgraceful conduct on the part of a practitioner, especially in connection with his profession, to investigate such practitioner thoroughly, with the proviso that the practitioner shall be afforded an opportunity either by himself or through a representative of answering the charge. The Association is also empowered to investigate an allegation that a practitioner has mentally, spiritually or physically become incapable to such an extent that it is not in the public interest that he continue to practice.

The rules that will apply in law in these inquiries are in the main in line with those that apply in the case of departmental inquiries, except for a few minor differences which I find somewhat strange although very interesting. In the first instance, it is new to me that summonses can be signed by the chairman of the Association as well as by the registrar of the Association. However, I think that the sole purpose of this is to facilitate the work of the Association and for that reason I have no quarrel with it. The fact that a summons, under the hand of the two persons mentioned, can be served by way of registered post and that that manner of service will be valid, I regard as a completely new experiment. It is nevertheless very interesting.

The serving of a summons has become an expensive process and one is always inclined to feel sorry for the defendant because he is the person who usually has to bear the costs of such summons. If this experiment is successful it can have very interesting results in future. I think it is only right that some initiative be shown in the drafting of our legislation. It is unnecessary to remain in the same old rut.

I am satisfied with the fact that the chairman may appoint a lawyer, if necessary. It is not necessary—and here I cannot agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow—that a lawyer shall be appointed. I think that if the word “shall” is used it may become a stumbling-block in cases where it is necessary to appoint a botanist or a physicist or a chemist. It must be remembered that the inquiry may concern one of these people and the whole inquiry may come to nought if a lawyer is appointed.

Another aspect that must be borne in mind is the question of costs. Lawyers have to be paid and who is going to bear those costs? When such an inquiry has been concluded something very special happens—the hon. member for Hillbrow has referred to this. The fact of the matter is that this Association is not empowered to pass sentence and at this stage not even to make a recommendation. The minutes of the proceedings at such inquiry, together with all the relevant documents and exhibits, have now to be submitted to the designated officer, a Government official who will be appointed by the Minister himself and who, to my mind, must always be regarded as an impartial person in this case. The designated officer can accept the findings of the inquiry as submitted to him, he can refer the matter back to the Association for further inquiry or he himself can institute further inquiries. The fact is, however, that he remains the person who is expected to pass sentence and not just any sentence, because the sentences that he may pass are laid down in the Bill.

I find this extremely interesting legislation. I well understand that this group of people is prepared to have a proper inquiry into any improper conduct on the part of one of its members but it is extremely difficult to sentence them and for that reason it is preferable that the matter be referred to an impartial person. However, should a practitioner feel that he has been unjustly sentenced he has the right to appeal to the hon. the Minister direct within 30 days against his sentence.

Sir, I want to conclude by expressing my fullest confidence in the person to be thus designated, as well as my fullest confidence in the Homeopathic Association of South Africa. However, there is one matter that worries me, namely the actions of some herbalists. I have great respect for these people but the people who worry me are the pseudo-herbalists. In the area that I know very well, namely the far Northern Transvaal, large quantities of leaves, roots and even the bark of trees are removed by these pseudo-herbalists.

Years ago the area between the Verwoerd tunnel and Messina was adorned, inter alia, by a beautiful tree, the candle tree. It is a fine big, dark-green tree which produces long pods of approximately 30 to 40 cm in length, hence the name candle-tree. Most of those trees are dead today and the remaining ones are dying. This is not as a result of droughts or natural phenomina such as lightning but as a result of the fact that these trees have been stripped of their bark right from the ground up to the topmost branches. The simple reason for this is that some people believe that this bark, if treated in some way or other, has a rejuvenating effect on old men. [Interjections.]

The legislation we have before us today is sound legislation that has been introduced by the new hon. Minister of Health and I regard it as an honour to support it in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, since Thursday I have been listening carefully to the various matters raised by hon. members who have taken part in the discussion of this Bill. I want to begin by thanking all hon. members for their participation and their opinions on the amendment of the 1974 legislation which is now before the House. The debate has been very interesting, for I think there is a great deal one could learn from it. I think that even the hon. member for Hillbrow could learn a great deal from the hon. member for Springs about why the Act and the amendments are necessary. The hon. member for Hillbrow, who spoke earlier, is hard to pin down regarding his views on this matter. On the one hand, he entirely agrees with the legislation and says it is a good thing that the association has requested the amendments, while on the other hand, he believes it is not such a good thing that the Minister can approve the tariffs. He has misgivings about everything. Then he shoots down the poor official as well, who has not even been appointed yet. However, that is an old tactic. I must say that the Opposition has not changed much since I was here before. They are always shooting down something before it has got off the ground. Therefore I wish to make a few general remarks.

The real point of departure was 1974. The Government and the then Minister recognized that the three groups of people we are discussing here had a place in the South African community. However, we had to begin slowly and first to offer them an association with appointed members. The terms of these members are due to expire soon, and four of them will then be replaced by elected members. This was done for a very good reason, because the Government, the department and the Minister did not really know who they were dealing with. Therefore an opportunity had first to be created for these people to be placed on a list, a list which will now be changed into a register in terms of the proposed amendment. Certain hon. members on the Opposition side said that we should do something now to enhance the status of these professions. However, we enhanced the status of these professions in 1974. Their educational qualifications, their contribution and their value in society were recognized at that time. Now we have advanced to a point where a further step may be taken. All the amendments to the Act that are being effected here were requested by the association, in co-operation and after discussion with the department. I consulted with representatives of the association for almost an hour this morning. They began by telling me how glad they were about this legislation and they ended by thanking me once again. Surely I do not have to tell the House any more. I did not speak to people who were being forced to accept an amendment and who were completely opposed to the way in which discipline will be applied. Of course there are problems. I think the hon. member for Springs and other hon. members, to whom I shall refer in a moment, made it quite clear that one is concerned here with a process of development The hon. member for Hillbrow said himself that this is not a statutory body, but that it will develop into a statutory body. If it subsequently appears that it should develop into such a body, we shall certainly consider this at a later stage. I also told the association this morning that they could submit memoranda to me about their view of such a statutory board. Then such a board could handle the same matters as other statutory boards, if that is the course they should take. Surely one has to begin by crawling before walking and then running, and the association is now at the walking stage. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow at once that I shall reply to his argument point by point, but to accept this amendments to clause 5 during the Committee Stage would be to change the essence of the matter, the disciplinary measures on which I have agreed with the association and which they have asked for. Surely he cannot expect me to accept all his amendments at this stage or at any other stage of this legislation, because that would change the essence of the disciplinary process.

I come now to some other points raised by the hon. members.

†The hon. member for Bryanston said that the Opposition would support the Bill but that they would like to ask a few questions with respect to the protection of the public, and an increased status for the profession—which has obviously been done in the last five or six years. This is not the start of the process. I think the question one must answer is with reference to the fact that the approval of the Minister must now be sought. This is no new concept. In Act 52 of 1974, section 4(b), it is provided that—

This is also in reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow. This is no new concept. It has been stated by the Opposition that the Minister is now taking over and running the association. This is absolute nonsense. The Minister will have no more power than in the Act at present, and all that he will do in terms of this Bill will be in connivance with and with the help of the association. The association has actually asked for this.

I think the hon. members will realize that the question of fees is not a new concept at all. The present Act lays down a definite fee. The hon. member for Bryanston agrees with me, but the hon. member for Hillbrow does not like the idea of my having any say in setting the fees, but I do not think he caught on to that point, to be quite honest.

The hon. member for Bryanston also mentioned the issue of “shall” and “may”. I think one must realize that this is a relatively new association and to force them to have somebody sitting in, is a question of cost. Who is one going to have sitting in—a counsel? One must accept that the association has already considered these matters. I did not specifically question them on that point, but I accept that they are aware that this is a problem. To my mind it is simply a matter of cost. I do not think it is necessary to force this upon them now. If they want to have an honorary president they can have one. That is what the amendment is allowing them to do.

The point has been made by the hon. member for Bryanston and also by the hon. member for Hillbrow that this was a sort of new concept.

*I think the hon. member for Springs explained it in very simple terms. He did it in such a way that I suppose those hon. members also understand it now. After all, one does not have to act according to the customs of all the years. The hon. member for Hillbrow is a lawyer. I can give him an example. I refer, for example, to rulings in a magistrate’s court. These are reviewed hundreds of miles away by judges of the Supreme Court The ruling of the rural magistrate is reviewed.

†His judgment is reviewed by a judge in his division, a judge who may perhaps be 500 miles away and who has not seen any of the witnesses. He only has the record of the hearing in front of him. He reads that. What difference is there in this situation? This is not unique.

The magistrate in his court has made a finding. In this case no finding has been made.

This association also makes a finding.

No, it does not.

This association must take evidence and must lay the full proceedings of its hearing in front of the official who is appointed.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The difficulty is that they are dealing with members of the association. They are not yet a statutory body. In dealing with these people they might feel that they have to hold back a bit. They might even feel that things cannot go on the way they did and they might then react a bit too severely. Now, in terms of this legislation, one will have somebody from outside who will look at the matter as objectively as possible. He will have the evidence in front of him and will be able to decide what has to be done in respect of a particular offender. Then one also has the additional opening, because the offender in question can then approach the Minister if he feels he has been hit too hard. The Minister can then also look into the matter. The hon. member for Hillbrow says that this particular officer should sit in on all the proceedings, but it would be quite wrong. That will actually then lead to the next step. If I am to listen to the appeal, surely the hon. member does not mean that I then also have to sit in on the proceedings in order to get the feel of the actual hearing, of the evidence heard, etc.

If we look at the matter very objectively, I believe the end result might be—I cannot promise that today; I must first see the memorandum that will come from the association—a statutory body. However, that will be the next step. Every step is being taken in conjunction with and after discussion with the association. I think one must give them every opportunity of seeing whether they can come up with something better.

Another point raised, I think also by the hon. member for Hillbrow, was his objection against, as he put it, the possibility that the Minister might control the association’s fees. I have already dealt with that. The hon. member also made another point. He said the Minister would now also lay down the ethical rules and approve of them. That is nothing new. That is no new power that the Minister gets. The Minister even promulgates the ethical rules of the Medical Council. They cannot simply publish their own ethical rules. Their ethical rules have to be passed on to the department and approved by the Minister before they are published in the form of regulations. That is therefore also not a new concept. What we have been trying to do in this amending legislation is to bring the whole matter as close as possible to the procedure that is normally followed by the Medical Council when it deals with matters like these.

*Now I just wish to refer briefly to points raised by some of the other hon. members. I may also come back presently to one or two other things mentioned by these two hon. members. I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Middelburg for his contribution. He made it quite clear that the 1974 Act met with considerable satisfaction, but also had major shortcomings, shortcomings which have emerged in the course of time. Gradually, however, we are trying to eliminate those shortcomings. I think he gave a very clear explanation of the various professions, of the relation between them and what they actually do. Perhaps I should just add that one of the hon. members said that we should more clearly define the professions in the legislation. However, I do not believe the legislation is the place to do that. In the Act which controls the Medical Council, it is said that a dentist is a person registered with that council. There is no definition in the Act to say how he is to drill or draw teeth or make new dentures. All that is said is that he has to be registered. Therefore, if one says here that it has to be someone who is registered with this association, one has not really come any closer to giving a definition, if a definition is regarded as something which specifically spells out every act performed by such a person. I think we may take it that this is made quite clear. The hon. member said at the end of a speech that we should give these people a chance to grow and should then build up legislation gradually to suit their activities.

†The hon. member for Berea said his party would support this legislation. He also mentioned the question of the definition. He was worried about the fact that there was no definition to be found anywhere. It might be, however, that when the association makes rules—which I have to agree to before publication—about the various aspects of this legislation, they might wish to define these various practitioners, i.e. homeopaths, osteopaths, herbalists, etc.

*It may be that they are going to define it, and then I shall promulgate this accordingly in the regulations. However, I do not think the legislation is the place to do this.

†The hon. member mentioned a few other aspects with which he had problems. He was worried that people belonging to these professions—in other words, practitioners—would telephone for medicines and that the pharmacist would not know to what group they belong. He was worried that pharmacists might send them medicines that should only be sent to medical practitioners. I do not, however, think that we should try to cover every eventuality in the legislation. It is impossible to describe, in the legislation, how the pharmacist must satisfy himself. Perhaps he would have to have the person come in, or perhaps eventually the pharmacist will have a practitioner’s list, in the same way that he has a list of medical practitioners for the whole country. Just about every pharmacist has such a list. If one signs a prescription and a pharmacist does not like your looks, he consults his book to make sure that one’s name is on that list. Perhaps that could be done here too, or perhaps a man can be asked to identify himself.

That can be decided.

Yes, it could be required that the person concerned must identify himself. If a person then identifies himself as a medical practitioner when, in fact, he is not, that is a case for the police. I do not think we should try to prevent all possible crimes in the legislation we pass in this House.

There is also the question of intravenous blood. This is a matter that was also raised by the association, but it is still left completely open for the people concerned to prick a finger, or the lobe of the ear, and take a blood sample. There are some practitioners who have already written to me complaining that their association has agreed to this, because they would still like to take intravenous blood. I think, however, that one must leave that to a later stage. At this stage I think one should rather restrict it to a prick of the finger or some practice of that nature.

*I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Rustenburg on his maiden speech. It is always a good thing to gain people to help us deal with the Opposition. As a medical practitioner with 25 years’ experience, it may be easy for him to identify some of the complaints—to use his imagery—and then to try and treat these with drugs. I am glad the hon. member for Rondebosch is here. I think he missed that speech. The hon. member for Rustenburg used the very striking example of the pacemaker which can also be used. Reading the newspapers these days, I think that the hon. member for Rondebosch has also come to feel that he is a pacemaker. I only hope he will call in the advice of the hon. member for Rustenburg if he cannot keep up the pace with the Press any more. Then, perhaps, he could also get one of these plastic pacemakers to keep the wind inside.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Somerset East for his contribution. We were very glad to see this spirited member rise to make a speech the other day. I think he knows, and we need not tell him, that for a long time he was in the thoughts of all of us—those who were here as well as those in other places—that he was in our prayers and that we are very glad to see him here, looking so very well, just like the man we always knew.

Hear, hear!

As far as his contribution to the debate is concerned, I want to say that if only a small percentage of his recovery was due to any of the professions or practitioners provided for in the Bill, there is indeed a special place for them in South African society. I also want to thank him for the way in which he commended the department and myself for our approach to the profession.

Sir, I have replied fairly fully to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

†I do not think there are many other points I should like to make.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister please to assist me with the following: If the association is perfectly satisfied with the Bill, why did they find it necessary to spend an hour with the hon. the Minister and submit a memorandum?

I think the hon. member possibly has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. They did not submit a memorandum to me. They spent an hour with me this morning talking in general about their various practices. This appointment was probably made a month or two ago—I cannot remember exactly when. I invited them to discuss any matters they wanted to. We spent some time on the question of a possible statutory body, something they are also a little worried about at this stage. They felt, however, that that would be the point where one could separate the association from the statutory body since the statutory body would then take on all the powers which for instance the Medical Council has, should we go as far as that. They will now discuss the matter and then submit a finding. They were, however, quite adamant about it that this is as far as they wanted to go at present. They are also at this stage very happy about the fact that there is an official to take the final decision. One particular reason for that is that they are also elected members of an association and would have to deal with their own members. They felt that someone like that could do this very objectively and in such a way that they would not, every time they took a decision, have a furore in their own association. I can assure the hon. member that it was very interesting discussing these matters with them. There is nothing sinister about spending an hour with a certain group of people. I have spent three hours with the Medical Council, three hours with the Dental Council and two and a half hours with the Medical Association.

They have more problems.

Consequently, I was glad to be able to spend only one hour with these people.

I do not think there are any other matters I have to deal with. I have already said to the hon. member that the long list of amendments to clause 5—it looks long, but embraces only the insertion of words here and paragraphs in another place—is not acceptable to me because it would change the whole concept of how one is able to deal with someone who is not playing the game within this particular association or in his profession. I think the hon. member mentioned on a few occasions that we must protect the public. That, obviously, is what most of our legislation is about.

*Sir, I want to conclude by referring once again to the hon. member for Springs. I think I have now dealt with the speeches of all the other hon. members. The hon. member for Springs made a very illuminating speech. He mentioned quite a number of points. He is a practical person, and I noticed that the Opposition listened carefully to what he said. I hope they also learnt a great deal. I want to deal with the last point he made, i.e. the question of people who purport to be herbalists. I think that since 1974 we have been trying, by means of legislation of this nature, to eliminate the dangers to the public and to give status to the professions. However, now we have the bogus herbalists. These are people who, except perhaps for a little experience, do not have any proper training and background in the pharmaceutical use of herbs. These people are responsible, to put it quite baldly, for giving the practice and the professions a bad name. These bogus herbalists can open a shop by merely obtaining a general dealer’s licence. In this shop, any kind of leaves, lion fat, iguana scales, etc., are displayed. In this way, the impression is created that they are herbalists, and I do not think this is right. I discussed the matter with the association this morning, too, and I said they should submit a memorandum on this, because I feel that over and above obtaining a general dealer’s licence, these people should be approved by the association in some way in order to ensure that they are knowledgeable about the herbs they sell. If such a person sells lion fat, it must really be lion fat, not just mutton fat. I think the hon. member argued his case very well.

I want to thank hon. members once again for their contribution to the debate. I am sure that if these steps are taken, it will not be necessary for the hon. member for Hillbrow to go through with his amendments. I think he might withdraw his amendments as a token of good faith towards the Minister, after he has explained certain things to him. The legislation was drafted to the satisfaction of the association, and we could then part in a positive spirit after the Third Reading.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, our attitude to this Bill was stated very clearly during the Second Reading debate and also during the Committee Stage. No purpose will therefore be served by prolonging this debate in order to restate our arguments. We believe it is a great pity that the Government has passed over an opportunity of ensuring that there is a fully-elected Indian Council, particularly at a time when there are exciting events in front of us in regard to constitutional and other changes. We believe it to be fundamental that the Government should be able to consult with an elected Indian Council. Yet the Government has chosen otherwise, and we believe that to be a very great pity. We will therefore maintain our opposition and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member for Musgrave that I find his attitude very astounding and most inexplicable, even if we make concessions for the fact that consistency is not quite his forte. Even if we make every provision for the political bias of the hon. member for Musgrave and his mistaken notion that it is his duty to oppose every measure introduced by the Government and if we accept that he is not swayed by the reasonableness and sheer logic of the hon. the Minister, one would at least have thought that he would take cognizance and respect the views of the Indian leaders.

What about the Indian people?

Order!

The leaders speak on behalf of the Indian people. Even Dr. Moolla, the chairman of the Indian Council, has seen fit to rap the hon. member over the knuckles. In The Daily News of 15 February 1980 Dr. Moolla was reported as follows—

He went on to say—

I want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave whether he did speak to members of the Indian Council. [Interjections.] Now he is silent.

They are not an elected body.

Therefore the hon. member does not respect their views at all. I have here a letter I received this afternoon from a member of the Indian Council.

*As I do not have the permission of the member of the Indian Council to mention his name, I am not going to do so, but I am going to quote what he wrote.

†I quote—

*The hon. member for Musgrave, however, said in a spirit of boundless paternalism that he knew better than the Indians themselves what was good for them. The Opposition have accused us time and again of not consulting with people, of not heeding the very clearly stated wishes of people, of wanting to decide for people and of not wanting to take joint decisions with them, and of refusing to give them a say. The Indians made a very clear, reasonable and well-motivated request, and the answer of the hon. member for Musgrave was: “No, you do not know what is good for you. You are not capable of exercising judgment over your own affairs. Drop the idea of postponing the election, because we know what is good for you.” If a sound, clearly motivated and simple request like this is treated in this way by the Opposition, one can just imagine what would happen to that convention which they envisage if the Indians were to make much more drastic demands. No wonder the hon. Leader of the Opposition said last year, when he was still a back-bencher, that that convention which they have in mind, could well take a hundred years.

The main issue in this coming election for a fully elected Indian Council will undoubtedly be the question of the constitutional dispensation. In order to conduct a meaningful election, at least the interim report of the Schlebusch Commission must already be known. Now the official Opposition wants to deprive the Indians of the privilege of discussing that report with a view to their election. They want the Indian electorate to hold an election in a vacuum. They must contemplate that report. They want the election to take place in an atmosphere of confusion. I do not want to ascribe malicious intentions to the official Opposition unnecessarily, but to me the words of Dr. Moolla that “they are playing with politics” sound very true. Can it be that the official Opposition want the Indian electorate to rush into this election before the interim report is known? Can it be that they want this election to be held in an atmosphere of confusion and that they could derive political gain from such a fiasco? Moreover, what are we to make of the anomaly that although that party is totally opposed to an Indian Council in any form, be it nominated, partly nominated and partly elected or fully elected—the hon. member for Musgrave admitted that they were totally opposed to that concept—the hon. member now wants an election to be held with improper haste. I can only take it that the hon. member, in the words of Dr. Moolla is “playing with politics”. Because he is playing politics, because he is showing political expediency, and because his whole opposition to this Bill smacks of paternalism and of pedantry, we reject the standpoint of the hon. member for Musgrave and his party and support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have made our position in regard to this Bill more than abundantly clear during both the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, and we stand by that position. We believe that we have done the right thing by moving the amendment that we did during the Committee Stage and we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for accepting that amendment, because we are now in the happy position that the present S.A. Indian Council’s life is to come to an end on or before 5 November this year and cannot be extended by proclamation. In fact, should there be any desire to extend the life of the council, it will have to come before Parliament in the form of an entirely new Bill. We believe that this is in the best interests of the Indian people, and I think it is fair to say that I have received numerous letters, telegrams and telephone calls from a good cross-section of the Indian community, congratulating this party on its stand. It but remains for me to say once again that we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for accepting the amendment moved from these benches, an amendment which has made this a more meaningful measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for what he has just said and to tell him that I very much appreciate his attitude and that of his party in this matter. They have not been sparing in their criticism of the Government, but they have been reasonable in their attitude to what is an attempt to do something constructive in the interests of the Indian people. I want to tell him that I have had advice since the Second Reading of this Bill, that the amendment as it was accepted is perhaps not cast exactly the way that the lawyers would like to put it, because it all happened very quickly, so I shall have to move a different amendment in the Other Place. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that it will be in the spirit of the agreement reached.

*Then I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Port Natal for his brief contribution to this short discussion. I think he destroyed all the objections to this Bill in a few words, and once more showed us clearly what the standpoint and attitude of the official Opposition is. I presume I shall have no other choice but to accept that they will persist in the unreasonable attitude of theirs, so I resign myself to it. It would have been pleasant if we had rather made of this a dignified parliamentary occasion, had acceded to a request which comes from responsible members of the Indian community, and had acted as a unified Parliament in the interests of the people concerned.

The hon. member for Musgrave made the point once again that the Indians will not now have an opportunity of evaluating, by means of an elected body, the work of the Schlebusch Commission, and of taking part in the work of that commission. I gave him the assurance in the Second Reading debate that the intention was precisely to give them a more representative say once they have received certain facts as regards the plans of the Schlebusch Commission, and that they would then hold a more meaningful election. Hon. members will understand that I cannot say more than that. I just want to give the hon. member for Musgrave and his party a guideline, which came from the chairman of the Schlebusch Commission—I think it was on the 25th of January—and that is that the Schlebusch Commission is absolutely clear that we cannot all at once force a constitution upon the multilateral populations of South Africa, but that it will have to be a process of growth over a period of time. It is because we believe in this, the majority of the members of the Schlebusch Commission at any rate, and I believe hon. members on the opposite side of the House are also going to agree with us on that point. What I should like, is that the Indian Council should learn more about the plans, the tactical and strategic plans of the Government which are a result of the evidence that was given before the Schlebusch Commission, and then, in the light of that information, hold an election, as I have indicated, with the time limit which may not be exceeded, so that they can vote more meaningfully and place more emphasis on the type of man who is to negotiate on their behalf on the future. This is really an honest attempt on the part of the Government to bring the democratic form which the Indian Council is to take in the future more in line with the realities of the constitutional development of South Africa for the future. This is the spirit in which it was done and in which the other two Opposition parties accept it. I am sorry that the official Opposition prefers to be obstinate and unreasonable and to act with such a lack of insight in this matter. But I suppose we shall simply have to accept their attitude.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Anatomical Donations and Post-Mortem Examinations Act makes no provision for the control over the import and export of human tissue. It appears that the establishment of an organization for importing human tissue is under consideration and it is considered necessary that the importation or exportation of certain tissues should be controlled. In terms of clause 7 a new section 10A is to be inserted into the Act Provision is made that certain tissues, determined by the Minister of Health by notice in the Gazette, may only be imported or exported by a holder of a permit issued by the Secretary for Health or a person authorized thereto by him. Provision is also made for an appeal to the Minister of Health by any person who feels aggrieved by any decision of the Secretary in connection with his application for the above-mentioned permit, which deals with the export or forfeiture to the State of tissue illegally imported into this country and for the recovery of any costs incurred by the State in this connection. Uncertainty exists as to the ownership after death of a medical device, for example a pacemaker, implanted into the body of a person during life. It is also uncertain whether such devices could be legally removed from the bodies of persons after death. In the light of the above, the definition of “tissue” is amended (clause 1(f)) so that any device or object implanted into a person’s body before death is regarded as human tissue. It follows that in terms of this amendment such devices may be donated in terms of section 2 of the Act or removed at certain post-mortem examinations in terms of section 6A.

Amendments, as far as the promulgation of regulations by the Minister is concerned, are contained in clause 9.

In clause 9(e) provision is made that different regulations, in terms of section 13(1) of the Act, may be made in respect of different persons, bodies or organizations or different categories of persons, bodies or organizations. This clause is considered necessary because of the wide range of persons, natural and legal, involved with human tissue, such as State-controlled and semi-State-controlled institutions, private medical practitioners, private and provincial hospitals, universities, etc., in the Republic and differentiation in control is advisable in the circumstances.

Clause 9(f) makes provision for penalties as far as contravention or non-compliance of the regulations are concerned, and for exemptions by the Minister from the requirements of the regulations. In terms of the Act no such penalties exist at present. The Bill was published in the Gazette for information and comment.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that one has to provide in law—and I think it is absolutely proper and necessary that one should do so—for the export and import of human tissue, organs, etc.

We want to export you.

I should like to import some friendly hearts to implant into hon. members on the other side. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could order an investigation into something of this nature.

†We obviously support this legislation, because we believe it is necessary and good that there should be effective control over the export and import of human tissue and organs. Obviously there would be a wide field for abuse if there were not to be effective regulations to control this.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give me an assurance in respect of one matter. In terms of clause 9(e) a new subsection (1A) is inserted after subsection (1) of section 13 of the Act, and it reads as follows—

I know that the hon. the Minister has touched on this in his Second Reading speech, but he has not given a full explanation. What we on this side of the House would like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether there is any possibility that this subsection may refer to any form of racial or ethnic classification, or regulations which are based on such a classification. If the hon. the Minister’s assurance in this respect is satisfactory, we have no difficulty with the legislation and will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member for Bryanston that it seems to me as if the hon. member and his party simply cannot allow any opportunity to pass to bring up ethnic or race issues in the discussion of health legislation. [Interjections.] When one looks at this legislation one cannot help thinking that it would have been a good thing if the hon. member could have had a heart transplant in this regard.

The amendments contained in the Bill are in fact aimed at adapting the Act to the rapid development of medical science over the past decade, in the field of organ and tissue transplants in particular. There has indeed been phenomenal progress in this field throughout the world and in South Africa in particular. We can say today with pride that some of the foremost research and pioneering work has been done and in South Africa. Due to improved methods of preservation it has now become possible to preserve certain tissue, particularly dead tissue, over longer periods, where tissue typing to determine compatibility with the tissue of the recipient is unnecessary, but even organs such as the kidneys, where tissue typing is in fact necessary. This entails, for example, that a donor of tissue or a certain organ need not be taken abroad to donate it to the recipient. Provision is made for that in the Bill and the Act is being brought into line with modern requirements. It will then be possible to export such an organ or tissue to where it is required. Particularly in our present Southern African situation where there are national States which have a great deal of interest in South African scientific progress, this will be of great value. This in turn creates the possibility that such tissue could therefore be imported or exported as the situation required. That is why the most important amendment in this Bill, viz. the insertion of a new section 10A in the principal Act relating to control of the import and export of tissue has in fact become essential. There is no doubt that this is a field in which malpractices easily occur. After all, we always have unscrupulous people in our community who seek to exploit human suffering and disease for their own gain. In spite of, or perhaps, indeed, as a result of the rapid progress of work in this field in South Africa, there is still an acute shortage of various types of organ and tissue which can be used for transplants despite the existence of the South African Tissue Bank. The tissue acquired is obtained from voluntary donors who place on documentary record their intention to make the tissue available for this purpose. This tissue can be supplied to authorized institutions countrywide, and can even be distributed internationally, and this is regulated by this Bill.

This is also perhaps the appropriate time to make an appeal to our public to react in just the same way as when an appeal is made from time to time for blood donations, for example—surely the most common form of tissue transplant. The public must also be urged to consider the other forms of donation in order to join with medical science in an effort to relieve pain and suffering and help improve the welfare and quality of our population, for example with cornea transplants in the case of blindness. In Die Burger of 1 February 1980 there is an article under the heading “Donate an organ and save a life”. In it the director of the Cape Eye Bank Foundation says the following—

The article goes on—

I want to repeat and underline this last aspect: The biggest problem is still the acquisition of tissue suitable for use. Let us therefore urge our people to render a service of love to our fellow countrymen by enabling our medical experts to develop our health care in South Africa into the best in the world. History has already proved that we have the manpower and brainpower available to achieve this. Accordingly I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the legislation, which is in fact future-orientated. Accordingly it is my privilege to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg has dealt with the Bill before us in his usually competent way. I believe the House will have taken note of his comments in regard to tissue donation and that many of us will agree with his feelings in that regard. The legislation which we are amending today arose as a result of the heart transplant operation, very largely. It is quite a thing to look back on that operation which, 12 years ago, catapulted us into the news headlines around the world. There is no doubt, I believe, that the achievements of the heart team at Groote Schuur Hospital, in 1968, generated more goodwill and publicity for the Republic of South Africa than the total of all the projects of the Department of Information put together. Then as now, I believe, South African specialists in their field showed that they were among the best in the world.

Talking of heart transplants, I listened with great interest a couple of weeks ago to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, during the no-confidence debate. I then thought: “Oh Chris Barnard, where were you when we needed you? You had seconded a plastic surgeon to the job on the hon. the Prime Minister and we saw the removal of only a few wrinkles of apartheid instead of the heart transplant that South Africa needed.” [Interjections.] Then, the plastic surgeon’s job on the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was not much better, because it left him ahead by just a short nose. [Interjections.]

The Bill before us is a fairly elementary one. I think that the original legislation—I studied it carefully, and I also studied the speeches made at the time of its introduction—is probably the most comprehensive legislation of its kind anywhere in the world. I understand that at the time the original legislation was introduced here in this House we had had the advantage of co-operation with people of America, where there had also been significant research and work done in respect of heart transplants. As hon. members will know the original legislation went through a Select Committee before its Second Reading and was thoroughly investigated in conjunction with all bodies of medical opinion that may have had points to put forward which could have improved that legislation. I believe that the fact that the legislation has been amended so little in the intervening time is a tribute to the success of that legislation. It is a tribute to the people who were associated with the compiling of that legislation, and again demonstrates that in matters of health we can legislate sensibly and for the betterment of all our people in this country, when we have to.

Blood or tissue donation is probably the most personal gift that anyone can make. Unlike time, money or effort nobody else can make that donation for one.

The Receiver of Revenue gets my blood all right.

I believe that the hon. member for Pietersburg was again correct when he asked for more attention to be given to the question of how people could be made more aware of how they can donate tissue for transplant. With the tremendous advances that have been made in the development of anti-rejection drugs it is quite clear that developments are taking place every few years and that the time will come when not only heart and kidney transplants will be carried out with relative degrees of success, but that other organs will also be able to be transplanted with less attention to the very demanding needs of tissue matching that have to be met presently, when immunosuppressive drugs will be further developed and when some of the chances of rejection in other bodies will have been removed.

I believe the hon. the Minister has motivated his case efficiently. I do not think there is anything of great discord in the Bill before us, and we in the NRP will be supporting the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Berea, particularly in view of the positive remarks he uttered towards the end of his speech. When we are dealing with legislation of a medical nature I believe it is always as well that we should remain outside politics as far as possible. It is a pity, however, that towards the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Berea dragged in Dr. Chris Barnard. However, I believe that every person of genius is sometimes somewhat eccentric in his behaviour. The fact is, however, that when Dr. Chris Barnard acts on behalf of South Africa abroad, he always does so as a good South African. For that we on this side of the House have great appreciation.

It is important to note that basically, no changes have been effected to the essence of this legislation. These are only two measures that the hon. the Minister is adapting to the demands of the times and the demands of the circumstances because, as the hon. member for Pietersburg said, we are living in a world in which medical science has made phenomenal progress over the past few years. In these two measures we are dealing, on the one hand, with anatomical donations which are performed—I think this is an old practice—and on the other hand with the fact that certain procedures have to be followed with regard to autopsies. The important aspect this afternoon, therefore, is that in the first place the principle of the Act is not being affected. When one is dealing with anatomical donations or with the removal of tissue, the donation of tissue, one can to some extent be moving at an emotional level, particularly if there are certain loopholes in the legislation enabling people outside the profession to abuse this very good service unscrupulously, for example by making money out of it. This type of loophole is now being closed. There were certain shortcomings in the measure in question with regard to the import and export of tissue. This is now being rectified. Illegal trading in tissue is now also regarded as a phenomenon which is totally prohibited. In my opinion it is necessary that we in this House tell the public that transfer of tissue can only take place by way of donation. We must also stress that no inadmissible trade in tissue or organ donations whatsoever will be permitted. However, this does not exclude the fact that substantial costs are nevertheless involved when doctors or researchers remove and transplant or store organs. Are those expenses not to be defrayed? These essential expenses which have to be incurred are not, however, at issue here this afternoon. The same applies to the storage of these tissues, because this, too, is an expensive and complicated process requiring skill of a high order.

We in the Republic are fortunate in that donations made here are, in the first instance, intended for all the people in Southern Africa, not only in South Africa, but also in our neighbouring states, because we have certain agreements with these people. I think, too, that it is to our credit that we see to the furtherance of medicine in the broader field of medical services in Southern Africa. When sufficient organs are available and sufficient tissue can be obtained and there is a specific need in, say, Argentina, Brazil or the Netherlands, why should we not help if we can? After all, it has always been South Africa’s point of departure that we shall help where we can with the means at our disposal, and this also applies to the means at our disposal in the medical field.

I refer to the phenomenal development at the medical level, particularly in the field of the use of instruments or mechanisms manufactured by what I want to call absolute artists. One need only visit our large hospitals and research institutes to see what is really being done in South Africa Certain instruments which have not been developed to the same degree anywhere else in the world are being used in South Africa and were developed by South Africans. When a person who has any of these instruments in his body dies, it is in my opinion no more than right that medical science is entitled, in the first place, to see whether the apparatus failed in the process of the patient’s death and, secondly, to make a proper evaluation as to whether the method of treatment adopted was correct. This, therefore, still constitutes action in the service of man on the part of medical science. This measure makes provision for that.

I take the greatest pleasure in supporting these two measures which the hon. the Minister submitted to the House this afternoon, and I want to use this occasion to convey my whole-hearted congratulations on their achievements to the large number of specialists and experts—they are no more nor less than that—who work in research teams in units throughout the Republic. Sometimes they neglect their families and themselves, too, in the service of medical science, in the service of South Africa and its sick people and a healthier future generation. I believe that on this occasion this House must pay tribute to these people and to the Department of Health, of which the hon. the Minister is the new Minister, for the very broad vision which the department displays, in looking after South Africa’s interests not only in a selfish way, but also to the benefit of the developing States around us and elsewhere in Southern Africa. It is not in South Africa alone that the department is honoured; elsewhere in South Africa, too—particularly in the past year, which was Health Year—notice has been taken of what South Africa has achieved in the medical field. We are proud of the men and women concerned and the service they render.

Finally, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pietersburg said about the donation of corneas. I wonder whether one could perhaps go further and make an appeal to the general public to the effect that when a man or woman draws up his or her testament, he or she should not think only of the material inheritance for his or her progeny but to give careful consideration to the health of those who remain behind. I personally have no religious, ethical or aesthetic objection at all to this practice, and moreover I can confirm that it is in fact justifiable in theological as well as in ethical and aesthetic terms that such donations be effected. It could be one of the finest actions and gestures which South Africans could perform, particularly in present times. When a person is no longer there, he or she is surely not interested in what remains behind. I therefore believe that we can make this appeal to the public. Accordingly it is a pleasure to support these two measures introduced by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member who made a contribution. It seems to me that there is welcome agreement that this amendment Bill should be accepted. Fortunately the hon. member for Bryanston did not elaborate on his statement that I have to give the assurance “that there is no possibility of any form of racial or ethnic regulations”. It is a pity that the hon. member introduced a discordant note into a discussion of this nature. In my Second Reading speech I said—

That is what this is about It concerns the description of organizations and bodies. It has nothing to do with Black or White or Nat or Prog. It is a purely statutory description which we had to introduce since there are bodies that cannot be described as a whole. It must have a legal connotation and be a juristic person. That is why it is being included in the legislation. Therefore it has nothing to do with anything else and I do not hope that this is going to result in headlines anywhere to the effect that the clause supposedly includes such a connotation.

In the total control of organs and their transplantation a distinction has never yet been drawn. There are Brown people who have obtained organs from Whites, and the converse is also true. The race of the donor of an organ is not even considered before it is transplanted. At present there are thousands upon thousands of Blacks and Coloureds walking around whose lives have been saved by the blood of White donors. In fact there is a shortage of blood donors among our other race groups. The appeal made by the hon. member for Pietersburg concerning cornea donors could be extended to blood donors too, because administering a few pints of blood can often save a person’s life. Up to a certain stage it was really the donation of blood by the White population group that saved human lives in South Africa. Now there is a much better supply of non-White donors, and I think we must be careful not to deter the people from other population groups who donate blood.

The hon. member, and the hon. member for Berea said by way of a joke that it was a pity that a different heart had not been transplanted into the NP. Well, science is progressing very rapidly, and with any luck it may still happen that we may be able to give the hon. member for Bryanston a head transplant! [Interjections.] When this idea occurred to me, I considered the question of rejection. It is true that rejection is a problem, but I reassured myself immediately with the idea that if the hon. member were to reject the head that were transplanted onto him, his body would in any event feel no difference. [Interjections.] I am only joking, Sir. The hon. member for Bryanston and I get along well in respect of Health affairs. We keep them out of the political arena. After all, we must introduce a lighthearted note into the debate now and again.

I want to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for his professional contribution with regard to cornea transplants. He quoted astronomical figures of people who could not see, but who, in other respects, were quite healthy. This is a tragedy, if one considers how many corneas are lost daily in South Africa. There is a good and well-regulated eye bank. Donors offer their services voluntarily, and one could ask that in regard to corneas, too, the hon. member’s plea be given a hearing. He mentioned other organs, too, but I think his appeal to people to donate corneas ought to be publicized throughout the country. It would be a good thing if the debate on this Bill could also serve as an opportunity to make people aware of the donation of corneas. The hon. member said that the donation of organs was a matter of love service to one’s neighbour. I want to express the hope that prospective donors express such a desire at an early stage. Forms are available for prospective donors of corneas. This can also be done when a person is booked into a hospital. If it is written into a person’s will, in most cases the will is only opened after the burial, because people are emotional about such matters. I want to thank the hon. member for having indicated that there is a shortage of cornea donors.

†The hon. member for Berea mentioned that the original legislation arose from the original heart transplant at Groote Schuur Hospital. Thinking of that heart transplant, my modesty almost prevents me from saying that I was the member of the Executive Committee in charge of hospitals in the Cape at that stage. We lived right through that whole process and were suddenly faced with the fact that there was no legislation governing cases of this nature. It was immediately conveyed to the then Minister of Health, Dr. C. P. C. de Wet, who, in co-operation with his department, investigated possible legislation. This was referred backwards and forwards. We had people, among others Dr. Barnard, who helped us with the proposed legislation.

We asked top brain surgeons and neurologists to look at it and to try to formulate some definition of the moment of death so that at least one can know that when the organ was removed, the person was already deceased. The hon. member is right when he said that this legislation was the most advanced legislation in this field in the whole world. There was nothing else that could compare with it. Many countries throughout the world made use of this legislation. It resulted from a team effort totally removed from the political field. The department played a leading role in obtaining all the information, and together with the legal and medical people and the experts in this field, the legislation was drawn up. I hope that the problems which will arise out of this will be minor ones and that we shall be able to deal with them from time to time. I think this legislation goes a long way in preventing any abuse in the, one might say, dealing in organs.

*There must never be the idea that a trade is being conducted in organs or tissue. There was a time when there was talk of the possibility that there could be a large scale trade in things such as blood, etc. I think that with the aid of this Bill one can probably ensure that such a situation never arises in South Africa.

†The hon. member has mentioned that the few amendments show that it is good legislation. The fact that one needs amendments, proves the point I always make and that is that one is never finished with legislation as there will always be something or other that calls for improving it. I also want to thank him for his congratulations on my motivation of the case. Well, a good case is easily motivated.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Brits for his contribution. He advanced the interesting argument that the public must be reassured by this type of legislation, which must be stringent legislation, since if it is not, one cannot know what is really going to become of one.

The hon. member also referred to Prof. Barnard. It is a matter of interest that often people only talk about heart transplants. Actually, heart transplants gave rise to far more effective research into the question of rejection.

†The whole question of rejection became the front-line item of research. There has been an improvement in transplantation of kidneys. Today kidneys are easily transplanted if the tissues match. Other forms of research in this respect also took place. This long line of research in respect of the transplantation of this particular organ led to this legislation. I think it also represents a vast advance in medicine, not only in South Africa, but in the whole world.

*I want to thank all hon. members who took part in the debate once again. The hon. member for Brits said that we were rendering these services to neighbouring states. I want to say once again that if they want to make use of our services, they must know that we are well-equipped and possess more skills in many fields than many other countries in the world. We shall share them with anyone who is interested in acquiring them, whether in the field of legislation or in the field of treatment.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of the Expropriation Act, 1975, there is a compensation court for the area of jurisdiction of every provincial division of the Supreme Court, with jurisdiction to determine, upon application by any party involved, the compensation in respect of expropriated property situated in that area of jurisdiction. A compensation court can also be established in respect of expropriated property which is situated partially within one and partially within another area of jurisdiction. The competence of a compensation court is restricted to cases in which the amount of the compensation that is claimed is less than R100 000. However, the expropriator and the party which is being expropriated may agree to have the compensation determined by a compensation court, even if the compensation that is claimed exceeds R100 000. A sitting of a compensation court takes place before a president appointed by the Minister of Justice.

The Act also provides in section 25 for the making of regulations concerning, inter alia, the practice and procedure of and appearance before a compensation court and the tariff of court and other fees and orders as to costs in connection with proceedings before a compensation court. Such regulations have been promulgated by Government Notice No. R.617 of 22 April 1977.

†In terms of these regulations any advocate or attorney may act in any proceedings before a compensation court. The regulations also provide that, should the compensation awarded or last claimed prior to the commencement of the case be less than R10 000, the amounts allowable to attorneys shall be the highest scale of the table of costs applicable in a magistrate’s court in relation to contested actions. In the event of the compensation being more than R10 000, the costs in a case shall be in terms of the tariff of costs prescribed by the regulations.

Advocates’ fees, on the other hand, are traditionally left to the discretion of the taxing master if no agreement exists. Taxing masters of the Supreme Court are trained to tax such fees with the assistance of a tariff and the same taxing masters act as taxing masters for compensation courts.

The Association of Law Societies is of the opinion that it is not fair to attorneys that, while they can act in exactly the same capacity as an advocate in a compensation court, the fees which they are entitled to are determined on a different basis. The Government has accordingly been requested to amend the Act to the effect that, in respect of compensation courts, advocates’ and attorneys’ fees be determined on the same basis.

*The Government has no objection to having advocates’ and attorneys’ fees determined on the same basis in respect of compensation courts, and the object of the Bill is to arrange for this.

Mr. Speaker, the Act makes provision in section 25(1)(c) that the State President may make regulations as to tariffs applicable in the expropriation court. As the act reads at present, regulations can be made as to attorneys’ moneys or fees, but advocates are exempted from such regulations. The position in the expropriation court is, however, that in practice there is no difference between the function of an attorney and that of an advocate, and consequently there is no reason why fees should be prescribed for one whereas they are not prescribed for the other. The Law Society has duly requested that this amendment we are now debating, should be proposed, and it is with pleasure that we on this side of the House support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am rising to support the amendment proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. On the face of it, this is a very minor amendment that is being effected here, but its significance is decidedly important to the attorneys’ profession. I notice that my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg, refers in Afrikaans to “advokaatsfooie”. I think in the legal profession we talk of “gelde” and not “fooie”.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, regulations have also been introduced in terms of the provisions of section 25 of the Expropriation Act, in which there were directions for the determination of, inter alia, the fees of legal practitioners. After the regulations had been promulgated, the Bar Council of South Africa felt that the matter should be rectified with regard to the manner of determination of their fees, and they also made representations to the Government for the matter to be rectified, so that it should be in line with the traditional way in which advocates’ fees are determined, namely by agreement. Where there is no agreement, it is the practice that the determination of their fees is done by the taxing masters of the Supreme Court, and there has been no objection to that on the part of the Government. The rectification as requested by the Bar Council has been effected in terms of Section 3 of Act No. 3 of 1978.

At the time the attorneys’ profession, via the Association of Law Societies, also approached the Government for a similar rectification. The hon. member for Wynberg also gave the reason why that was done, and to that too, the Government had no objection. Owing to unavoidable circumstances at that stage, in 1978, the rectifications were not effected simultaneously and the amendment before us today is merely intended to bring the position of attorneys’ fees and the determination thereof into line with those of advocates.

With these words I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I should like to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister which I hope he will be able to answer. It would appear from what has been said that, that having been the intention previously when the other legislation was passed to include the attorneys with advocates in the fixing of lawyers’ fees, it is now being rectified as a result of an oversight. This would appear to be the case from what the hon. member for Marico just said. It would also appear, from what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, that the department, by regulation, lays out a whole series of fees by which attorneys will be compensated for the work which they did when appearing before expropriation courts.

I think I am entitled to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is the department not reasonable when it prescribes the rates at which people can be compensated for the work they do? I ask this, because, what is happening now, is, in fact, that another procedure is going to be followed. This other procedure, as I understand it, will mean that the remuneration which will now be received by attorneys, in relation to the scale on which advocates will be paid, will be higher than that which is fixed by the department. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether that is so. The practical effect of legislation is going to be that attorneys will receive a higher scale of remuneration than they would have done had they remained on the scale which the department had fixed. I think one is entitled to ask why the other procedure was not followed. The advocate should have been put on the same scale of fees as the attorney. If the department is prescribing a reasonable rate—and they must say that they do—why is it that with advocates receiving a higher rate, attorneys’ fees are going up and advocates’ fees are not coming down? One would have thought that what is fare for the goose is fare for the gander.

But it is not fare for the advocate.

This is where one sees the operation of the lawyers’ lobby in the House, whereas the poor unfortunate farmers do not have such a powerful lobby working for them. Here we see the lawyers’ lobby in operation, with the scale laid down by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department being thrust aside and people now being allowed to take what I would imagine to be—I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to confirm this—a higher scale. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should give us an explanation as to why the other procedure was not followed and the same scale of fees applied to the advocates as was applied to attorneys. Because we are broadminded in our attitude towards these things, however, and because we like to help the struggling legal profession, we will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to thank hon. members for their support for the Bill. I am particularly pleased that the hon. member for Marico has pointed out to us that when one deals with this sort of thing, one does not refer in Afrikaans to “fooie”, but to “gelde”. In my own lifetime I have experienced that when one deals with an attorney, it is certainly “gelde” that are involved, and not “fooie”. I am therefore very pleased that the hon. member has pointed that out to us.

As far as the question asked by the hon. member for Mooi River is concerned, I just wish to point out that what originally gave rise to the fact that attorneys were not treated on the same basis as advocates, is something I am not able to explain to him. However, there must have been a good reason for it. He also put a further question to me, to which I shall give a pertinent reply. It is not necessarily the case that the fees that will be paid now, are going to be higher than those under the old dispensation. All we are doing is to rectify the existing anomaly, viz. that advocates are taxed on a different basis from attorneys. However, I wish to make it very clear that there is no justification for stating that the fees that will be determined, will be higher than the fees that had to be paid in the past. It may happen in a few cases, but the taxing masters are highly trained people who have handled these matters with great circumspection in the past and who will, we believe, do so in future as well.

I am very pleased that we were able to conduct the debate on this Bill on attorneys’ fees under such peaceful circumstances. In these days in particular, with rising salaries and the unrest prevailing in the medical profession, it is cause for gratitude that a measure such as this can be passed with such a large measure of unanimity.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the private member’s motion on Friday I said that if the previous Minister of Police had been in the House, I would not need to have asked who authorized the interception of my mail. It has since been pointed out to me that the hon. Mr. Kruger, who is now President of the Other Place, is neither in a position to defend himself nor to deny the accusation. I therefore unreservedly withdraw my remarks. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is apparent from the long title, the object of the Bill now before this House is to lay down provisions to be followed with regard to the recovery of losses and damages that may be caused to the Lake Areas Development Board in certain circumstances by persons in its employ. The Lake Areas Development Board, established by section 3 of the Lake Areas Development Act, 1975, is not empowered to recover such damages or losses without the aid of the courts. Nor is section 34 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, which makes provision for a procedure in connection with the recovery of such damages or losses in respect of persons in the employ of the State, applicable to statutory bodies.

†The Bill is for the most part based on section 34 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975. The chairman of the Lake Areas Development Board is made the accounting officer of that board. It further provides that if a present or past employee of the board has caused loss or damage to the board in a manner as set out, the accounting officer must determine the amount of such loss or damage and order the person concerned to repay the whole or any part thereof within 30 days. Should the accounting officer, however, be of the opinion that the amount of damage or loss should not be recovered or should be recovered in part only from the person responsible therefor, the board may on the recommendation of that officer approve of the whole or a portion of the amount not being recovered. Any person who has been ordered to pay an amount may appeal to the board or a competent court of law against such an order.

*The proposed legislation, which is for the most part self-explanatory, was drafted in consultation with the Lake Areas Development Board and consequently meets with the approval of that body.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, we have had this sort of legislation before. Last year, and again last week, amending Bills were passed that were aimed at holding the chairmen of various boards accountable for moneys received and disbursed by the relevant boards. Such an amendment is before the House again today in relation to the Lake Districts Development Board. In addition to the accountability of the chairman, provision is also being made for steps to be taken in regard to officials who fail in their duty. This applies whether they are still in service or have left the service of the board.

The amendment is in line with existing legislation, namely the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975. We on this side of the House support the amendment. But I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether apart from the fact that we are attempting by means of this amendment to bring the legislation into line with other legislation, namely the Exchequer and Audit Act, there are any other specific reasons why we are being asked to pass this legislation at present. Are there problems in regard to the Lake Districts Development Board? Have funds been misappropriated? Is everything in order? Or is the only reason the fact that we want to bring the legislation into line with the principle already accepted?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this amendment. I would just like the hon. member for Wynberg to know that so far as my knowledge goes, no fault can be found with this Lake Districts Development Board. There is no money that has not been accounted for. As far as I am aware, this is normal legislation to bring this statutory board into line with all the other statutory boards. The Lake Districts Development Board is a unique board, a body which has been brought into being specifically to fulfil a unique task, namely the protection, administration and control of the lake districts. Of all boards in the country, this board is probably one of the most meaningful. It performs an enormous conservation task in the interests of human enjoyment.

The chairman, Mr. Frans Botha, and his board members definitely do not need laws to prescribe their duties for them. For them the preservation of lake districts is a labour of love, a life’s work which they carry out with dedication and devotion. These lake districts-—the Langvlei, the Upper Langvlei, Elandsvlei and Rondevlei—form some of the greatest natural assets in our country. Surrounded by high, blue mountains, deep ravines, thick pine plantations and natural forests of yellow-wood, stinkwood and red and white els, with the sea to the south, these waters form a quiet, peaceful heaven on earth where the elements meet and merge; heaven with earth, the sun with the water, the sea with the mountains and the trees with the animal and bird life of the lakes, creating a natural paradise with an indescribable majesty. It has to be seen and felt and experienced, never again to be forgotten.

These lakes run over into the Serpentine River, which rises in the Outeniqua Mountains and debouches into the sea at the Wilderness. When however the river mouth silts up as a result of soil erosion and other malpractices of man, we find a converse process where the water in the river flows back to the lakes. The fuller the river becomes, the fuller the lakes become. It is because of this that there has been trouble with people. Because the rising water level threatens houses, gardens and lands, which as a result of injudicious development and poor or inefficient planning have come into being, man has again been injudicious and has opened the mouth prematurely before the river and the lakes have been able to cleanse themselves. What I mean by this is that if man had not intervened, the lakes and the river would have dammed up and become so full that when the dam eventually broke because of natural causes, there would have been sufficient water in the lakes and the river to cause it to flow out with enormous force and in so doing all the silt and unwelcome material would have been carried away and in this way the river and the lakes would have been cleansed.

To combat this interference with and disturbance of nature by man as far as possible, the Lake Districts Development Board has been brought into being. Not only has this board to combat man’s urge to destroy, but it also has to control the encroachment of plants and reeds, and it has many more duties besides. Incidentally, a special sort of boat is used to cut the reeds below the water’s surface. The hon. the Prime Minister has also participated in this process, and I am sure that he found it very restful and relaxing and that he also enjoyed it. It is understandable therefore that this statutory board should be in a position to protect itself against any misconduct of which some official may in future be guilty. To recover any moneys or make good any damages under the present system, the board would have to have recourse to the civil court, a protracted and expensive procedure. That is the reason for this amendment which places the board’s officials under the Exchequer and Audit Act, like all other officials, so that the chairman of this statutory body, as is also the case with other statutory boards—not for any covert reason as the hon. member has insinuated—can himself decide and recommend to his board, as accounting officer, how any loss is to be repaid or recovered because, as I have said, administrative procedures are quicker and cheaper than civil procedures. It is right that the chairman should use his own judgment to protect his board’s interests, and I want to wish the chairman and his board, and all employees of the board, good luck and success with the protection of this lovely little piece of paradise which I hope to be able to visit often during the rest of my life. I therefore support the amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town supported the Second Reading of the Bill and waxed lyrical about the attractions of these lake areas, and quite rightly so because I think they are one of the most unique attractions that our country has to offer. It is strange that it is said that “music hath charms to soothe the savage breast”, but water, lakes and that kind of thing …

That is beautiful.

It is nice, is it not? I like that too. Water and lakes have the ability to bring man right back into his own proper place in nature. So a Bill of this sort, which is intended merely to improve the legislation, or patch up elements previously left out of the legislation which controls the whole of this area, is to be welcomed by us in its Second Reading stage. I should therefore like to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the assurance that we shall be supporting the Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg raised one objection by way of a question. This referred to the suspicion that some of the officials might have acted wrongly and that this therefore has necessitated this legislation being placed on the Statute Book. As I know the hon. Opposition, had I been in their place, I would rather have objected because Swartvlei has not yet been included in this scheme. [Interjections.]

It is clear from the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister that this legislation is necessary because the provisions of section 34 of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975, the legislation which normally provides for the making good of losses and damage in respect of persons in service of the State, are not applicable to statutory bodies. Losses and damages suffered by the Lake Districts Development Board in the course of its activities as a result of the actions of its employees can therefore not be recovered without the assistance of the courts. The object of this legislation is to give the chairman of the Lake Districts Development Board authority to recover losses and damages suffered in respect of persons in the service of this board. By so doing, the objects of section 34 of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975 are realized in the Lake Districts Development Act. I think one can therefore assure the hon. member for Wynberg with the greatest degree of certainty that that is the only reason why this amendment is being effected by this legislation. In order to ascertain whether such rights are necessary in the case of the Lake Districts Development Board, one has to note the aims and powers of the board which, inter alia, provide, as the hon. member for King William’s Town has said, for the control, management and development of State land situated within a lake district and also to deal with it. To achieve these aims the scope of the board’s functions is most comprehensive. It includes the subdivision, the laying out, the planning and the development of the State land in question. The board can also provide accommodation and facilities for visitors to the lake districts and maintain them, as well as other services for the convenience of visitors. The board may with the approval of the Minister sell, lease, or hypothecate land or pieces of land, whether before or after development, or exchange it for private land within a lake district.

The first proclaimed lake district that has been given the name Wilderness Lake District, already covers a surface area of approximately 1 500 ha. As the hon. member for King William’s Town has so lyrically mentioned, it is a beautiful region which terminates in the upper reaches of the Touws River which is generally known as the Wilderness Lagoon.

Although for practical reasons the board has up to now given preference to the combating and eradication of clogging water plants and reed growth—I have also learnt that the boat or machine which the board uses to cut reeds and water plants below the water’s surface is something special in South Africa—the board also aims in the first place to open up river mouths after scientific research to the best advantage of the maintenance of the lake. Because the duties of the Lake Districts Development Board may give rise to the handling of money and valuable property making losses and damage possible, the approval of this legislation is very definitely justified.

Mr. Speaker, Prof. E. Stander of the Institute for Planning Research of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Stellenbosch writes in his “Kaapse Suidkus—’n Ontwikkelingsoorsig” under the heading “Die Suidkus as Toeristemekka” and in fact under the subheading “Die Natuurskoon”, as follows—

If legislation has to be introduced to conserve this jewel of our natural heritage and to make it possible for people and nations of the world to see and enjoy it, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to support such legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg asked if the Bill had been introduced because problems had been encountered regarding certain employees of the Lake Districts Development Board. I should like to associate myself with the hon. members for King William’s Town and Swellendam and tell him that that is definitely not so. It has never, as far as I am aware, been necessary to take any official of the board to task in regard to any matter. The whole purpose of this legislation is merely to bring this matter, as the hon. member so rightly remarked, into line with the Exchequer and Audit Act.

I want to thank hon. members for the tribute they have paid to this board. Mr. Botha and his team are engaged in a really gigantic task of nature conservation in those areas. I am happy about the good things that have been said about the board here today and it will give me great pleasure to convey these sentiments to them. It is interesting to know that the hon. the Prime Minister is in particularly close contact with the board and the development in these areas. He has a very special soft spot for the lake districts between George and Knysna. It is also customary for the department to report to him annually regarding the development of all other matters affecting the lake districts.

I should like to thank hon. members again for their support. I think that all these things will help to make matters flow more smoothly. We wish the board everything of the best and hope that they will continue with the good work that is being done there for the benefit and to the advantage of our whole country. This is one of the beautiful regions in our country and it is really a heartwarming experience to drive through it and see how beautiful everything is.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 4(a) of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, inter alia, empowers the Minister to appoint members of the S.A. Railway Police as passport control officers. In terms of section 53(2), the Minister may by notice in the Gazette authorize any officer or member of a category of officers in the public service to sign an order, warrant, permit, certificate or other document which may be issued under this Act. We are concerned here with the matter of signing because the Minister may issue an instruction that must be capable of being executed at ports of entry without delay, and documents signed by him cannot reach the port or ports concerned in time. Apart from that the Minister will be overburdened with the preparation and signing of documents necessary to implement his decision. However, the words “officer or member of a category of officers in the public service” in this section do not include members of the Railway Police, with the result that although members of the Railway Police may be appointed as passport control officers, they may not be authorized to sign such an order, warrant, permit, certificate or other document.

The section in question affords the Minister a discretion in the granting of authority to sign these documents. Consequently it is not necessary to grant such authority to every passport control officer. Authorization to sign the documents in question may also be granted to public servants who are not passport control officers. However, the anomaly lies in the fact that members of the Railway Police who are appointed as passport control officers are the only category of passport control officers to whom this power cannot be granted. Owing to the nature of their work the Railway Police constantly come into contact with persons entering this country, and it now seems desirable, as is being proposed, for additional provision to be made that the Minister may authorize members of the S.A. Railway Police to sign the documents in question so that, in this time of manpower shortage, they may be of further assistance, where necessary, in preventing the illegal entry of persons, or allowing the entry of persons without unnecessary delay where there are no reasons why such persons should not be allowed into the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, this little Bill before us need not delay the House very long at all. It relates to the signing and forwarding of the documents of admission to and departure from the Republic. It has been proposed that it is more convenient that certain officials of the S.A. Railways and Harbours be designated by the Minister to do such signing, and I cannot see any objection to this at all. It is a totally innocuous measure, and accordingly we shall support it through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced this amending Bill because I regard it as an anomaly that the Railway Police were previously not involved in dealing with this matter. The Railway Police have for years played a role in protecting South Africa. Together with the S.A. Police and countless other officials concerned with control over the entry to and departure from South Africa they play an important role. I am grateful that in terms of the Bill the Railway Police are to be authorized by the Minister to sign these documents. At certain places, for instance, Jan Smuts Airport, the department has its permanent officials. Especially in these times, however, when traffic to and from South Africa from every place imaginable can be undertaken, it is essential that authority should be given to the Railway Police to sign these documents. We find, for instance that more and more private airports are being used for the entry of persons to South Africa. We find that numerous places, and not only traditional places, are being used as jumping-off places for those departing from South Africa and as landing places for those entering South Africa. For that reason I welcome this authorization for the Railway Police to do this work as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River has welcomed this legislation and I hope I shall find an opportunity during the course of the year to ask him what happened at Fort Mistake during the recess. But before you rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we in the NRP support the legislation. We believe it is practical and that it is necessary in practice. For those reasons we believe that the legislation should be supported. We shall support all stages of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Sandton for his support of the Bill. I also thank the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Klip River for their few pleasant remarks. I think this is an uncontentious measure and I am pleased that it has been accepted in that spirit by the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

A person can cease to be a South African citizen in terms of section 16 of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, should he relinquish his South African citizenship or if the Minister deprives him of his South African citizenship in terms of section 19, 19bis, 20 or 20bis of that Act.

A large percentage of the persons who in terms of section 16 of the Act relinquish their South African citizenship are apparently youths and good reasons exist to believe that some of them take this step to avoid military service. Other persons again, who were deprived of their citizenship because, for example, they have made use of dual citizenship, are indifferent to the loss of their citizenship. For these persons the loss of their South African citizenship does not lead to the loss of their right of permanent residence in the country.

In short, a person who ceases to be a South African citizen retains his right of permanent residence in South Africa if he—

1. (a) is in possession of a permit entitling him to reside permanently in the Republic; or
2. (b) is exempt from the requirements of being in possession of such a permit; or
3. (c) is a British subject who at the time of the establishment of the Republic indicated in writing that he had settled permanently in the Republic.

Persons who relinquish or are deprived of their South African citizenship are able to continue to lead a normal life as foreigners without any significant obstacles. Those persons who are indifferent to South African citizenship would, however, consider matters more thoroughly should they be deprived of their right of permanent residence in the Republic when they cease to be South African citizens.

+Mr. Speaker, it is consequently proposed in clause 1 of the Bill that a person who ceases to be a South African citizen, also forfeits his right of permanent residence in the Republic. It is further proposed in this clause that should a person voluntarily relinquish his South African citizenship, he be disqualified from obtaining permanent residence in the Republic or South African citizenship again.

This disqualification from re-obtaining permanent residence and/or South African citizenship is especially directed at persons who attempt to avoid military service. Here specific reference is made to those persons who will shortly, after two years’ residence, automatically become South African citizens by naturalization in terms of section 11A(1) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, and who may then be able to relinquish their South African citizenship in terms of section 16 of the Act.

As a result of this situation they will be able to retain their right of permanent residence and circumvent the provisions providing for the loss of the right of permanent residence and the disqualification to qualify again in future for that right, as well as South African citizenship. The possibility does exist, however, that in certain cases, due to exceptional circumstances, especially where a person has been deprived of his citizenship, the proposed provisions may cause undue hardship. It is consequently proposed that provision be made for the Minister to exclude any person or category of persons from these provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with sympathy to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think all of us in this House believe that citizenship of a country is a very precious right. I think we all agree, too, that citizenship carries with it both privileges and responsibilities. I am well aware that fair-weather citizens are, any way, of little use to any country. What are the responsibilities of citizenship? One of the responsibilities is that of being available to, in fact, defend one’s country in the face of exterior onslaught. A legislative gap, which the hon. the Minister has adumbrated, which allows the renunciation of citizenship at the convenience of a person involved, a person already holding dual citizenship, can in fact lead to major problems in a country such as ours in which we have welcomed immigrants in fairly large numbers over a number of years. Indifference towards citizenship, or the swopping of citizenship for commercial or other reasons, can only devalue the privilege of being a South African, and it is unfair to thousands of other South Africans who have no choice but to accept all the responsibilities of having been born here.

As I understand it, the intention of the amendment Bill is to emphasize that fact. For the present moment the deliberate renunciatzon of South African citizenship carries no consequence at all other than the loss of a South African passport which the person concerned has already, in any event, deliberately discarded with his eyes open and, of course, the loss of his voting rights, something to which he attaches no importance. Such a person can then enjoy all the fruits of the South African society, while at the same time discarding the duties which should follow. In the present circumstances, I believe that this existing state of affairs cannot be a healthy one and that the hon. the Minister’s attempt to give some sort of consequence to the effect of renunciation should not be cast aside lightly. The problem—and I shall try to explain it to the House—is that the proposed amending legislation affects a far wider category of persons detrimentally than I think the hon. the Deputy Minister intends. Allow me to elucidate upon an example. The existing sections 16(3) and 16(4) deal with the renunciation of citizenship by a person holding dual citizenship. Subsection (3) reads—

That is, when he has renounced his citizenship—

So far so good. Subsection (4) reads as follows—

This then is the existing provision relating to minor children. Such persons, such minor children, Sir, are innocent in terms of what is intended here. Here I may interpolate by saying that although, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, the legislation is aimed at those who wish to avoid military service, the law is in fact not written in a way so that that aim is prescribed. It can in fact affect a wider group of people. Dealing with minor children, such persons, innocent of the original renunciation, in terms of the existing legislation which I have read out retain the immutable right to resume their South African citizenship upon attaining their majority and upon coming back to South Africa. The original draft amending Bill altered this position radically. The proposed new section 21(4)(b) reads as follows—

That includes minor children of such person—

It is therefore clear that such a person, being a minor and who may strongly disagree with the actions of his parents, automatically loses his citizenship and, in terms of what is provided for in the Bill before us, cannot obtain a permanent residence permit, and worse still, can never regain his South African citizenship, no matter what the circumstances. The paragraph provides that he “ceased to be a South African citizen under section 16”, which includes a minor child, although as I have said he may himself have played no role whatsoever in the renunciation about which we are speaking.

Sir, we welcome and will support the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. the Deputy Minister. This amendment goes some way towards helping the situation, but a conflict between the provisions of sections 16(3) and (4) of the Act and the amending legislation still exists. An innocent person who, in terms of the existing law, is entitled to resume South African citizenship may now, in terms of the amendment on the Order Paper, only do so subject to the consent of the Minister and then only on such conditions as he may think fit. This is not fair and I believe that it is not even just legislation, even if the number of persons affected is relatively small. As I am certain that the Bill before us was never intended to affect the rights of guiltless persons, minors at that, I will in the Committee Stage propose an amendment, a copy of which I have handed to the hon. the Deputy Minister and a further copy of which I would like to give to the hon. member for Durban Central.

I shall propose in the Committee Stage an amendment which will ensure that the existing provisions relating only to the rights of minors, who have had no part in the renunciation, are not in any way changed. This will in no way detract from the intention of the legislation before us which, as I see it, is to make people think twice before throwing away the privileges of being a South African. There are a few other questions which I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to during the Second Reading debate.

Firstly, he has told us that there is a problem in that a growing number of people are using the renunciation clause, he suspects, in order to avoid taking part in military service. He says these renunciations are on the increase. We would like to be satisfied that the problem is of sufficient magnitude to warrant a law of this sort. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, are we legislating for 50 people, 500 people, or are we legislating for a growing number of people in excess of 500, even running into the thousands? If it is a small problem, involving a very limited number of individuals, is it really necessary to invoke the statutory consequences envisaged here? This can, as I have stated, have far-reaching effects, and I believe it may even be counter-productive in that it may prevent new people being attracted to South Africa. On the other hand—and I would like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister about this—if the problem is more widespread, then more than just this little piece of legislation may, in fact, be necessary. There are other gentler means of persuasion, for example public relations campaigns and the like, which should perhaps be harnassed to the cause of making better South Africans. I believe a little more clarity on the gravity and extent of the problem would be helpful to the attitude the Opposition will adopt.

Another question I should like to ask relates to exemptions, exclusions and the withdrawal of exemptions. In the clauses relating to the exemptions the words “category of persons” are used. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can explain whom or what he has in mind with regard to categories of persons, sub-categories of persons and members of categories so that we may, in fact, better understand his intention.

Finally, we have one or two clarifications we shall seek to obtain during the Committee Stage. Therefore, in the final analysis, if the hon. the Deputy Minister can answer the few issues I have raised this afternoon positively, and provided he is today prepared to give an assurance that he will accept my amendment, or if the exact wording of my amendment is not acceptable, that he will draw up a further amendment which will protect the rights of innocent minors, thus satisfying us on this issue, we will not oppose the principle of the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister must understand, however, that we cannot be a party to unjust or conflicting legislation, even if only a small number of people are affected. The conflict is there and will, I venture to say, give rise to very expensive litigation if it goes onto the statute books in its present form. I am not even certain, to be quite honest, whether the proposed section 21(4)(b) is not void for uncertainty. Let me just explain the conflict. One reads in section 16(3) and (4) provisions for exact and definite rights for minors. The amending clause takes away or affects those rights and limits them, and instead of a minor having a right to achieve his citizenship, this is now subject to permission. The point is that subsections (3) and (4) of section 16 are not amended. They remain on the Statute Book. So what results is a direct conflict between those subsections and the other sections. The question is which provisions prevail once the Bill is passed.

Surely this is bad, even if unintended. Surely it is a badly drafted piece of legislation. The first amendment only came about as a result of circumstances of which the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware. Therefore if an amendment to remedy the defects to which I have alluded, thus ensuring the retention of the rights of innocent minors, is not acceptable and is not forthcoming, we shall unfortunately be forced to oppose the Second Reading. We therefore await with interest the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction before giving the support which we would like to give and which is asked.

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the hon. member for Sandton surprised me initially today when he advanced arguments in favour of the relevant legislation. He did so to such an extent that I wondered what we on this side of the House would say. I am in complete agreement with what he said initially. However, as he continued with his speech I realized that we would not escape the inevitable “but”.

The what?

The “but”. Naturally, as has so often happened in the past, the inevitable “but” was not absent. In regard to the first matter raised by the hon. member, namely that certain minors would be deprived of their citizenship, I can only say that that is a technical matter to which the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply.

However, I have one problem as far as the speech of the hon. member for Sandton is concerned. On the one hand he showed his patriotism by placing the State, the country itself, first, in the sense that he said it was the duty of every inhabitant, if he enjoyed the privileges offered by this country, to defend it Towards the end of his speech, however, the hon. member questioned the wisdom of this legislation on the grounds that it would affect only a small group of people. If the principle is that legislation has to be rejected because it will affect only a small number of people, I question the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Sandton.

You misunderstood me completely.

Well, if I misunderstood the hon. member, he or one of his hon. colleagues ought to make use of the opportunity to put the matter right. [Interjections.]

I believe the other questions raised will be dealt with by hon. members on this side of the House as well as by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that anyone who elects to live in a particular country and arrogates all the privileges that country has to offer, uses them for his own benefit and even enriches himself, as often happens, has a moral duty and responsibility, when necessary, to defend the country in which he finds himself. That is singularly true today, especially in respect of the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa.

It is generally known that we are living in an exceptional country in the sense that the country has exceptional riches, that we enjoy a great measure of peace in various spheres, that we have a stable government and so forth. I could go on in this vein listing the legion of benefits we enjoy in this country. Certainly not the least of these benefits is the exceptional economic prosperity we are experiencing today. On the other hand it is also true that this country, for the very reason that these exceptional circumstances prevail here, has attracted the attention of other countries, perhaps those in the Communist bloc in particular, as being a country worth taking over. Add to that the serious dangers threatening us along our northern borders, those terrorist activities, and it becomes clear that everyone who can play a part in the defence of the country must in fact do so.

It was also as a result of this attitude adopted by the Government that the South African Citizenship Act of 1949 was amended in 1978 to provide that every foreigner under 25 years of age who was issued with a permit for permanent residence in the Republic by the Immigrants’ Selection Board and who has subsequently lived in the Republic for a period of two years and who has not been found guilty of any offence during that period of two years, shall automatically become a South African citizen unless he makes a declaration during that period of two years that he does not want to become a South African citizen.

It is unfortunately true, however, that there are still people in this country who are not prepared to make their contribution when it comes to defending the country, as the hon. the Deputy Minister clearly indicated in his Second Reading speech. Ironically, these are often people whose forebears were not born in South Africa and did not emigrate to this country. In other words, these are the people who were born in South Africa and who may perhaps be more entitled than anybody else to enjoy the benefits this country has to offer, who have to defend the country. The question that every right-thinking person, therefore, asks himself is whether it is fair that our legislation should allow certain persons with dual citizenship to relinquish their South African citizenship when it suits them without losing their right to reside here permanently and to enjoy certain privileges, as against other people who were born here, are South African citizens and share in all the privileges the country has to offer but who, on the other hand, have to make the necessary sacrifice to defend the borders of the country when dangers threaten. I think everyone who has the welfare of South Africa at heart will agree with me that it is necessary that we accept the proposed amendments as contained in this Bill unconditionally and without any provisos.

What is the object of the proposed amendments? The proposed new subsection (4) provides firstly that any person who relinguishes his South African citizenship but remains a citizen of another country, shall forfeit his right to permanent and temporary residence. Secondly, it provides that anyone who relinquishes his citizenship voluntarily will not be allowed to acquire South African citizenship in any way again. I think it is reasonable and obvious that if, for any particular reason, a person is not prepared to accept the responsibilities that South African citizenship entails, and relinguishes that citizenship, that person cannot return at a later stage and say he is prepared to accept those responsibilities.

Thirdly, we have to deal here with the exemptions the hon. the Minister can grant, exceptions in connection with those exemptions, as well as the withdrawal of an exemption. I think it is generally accepted that it is necessary for our legislation to make provision for that. I want to conclude by pointing out to the House that if a person loses his citizenship in accordance with the provisions of this legislation, it means that such a person will never again be able to become a South African citizen. It also means that every six months he will have to re-apply for a temporary permit because he will have lost his right to live here permanently. Furthermore, neither will he be entitled to a permanent work permit; he will have to apply regularly for a temporary work permit. In the latter event, such a person will require a visa to return should he at some stage or other leave the country. In view of these facts, I think it is obvious that we have to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we have some difficulty with this legislation. We feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister is perhaps in some respects going for an over-kill, unless he is prepared to accept some amendments. Having listened to the hon. member for Sandton it is quite clear that we are running a risk of throwing out the baby with the bath-water. The hon. member for Sandton has put a reasonable request to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should like to know whether he is prepared to accede to that request. Is he prepared and willing to ensure that the rights of a minor child will continue to be protected and that it will not operate through exemption? If one looks at section 16 one sees that protection is also afforded, even after the second parent has ceased to be a South African citizen, not only the one who has renounced his citizenship. This applies when the other parent is also no longer a South African citizen. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this question because my interpretation is that this provision does not necessarily affect the wife or the married partner in such a case. Their rights will still be protected, but I am not entirely certain whether it may not be acting against a wife, for instance, where someone is forced to do so, although the renunciation is a voluntary declaration. There are many reasons why—for instance in obtaining a work permit—a person is forced to do so and then the wife may, in order to qualify, also be forced to do so. Therefore I am not entirely clear whether that person will also fall within the ambit of this legislation.

In general—and this is why we have difficulty with this type of legislation—I do not believe that it is a good method of administering a country to have legislation by means of exemption, as in this case. In fact, we are going one step further. This is not only a system of exemptions. Firstly, there is a blanket ban and, let us be quite honest about it, the penalty, as determined in this legislation, is fairly heavy. A person may even be told that he can no longer qualify for permanent residence in this country, can never again achieve that status. His position will be left entirely at the discretion of the Minister. I say this, not merely because we are an Opposition, but for the sake of good government one must always ask whether it is right for so much power to be vested in the hands of any particular Minister. This has nothing to do with the present incumbent, but it is purely the principle which is involved, namely is it good government to have that situation? It is for those reasons that one would normally be reluctant to support this type of legislation. However, as has been pointed out, we are aware of the difficulties that the hon. the Minister is facing. We are aware of the difficulties and the abuses that are taking place at the present moment. Whilst it is, in that respect, perhaps a rather severe penalty for a person to pay, one must bear in mind that in this day and age there are certain forces at work which do try to indoctrinate people to get them to do certain things, for example to avoid military service, etc. We therefore do not wish to help or assist those people in any way. We are only thinking of the other victims who are merely becoming consequential victims in this respect. The major aspect is obviously the one concerning the minor child. If the hon. the Deputy Minister can indicate to us his willingness and preparedness to accept an amendment in this respect, I can give him the assurance that we in the NRP will be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Durban Central expressed concern about the position of minors. An amendment in this regard is envisaged. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with that.

The hon. member for Durban Central expressed the view that it was bad legislation to impose a general ban and then to make exceptions. However, that is not at all unusual in our legislation. That is the position in numerous Acts. I think, for example, of the Act dealing with wills which provides that all documents shall be invalid except those complying with certain conditions.

Another point of criticism expressed by the hon. member for Sandton deals with the question of whether people will be deterred from becoming citizens of the Republic of South Africa Before one can answer that question satisfactorily it is necessary to look at the type of person and category of persons affected by this Bill. In the first instance, one has the type of person referred to in section 16 of the principal Act, namely, the person with dual citizenship, that of the RSA and that of a foreign country, and who voluntarily relinquishes his RSA citizenship. I do not think the hon. member for Sandton is really worried that we will lose him. Is he? No, he is not.

Let us look now at the next category of persons, namely, those referred to in section 19 of the principal Act, persons who have been divested of their citizenship because they acquired that citizenship by deceit and dishonesty or who, subsequent to their acquiring that citizenship, were guilty of gross disloyalty. Is the hon. member worried that we shall not get them? He is not.

The next category of persons referred to are those persons referred to in section 19bis, namely, those persons who, while they were South African citizens, also acquired the citizenship of another country and who were subsequently divested of their citizenship by the Minister. If someone displays dual loyalty such as this I do not think we will shed many tears if we lose him as a possible citizen.

Fourthly, there are those persons who are referred to in section 20 of the principal Act, namely, those who are citizens of Commonwealth countries and of the Republic of Ireland, who lost that citizenship as a result of fraud, dishonesty or gross disloyalty …

We are talking about section 16.

… and who were divested of their citizenship by the Minister because he did not consider it to be in the public interest that they remain citizens of this country.

We do not need the IRA here any way.

The last category of persons to which I want to refer—and this is apparently the category the hon. member for Sandton has in mind—is that of the innocent children who will be affected as a result of the fact that one of their parents has lost his or her citizenship. That is a valid argument and, as I said at the outset, the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider that argument. Moreover, those persons are not after all being left out in the cold because the Minister has the right to ensure that justice is done in those cases where a child may be unjustly and unfairly affected by the proposed amendment.

What about the conflict?