Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to only a few aspects of this Bill and its effects. In the first place I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention again to the matter of animal tissue, a matter which we discussed at length during the Committee Stage. In retrospect I still believe it is important that we should amend this legislation at a later stage in order to include animal tissue as well. The definition in the Bill is limited to human tissue only, and so is the definition of “devices”.

With the use of animal tissue increasing it is I believe vitally necessary to cover all aspects and every possible meaning of the word “tissue” that may be applicable in terms of this legislation. Secondly, there is a problem that I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, a problem that has been drawn to my attention only today. That concerns the question of blood and blood products. Blood and blood products are also covered now by this piece of legislation. I do believe, however, that some blood products fall within the ambit of the Medical Control Council. In terms of therapeutic substance regulations, I believe that that is indeed the case. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister therefore whether he thinks it is justifiable that it should also be covered by this legislation, and also whether regulations will be issued by the hon. the Minister. How will this legislation affect the Medical Control Council in dealing with therapeutic substances?

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask hon. members of the NRP, who raised the matter of a free vote and of conscientious objection during Second Reading … [Interjections.]

You have it all wrong. It is a matter of conscience.

Well, that is the same thing. [Interjections.]

It is definitely not the same thing. [Interjections.]

I want to ask hon. members of the NRP, who, I believe, have many problems ahead of them during the next 24 hours … [Interjections.] Well, they supported the Bill during Second Reading and during the Committee Stage. I want the hon. member for South Coast to tell me where their free vote and conscientious objection will apply. I am merely interested in the NRP’s approach to this legislation. As it is, they have supported this measure up to now. What is going to happen next? [Interjections.]

What are you talking about?

Do you know what you are saying? [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, I know exactly what I am saying.

You may know everything about this Bill but you do not seem to know much about parliamentary procedure. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members have never mentioned the question of the free vote or of conscientious objection again after Second Reading. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, all I want hon. members of the NRP to do now during the Third Reading stage of this measure is to explain to me what they actually meant. It may just be that they did not understand what they were talking about.

You are so knowledgeable on this Bill. Why do you know nothing about parliamentary procedure? I think that is your trouble.

Mr. Speaker, when the last page of the final chapter of the history of the NRP is written, I believe we will all be only too delighted. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister again that we do support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Parktown again for his support for this measure. As far as animal tissue is concerned, I have already indicated to the hon. member that this is a matter that can be looked into again in the future.

As far as the Medical Control Council is concerned, which the hon. member spoke about, I think he meant the Medicines Control Board.

Yes.

That is also controlled by the Department of Health and Welfare, which means that that board cannot issue any regulation without the approval of the Minister of Health and Welfare. I do not therefore foresee any problems in that respect.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Legislation involving the protection and care of children in South Africa has had a long history. One can trace it back to the British legislation of the previous century. The first Act in South Africa that made specific provision for the child in need of care, namely the Children’s Protection Act, 1913, was, with minor amendments, taken over verbatim from the British legislation.

Since the Act of 1913 the Children’s Acts of 1937 and the Children’s Act, 1960, were placed on the Statute Book, and in my opinion since then South Africa has developed its own law of the child. There are, however, still a few provisions, for example in chapter 2 of the Children’s Act, 1960, which deals with the protection of children, which can only be properly understood if its British origins are studied.

The Bill now being considered therefore also has, as its aim, the removal of outdated provisions in the Children’s Act, 1960, provisions that have fallen completely into disuse.

Another important reason why it has been found necessary to review the Children’s Act, 1960, is to be found in the development that has taken place in the welfare field, and particularly in the field of social work. As a result of this development, almost eight years ago there was felt to be a need to review the Children’s Act, 1960, and to bring it up to date. Interested people and organizations were asked, at the time, to submit proposals, and attempts were made to draw up a new Bill. The preparation of legislation, however, had to be abandoned time and again for various reasons, inter alia investigations into matters relating to the Bill.

There was even a request that the Bill be held back in expectation of the Hoexter Commission’s report on the possibilities of establishing family courts. I would not like to try to anticipate the commission’s report, but I do want to point out that if family courts become a reality in South Africa, all the laws involving families and members of families would have to be revised. As far as this Bill is concerned, only chapter 2 would involve family courts to any fundamental degree. In my opinion this is not a sufficient reason to delay the introduction of the Bill any further.

The name of the Bill is the “Child Care Bill”. In this way recognition is granted to the general principle that the family is the normal social and biological structure within which the child must grow and develop. The legislation does not, therefore, focus solely on the child, or solely on the child’s parent, but on both. The emphasis is therefore on the care of the child by the parents or by those entrusted with the custody of the child.

There are accusations that the Bill now focuses only on the parents, whilst the focus has previously always been directed solely at the child. This is not so. The focus has never been solely directed at the child. Even the term “child in need of care” or “sorgbehoewende kind” indicates that what is involved here is a child in regard to whose care something is lacking. If one analyses the definition of a “child in need of care” in the Children’s Act, 1960, one finds that it is a child who does not have a parent, or whose parents do not care for him or cannot care for him because he is uncontrollable. The focus has therefore always been directed at the child and at those responsible for his care, and not only at the child himself.

Whatever the case may be, I think the time has come for us to tell an incompetent parent, without beating about the bush, that his child is in need of care because he is an incompetent parent, and that action should be taken against these unfit parents for the sake of the child. I have some sympathy for parents who are not able to fulfil their parental obligations, because in general they are good and responsible parents. They are the people who normally consult a social worker to ask for help and advice with their problem children.

In the past two decades strong emphasis has been placed on preventive services when it comes to child care. The point of view today is to keep children and their parents out of the children’s court as far as possible. We are no longer living in the days when the only protection that could be afforded a child was to punish the parents or to have the child admitted to an institution. A welfare organization has informed me that it is in less than 10% of the cases of children who are allegedly in need of care that the help of the children’s court is necessary to arrange for substitute care for the children. In less than 1% of the cases does a social worker need the help of a children’s court to carry out therapeutic services in respect of the parents.

Chapter 3 of the Bill is therefore simply intended as an aid to enable social workers to take action in extreme cases where the child needs immediate protection, or where the co-operation of parents and children cannot be obtained. It is for this reason that the right will now be granted to certain social workers, for example those in the service of registered family organizations, to remove children, in extreme cases, to a place of safety without previous permission or a warrant being necessary.

As far as adopted children are concerned, the Bill follows approximately the same course as the previous legislation, although important amendments have been introduced.

The most striking amendment is that the only age requirement now being laid down relates to the child being adopted, such child having to be younger than 18 years. All other age requirements have been done away with, because the interests of the child ought to be decisive in considering an adoption. In addition, it will no longer be necessary or possible, in future, for the parent of a child to adopt his own child.

Clause 20(2) envisages greater clarity in regard to the status of the adopted child, with a view to eliminating any possible misunderstanding. In terms of this clause, the adopted child is not only the legitimate child of its adoptive parent, but is also regarded in law as having been born of that parent during the existence of a lawful marriage. Provision has also been made, by regulation, for prescribing the procedure, in suitable circumstances, for publishing particulars of adoptions. Thus it will be possible to inform an adopted child of his origins.

I also just want to refer briefly to a few other new provisions incorporated in the Bill, including certain important amendments to the existing Act.

The Child Welfare Advisory Council, provided for in chapter 1, will meet an urgent need for the co-ordination of the functions of State departments and other bodies directly involved in child welfare services.

As in the case of previous Acts, the Bill makes inroads into an individual’s freedom and privacy if the interests of the child require this. The Bill, however, offers parents and their children protection against arbitrary action. As a general principle a child can only be removed from the care of his parents on the basis of a warrant or an order of the children’s court. In cases where children must, of necessity, be removed without a warrant, clause 12(2) guards against this being done in secret.

Clause 14 expressly provides that the children’s court can, in future, request reports from social workers in connection with the circumstances of the child or its parents.

A very important provision in regard to foster children and children in institutions is that contained in clause 33(3). In terms of this provision these children can, on a voluntary basis, remain in foster care or in the institutions after they have been discharged. This will enable those who are still busy with their studies to continue with such studies without interruption.

Ill-treatment and undernourishment of children is a problem of our time. For that reason provision is made, in clause 42, for the compulsory notification of ill-treated or undernourished children by medical practitioners, dentists and nurses.

There are quite a few provisions of the Children’s Act, 1960, which are not being incorporated again. In general, those provisions have been omitted because they are out of date and are not or cannot be implemented. Section 83 of the Children’s Act, 1960, is, however, an exception that I specifically want to mention. This section provides that a children’s court can give temporary custody of a child to one parent, normally in anticipation of a divorce action. I want to make it clear that I support the principles on which this section is based, because it is not in the interests of the child to have his parents involved in a tug of war over him. I do believe, however, that the Bill is not the right place in which to make provision for this. It is a matter rightfully belonging within the ambit of the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953, and section 5 of the latter Act already has the same purport as the old section 83. If there is any deficiency in section 5 of the Matrimonial Affairs Act, this must be rectified. We cannot, on the State Book, have a few provisions in various Acts regulating the same matter.

The Bill does not make provision for the erection and maintenance of schools of industry or reform schools either. The necessary provisions will, in due course, be incorporated in suitable education legislation.

To all those persons and organizations that helped to bring this Bill into being, I want to extend my thanks for their co-operation. The Bill is indeed a team-effort and the result of co-operation between the State, welfare organizations and members from several different professions. Quite some comment and a number of proposals were received. It was not, of course, possible to comply with all the requests, but even those who were most vehemently opposed to this, made their contribution towards introducing improvements.

This Bill deals with our country’s greatest and most important asset, that of its children. We may perhaps disagree about the detail, but about the underlying principle that only the best interests of our children should be served, we must not disagree. For this reason I trust I shall obtain the support of the House for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following amendment—

The underlying philosophy of any legislation dealing with the care of children must be that the interest of the child is paramount. Throughout the history of our country this basic truth has been emphasized time and time again in decided cases of our Supreme Court. It is therefore obvious that when we study the Child Care Bill provision must be seen to be made so that the interests of the child are taken into account above all else.

Having stressed the interests of the child, I want to say that there must also be protection of the interests of the parents. Unscrupulous people cannot have children taken away from their natural parents without good cause.

Why do we ask for a Select Committee? We consider that it is an inopportune time to introduce legislation to replace and radically alter the Children’s Act of 1960. I should like to give basically five reasons for this in dealing with the Bill in general although, if one takes the Bill clause by clause, many more reasons can be found. However, I shall spare the hon. the Minister because other speakers on this side of the House will go into more detail at a later stage.

Thank you for your consideration.

Firstly, as the hon. the Minister said, the Hoexter Commission is investigating the structure and function of the courts. It would appear from evidence given before this commission that the commission will have little alternative but to recommend that family courts be established in this country. If this is correct—and I believe it is—we shall have to come back next session to effect major amendments to this Bill. Secondly, to my knowledge the Government has not responded to the recommendation of the De Meyer Committee which investigated the institutional care of White Children. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will confirm it if my facts are correct. Is this perhaps the reason why the Children’s Act of 1960 is not to be repealed in so far as it relates to the establishment, maintenance and management of schools of industry and reform schools? I think the hon. the Minister referred to this during his Second Reading speech. I shall be grateful for the hon. the Minister’s explanation in this regard and I want to ask: What about children’s homes, places of safety and places of detention? Thirdly, the Children’s Act of 1960 is not to be repealed in so far as it relates to the appointment of probation offices. Rumour has it—and again the hon. the Minister can confirm the truth of this—that it is intended to establish probation officers as a category of associated workers in terms of the Social and Associated Workers Act of 1978. I shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister will respond to this statement. Fourthly—and I believe this is to be very important—we shall be debating the new constitutional legislation in this House. In this regard I am very pleased the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is present here today. In spite of protests and memoranda, the State, for its own political reasons, continues its illogical fragmentation of social services among the various race groups in this country. This is reflected in three Ministers and four Government departments concerned with social services, namely Health and Welfare for Whites, Internal Affairs for Coloureds and Asians and Co-operation and Development for Blacks. We in South Africa have the peculiar situation where we have one Minister of Health but three of Welfare. The Department of Health deals with all races, but the Welfare section of the same department deals with Whites only. The result is that different policies are adopted for the various race groups and this fragmentation is further extended into the structure of regional welfare boards where, instead of the old nine boards dealing with all the race groups throughout the country, we now have one regional board for each of the race groups in various areas, resulting in a total of some 24 regional boards all dealing with the same subject but among different races.

Clause 2 deals with the proposed establishment of the Child Welfare Advisory Council and clause 2(2)(c) states that at least one of the council members must be an official from each of the departments of Health and Welfare, Internal Affairs, Co-operation and Development, National Education, Justice, and Education and Training. The racial differences run right through this clause. My question to the hon. the Minister is: What will the structure of social welfare services be under our new constitution? Will the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs still be responsible for Coloured and Asian social welfare? Unless the answer is yes, there will be no difference and there is really no further need to deal with the Bill at present, because more and more amendments will have to be brought about. That is the fourth reason why we need a Select Committee.

I now come to the fifth reason. I notice that the hon. the Minister is smiling. I think it is a very valid and true point.

I am not going to praise you again as I did the other day.

The hon. the Minister ought to realize that this comes from both sides. I praised him last week as well, and if I do not praise him this week he should not be offended. There is a reason for this.

Let me proceed with the fifth reason. There is no doubt that controversy rages amongst social workers about this Bill. They are of the opinion that their comments on the two previous draft Bills have been ignored. Whether they are right or wrong is not at all for me to debate here, but that there is great dissatisfaction is apparent from all the letters, telegrams and telephone calls which the hon. the Minister and I have received.

What does the hon. member have in mind when he refers to two previous draft Bills?

When I spoke to the hon. the Minister, he informed me that there were two draft Bills. What I now say comes from the hon. the Minister himself. The hon. the Minister suggested that there were two previous occasions on which the legislation was discussed. If there were not draft Bills under discussion on those two occasions then I apologize to the hon. the Minister. Nevertheless, I think the hon. the Minister knows what I am trying to say.

In my opinion it will be totally incorrect and foolish to continue with the Bill in this atmosphere at controversy, and the hon. the Minister cannot argue about that. This has unfortunately placed the Bill within the political arena and has engendered opposition, frustration and bitterness among many social workers who are central and vital to the successful implementation of this legislation.

I want to warn the Government that unless urgent attention is given to improving the salaries and conditions of employment of social workers, there will not be social workers to carry out the task assigned to them in terms of the Bill.

Because of these five reasons I am sure the hon. the Minister will accept our proposal that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

I now want to deal with the Bill itself. Dealing with the Bill itself I want to make a few comments to further my argument that a Select Committee should be appointed. In the Bill the concept of a “child in need of care” has, I believe, mistakenly been dropped in favour of the parent being unable or unfit to have custody of the child. This will result in many disadvantages, for example, firstly, the focus has shifted from the child—that is where the focus should and must be—to the parents. Secondly, in spite of the focus now being on the child, parents often feel that they are being prosecuted. Social workers tell me that they can reassure such parents that the children’s court inquiry is held to determine whether the child in question is a child in need of care, but in terms of the Bill the parents, in fact, will be on trial.

I hope the hon. the Minister realizes what our child philosophy in South Africa embraces; not only in South Africa, but in the rest of the world as well. It has always been the position that the highest value is placed upon maintaining intact family units. Where children are removed from their parents, the idea is to return them to their parents as soon as possible. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this would still be possible. Does the hon. the Minister agree that successful family reconstruction when children have been removed from their parents’ custody is largely and obviously dependent upon good co-operation between the parents and the social worker? Again I believe the hon. the Minister will agree with this statement. I should now like the hon. the Minister to tell the House how this is to be achieved when the social worker has been instrumental in putting the parents on trial. Does he think that that trust will then remain? Will there in such circumstances be understanding and a chance to bring the family together again?

This unfortunate attitude of blaming rather than helping parents is further demonstrated in clause 50 where the penalty for ill-treatment or abandonment of children is set at a fine not exceeding R5 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and imprisonment. Sir, if you look at the Children’s Act of I960, you see that the penalty was R400 or imprisonment for a period of two years. We have discussed the cost of living, but I think the hon. the Minister must agree that this is rather excessive. I have used this point to try to justify how the emphasis has changed from the Children’s Act to this present Bill.

If this Bill as it stands now is accepted, it will become almost impossible adequately to protect certain categories of children, for example ill-treated and neglected children. I want to tell the hon. the Minister once again that he must agree that the Bill provides that it is not sufficient to satisfy the court that the child is ill-treated or neglected. The court will have to be satisfied that the parents ill-treated or neglected the child or allowed it to be ill-treated or neglected. Does the hon. the Minister realize that it will not be sufficient to satisfy the court that the child has been sexually abused? The court will have to be satisfied that the parents caused or conduced to the seduction, abduction or prostitution of the child or the commission by the child of immoral acts. Now we have the most unforgivable and unacceptable part if we have child care as our main object. If the court is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the parents are responsible for the ill-treatment, neglect or sexual abuse, even if it can be proved that the child has been ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, nothing can be done to protect the child from further ill-treatment, neglect or abuse. I believe that this is not what we want child care to be about. Does the hon. House want to have children in need treated like this? I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, and I stress “welfare”, can be proud of introducing such a principle. Child-care associations are bitterly opposed to this. Social workers are bitterly opposed to this. I think the hon. the Minister knows that. I believe that South Africa, and especially innocent children in need of care, will not forgive us for passing this Bill. This is another reason to refer this Bill to a Select Committee.

Sir, if I may, I should like to deal with some of the clauses of the Bill to further motivate my request for a Select Committee. Chapter 1 deals with the Child Welfare Advisory Council. In principle we on this side of the House support such a council, but the welfare structure is already so fragmented with 25 regional welfare boards, the S.A. Welfare Council, the Prime Minister’s welfare adviser, the regional development committees of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, all of which are to some extent concerned with functions ascribed by the council. Secondly, as I have said before, six of the council members are to be State officials, whereas the provision of child welfare services is largely undertaken by voluntary welfare organizations. There will be six officials—there may be more—but the people who actually deal with it, can at the most be six.

Chapter 2 deals with the children’s courts and Commissioners of child welfare. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to appoint, at least in the larger centres, special children’s courts with specially trained officials, for example commissioners of child welfare and children’s court assistants.

Chapter 3 deals with the protection of children. Only illegitimate children under the age of seven are protected by clause 10. Why not all children under the age of seven years? If it is the intention particularly to protect young children of single parents, one need only to consider the high divorce rate to realize that there are many children of single parents other than illegitimate children. I would like the hon. the Minister’s comment on that.

The provisions of clause 10(l)(b) are to be welcomed in so far as they appear to be an effort to protect children placed for adoption. It is hoped that the regulations will further protect such children by the commissioner insisting on a social worker’s report prior to consent being given by the Commissioner of Child Welfare in terms of clause 10(l)(b)(ii). Social workers are extremely concerned that the practice of private and third party adoption should cease.

Clause 13(2) gives power to the children’s court assistant to decide whether or not a case should be brought before the children’s court. These are far-reaching powers for any officer in the Public Service. This matter also falls under clause 7(2). At present children’s court assistants are drawn from clerical staff and I think the hon. the Minister will agree that this is not acceptable.

With regard to clause 14, there has been an unbelievable amount of protest against this clause. Clause 14(2) states—

I think that should rather be “shall”. I think it is very important that a social worker should submit a report. Inquiries received did not only show concern about whether a child has no parent or guardian, but also whether the child is in the custody of a person who is unable or unfit to have custody of the child. This falls under clause 14(4).

There is also concern about the children’s court being able to issue an order in terms of clause 15. We on this side of the House fail to see how an inquiry can be properly held, and more particularly how an appropriate order in terms of clause 15 can be made without a social worker’s report. Clause 15(4) makes provision for the immediate availability for adoption of certain categories of children. Such a deprivation of basic parental rights should only be undertaken on an individual basis and not for categories of children.

Chapter 4 deals with adoptions. Clause 19 makes provision for circumstances under which the consent of parents for the adoption of their child is not required. It is to be hoped that the provisions of clause 19(b)(iii) and (iv) exist for the interests of the child and not for the purpose of saving money for the State, i.e. if such children are adopted State foster parents and children’s homes grants cease, as the hon. the Minister well knows. If the provisions are indeed intended to serve the interests of children, it should be remembered that many such children are not easily adoptable, e.g. by virtue of age, membership of a family, traumatic background or shortage of adoptive parents. Provision should therefore be made for subsidized adoptions. There is no provision for the adoption without consent of a child of a habitual criminal. However, such provision exists in section 72 of the Children’s Act, 1960. There is also no provision for adoption without consent of a child of separated or divorced parents whose noncustodian parent fails financially to maintain or to have any contact with the child. One of my colleagues has already placed an amendment on the Order Paper, but the status of children conceived by means of artificial insemination was not provided for in the original draft of this Bill but does not appear in the Bill before us. Such children, we believe, need protection, and I believe that the hon. the Minister has already seen the amendment.

Clause 34 provides for the transfer of children from one custody or institution to another. Certain transfer powers are vested in the Minister, and it is hoped that the hon. the Minister will, in terms of clause 59, delegate those powers to regional officers to avoid the long delays, delays from four to six months, presently being experienced under a similar provision in the Child Act of 1960.

In terms of clause 35 foster parents get the power to grant or cancel leave of absence of foster children. I have received quite a number of representations on this provision. This power should be vested in a social worker and not in the foster parent. Foster parents could for instance refuse to grant leave of absence for a foster child to spend weekends with natural parents.

Clause 42 requires notification of injured and undernourished children. This is to be welcomed. However, the persons who are required to notify should include teachers and managers of places of care. As it stands now it is too limited. In practice many ill-treated children are referred to social workers by these institutions. Furthermore, many ill-treated and undernourished children, especially in the lower subeconomic group, are not attended to by dentists, medical practitioners or nurses. These then will filter through other institutions and organizations to a social worker.

In regard to the general provisions of the Bill, clause 60 makes provision for regulations which will form an integral part of the legislation and are particularly relevant to the application of this legislation by social workers and other officials concerned. It is therefore submitted that these people should be consulted when these regulations are drawn up. It is also to be deplored that the administration of this legislation may be assigned to a number of Ministers. With the developments towards a new constitution for South Africa all this will have to be changed again in any event.

Lastly, Sir, there are important omissions in the Bill. Colleagues of mine will deal with these. I would just like to draw attention to a few. For instance, no provision is made to protect children in respect of begging, unauthorized street trading and unauthorized performance by children. I refer here to sections 21 to 24 of the Children’s Act of 1960. Furthermore temporary custody of children of parents who are living apart falls under section 83 of the Children’s Act of 1960. With the high rate of breakdowns in marriages this type of child is increasing in numbers. It might be contended that the present Divorce Act provide for speedy divorces and that, as a consequence, temporary custody of such children is no longer necessary. Sir, it would, however, be most unfortunate if married couples were forced to finalize divorce prematurely as the only way to settle a custody dispute. Lastly, this Bill makes provision for an appeal against orders of the childrens’ court only in matters relating to adoption. We believe that appeals should be possible on all orders made by the childrens’ court. It should be viewed as a competent court of law.

Mr. Speaker, I have advanced certain reasons and have tried to motivate them to show why we on this side of the House believe that the Bill must be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the attitude adopted by the hon. official Opposition today concerning Select Committees. Last week they came here and told us that they were happy with Select Committees. With them, the instrument that pronounces the first and final word is their caucus. Their caucus decides for them, and in the process even negates decisions of Select Committees. In his speech the hon. member for Parktown dealt with this Bill in all its stages; Second Reading, Committee Stage and Third Reading. His argument was basically to the effect that this legislation was supposedly inappropriate and went against the grain of normal and natural developments of any legislation that concerns society, particularly if it dates from as far back as 1960. Therefore, according to the hon. member, it is imperative that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate this. In the short time-at my disposal I am not going to try to deal with each of the various clauses. Some of my hon. colleagues will deal with certain aspects of them. However, in the Committee Stage we shall deal with each separate aspect and support the hon. the Minister where necessary.

Accordingly I just wish to thank the hon. the Minister right at the outset for having allowed me to place an amendment on the Order Paper, an amendment in which I move that clause 15(4) be deleted. As a further amendment I shall also move during the Committee Stage that clause 19(b)(iii) be deleted and replaced by other words. I shall fully elucidate this amendment during the Committee Stage. I just wish to point out—and I hope that it pleases the hon. the Minister—that it accommodates a good 80% of the representations received in connection with this new legislation on child welfare.

Basically, what is involved is that reference is made here to a situation in which the court can decide to have parents relinquish the right to claim their child and that such a child can immediately be made available for adoption. Looking at this as it is worded in the Bill at present, I concede that not much could be achieved in that respect as regards the whole idea of family welfare, of family welfare services and of rehabilitation at the social level. Accordingly I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has allowed me to place this amendment on the Order Paper and also to give notice of a further amendment.

At this point I just wish to react briefly to a few ideas put forward by the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member is free to repudiate me at a later stage if my inferences are incorrect, but it does seem to me, particularly with reference to what is going to happen next week when the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning introduces the draft constitution here, that the hon. member for Parktown is not happy about the existence of separate social services for the separate population groups in South Africa. I wish to put it to the hon. member that he did far better last week when he participated in the discussion of the Human Tissue Bill. The reason for that, of course, is that he is well acquainted with the contents of that legislation. However, he showed clearly today that he is by no means an expert on social work and social welfare. [Interjections.]

I have found—and I should like to place this on record today—since I have had the privilege of being a member of a variety of national boards for many years—and we also note who will be represented in the proposed Child Welfare Advisory Council—that as regards various councils and various social services for the separate population groups in South Africa—for example, the National Council for Maternal and Family Welfare, the National Council for Alcoholism and Drugs and several other national councils in which the other population groups also had representation—they always prefer to deal with their own affairs because the needs of the various population groups differ so radically from one another. One can still apply the same social principles. One can also lay down the same basic guidelines as far as principles are concerned. One’s methods may, by implication, be the same. However, when it is a matter of the individual in his environment, then the needs of the people in Soweto, for example, differ from those in Mitchell’s Plain, and the needs of the people in Pretoria differ from those in Durban.

Their health as well?

Then, too, due to historical development in South Africa there are many different organizations and national councils. The various churches have also come forward with their own social services. I wish to state categorically that all this would not have happened if these specific needs had not been identified in the community and the organizations concerned had not been developed into the fine organizations they are today. I wish to pay tribute to these organizations. They all take an intense interest in this new Child Care Bill. Now provision is being made for the establishment of a new Child Welfare Advisory Council. The emphasis falls on the word “advisory”. The National Council for Maternal and Family Welfare has for years been performing a monumental task in South Africa. They present courses. There are courses for the various language groups and the various population groups. I mention this just to illustrate once again that the point of departure of the hon. member for Parktown is faulty, and that he is making a basic logical error, because he sees South Africa as an integrationist homogeneous community, instead of taking cognizance of the various population groups and the heterogeneity of the society with its different groups.

We must pay tribute today to the Algemene Kommissie vir die Diens van Barmhartigheid of the Dutch Reformed Church for the work done by them over the years. This is the organization with the biggest social aid programme in the social sphere in South Africa. These services are not only for the Whites, but are also extended to the daughter churches that have been established. I shall come back to that commission later. Then there is the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa, the AFM, that has done outstanding work in its field, particularly in the cities. There is also the S.A. Council for Epileptics, and the Ondersteuningsraad of the Hervormde Kerk which provides tremendously good services, particularly in Johannesburg. That is not even to mention all the different councils affiliated with the Federate Vroueraad such as the ACVV, the OVV and many others. The point I want to make is that we are dealing with a multi-disciplinary approach. We are also dealing with over-arching legislation and an umbrella advisory council that is being established specifically in order to deal with the special services in this tremendously wide field.

I wish to convey a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister. In his Second Reading speech he referred to the fact that representations were made eight years ago, in the first place to departmental committees, that the old Children’s Act of 1960 should be looked at. Study committees were appointed and working groups were set in operation, and they came forward with submissions indicating that there were shortcomings in the existing Act. In this period of eight years a natural process of development has taken place and the former hon. Minister of Health and Welfare and the present hon. Minister as well as the officials of the department have conducted interviews with interested parties and discussed this matter in depth. In the course of time they took with them the majority of the professional people active in this specific sphere. I believe that together with the amendments which the hon. the Minister, other hon. members and I will move, and after the legislation has been taken through all its stages and debated, South Africa will have a Children’s Act of which it can be just as proud as it is of the Act of 1960.

In the second place, I wish to point out some positive characteristics of this Bill. The definition of social work is spelt out very clearly. I shall come back to this. It is necessary to do so because there has been and still is a lot of lobbying in favour of giving the profession of social worker a more subordinate position in the new legislation than was the case in the old legislation. That is not the case.

Moreover, checks are being incorporated in the legislation with regard to the surrender and receipt of a child. The amendment I intend moving relates to this. Doing away with the provision relating to the granting of permission for adoption by foster parents is also a positive step. The emphasis is not focused on the child alone, but on the parents as well. It is in this regard that I differ very strongly from the opinions of the hon. member for Parktown and from the opinions of the people who have advised him. Legislation on child welfare concerns children in need of care. Although in the Bill the term “in need of care” is not strongly stressed, nevertheless all the entrenched provisions for dealing with children in need of care are still in the legislation. As far as need for care is concerned, the emphasis must not fall on the child only but also on the parents. One cannot see the child who is in need of care, in isolation from his family. In every case of a child in need of care, parents are also involved, one or both of the parents who are responsible for the condition of the child. One of the gravest forms of the need for care is perhaps due to the extremely grave developments that are taking place in the social sphere, viz. the more people there are, the more social problems there are. Moreover, social problems increase in intensity in high population density areas. This is particularly so because we are becoming industrialized and materialism is gaining the upper hand over spiritual values. It is when this happens that such things occur. In this regard I can refer to child abuse. My hon. colleague for Randfontein will discuss this later. Therefore one must not look at the child alone but also at the family constellation. Accordingly it is as well that this legislation provides for that. This legislation does not cause the emphasis to fall on the two parents in a haphazard fashion, but asks who is the guilty and who is the innocent parent with regard to a child’s need of care. I think that this is a major improvement that is being introduced here. It leaves the way clear for the innocent parent to come forward and repair the family bond. I say this specifically because as far as the various churches are concerned, it is of the utmost importance that not only the sacredness but also the importance of the family and family life should be upheld at all times. This brings me to another aspect, viz. the reconstruction services offered in South Africa by the various religious organizations, welfare organizations, as well as the State through its service arms.

I have said—and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough—that we on this side of the House recognize the importance of the family and of marital life and in addition, the need for the role of the social workers in the fragmented family in society and the family set-up. This also means that consideration must be given to what happens at the children’s court, what really happens when the children’s court functions with regard to dealing with the child in need of care where one, or both or neither of the parents, foster parents or adoptive parents are involved. It is good to be able to say at this stage that reference is made in the legislation to the fact that the assistant who will act in the children’s court on behalf of the Minister will, in virtually all cases, be a qualified social worker. Moreover, it is esential that this should be so. It is also good that we should mention this so that the public at large, who are intensely concerned with family welfare services, will take cognizance of the profound appreciation there is for the profession of the social workers as such. The hon. the Minister will in due course reply to certain insinuations made by the hon. member for Parktown. This is in respect of the social workers in his or her profession as a highly qualified person performing specific services. We have the greatest appreciation for them and I believe that the Government, too, particularly with reference to the directive by the hon. the Prime Minister that all the various professions will be reviewed by way of the Commission for Administration that is investigating this matter, will in due course investigate the specific postion of the social worker, too, within the total framework of not only the Public Service, but also the family welfare services in general.

I have said that this Government has done its share at various levels to have this legislation drawn up and recognize the place of safety for the children and the placing of children in the family context and the special importance of reporting, so that the assistant, whether he is a social worker or not—and in any event it is very probable that he will be—and the magistrate as well should have insight into reports drawn up so as to put the whole picture in the right perspective as far as the specific case is concerned. Then, too, there is the fact—and I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for this because it motivates what I have just said—that one cannot put together all the family welfare, social and welfare services for the various groups in South Africa. That is simply not how it works. As regards the White group, in its specific religious and cultural context, I wish to express the hope that the attitude that exists between the child and the foster parents will not conflict as far as the cultural and religious links are concerned. Here I refer to the so-called Stals policy. If we want a good example of what the Government means by “own affairs” then we have here an outstanding example of the Government’s intentions as regards “own affairs” in which each group will look after the needs of its own people, particularly where welfare matters are concerned.

I just wish to make a few remarks with regard to the old Act and establish a guideline with regard to a basic philosophy. In the third place, I also wish to indicate what happens with regard to social work or social welfare as such in order to draw a few conclusions. It is true—and the hon. the Minister has referred to this—that the present Children’s Act, Act No. 33 of 1960, has often been described as a model Act, but in the course of time there have been representations to the effect that the department, and other bodies that have also been instructed in this regard, should take a look at the Children’s Act. I am aware of commissions that are at present working on this.

In the second place, it is a matter of deficiencies being identified. Only by doing this can we improve family welfare services.

In the third place it seems to me that a section of the public is under the impression that by means of the new legislation we are throwing out all basic principles and the philosophies expressed in the Children’s Act, 1960. This is not so.

When I speak about a basic philosophy, in the first place I want to say that it is the intention of neither the State, nor the Government, nor the department to act as the conscience of the various existing social welfare services as regards how they are to perform their specific task, but the intention is that the State will create the instruments to enable all these fine organizations to best serve the most precious heritage of our country, our children. This is particularly the case in instances where speciality services are required, because family fragmentation has occurred due to the social milieu in which we find ourselves today. Because such cases do, moreover, escalate, adjustments have to be effected in order to deal with them more effectively. I therefore wish to state very clearly that we are not seeking to take over the functions from all the services engaged in the social sphere at present. On the contrary, we say they must continue, we appreciate what they are doing and we should support them wherever we can. This brings me to the next point, to the social worker. As a professional person, the social worker occupies a special place in the society. He or she performs his or her professional task with the utmost dedication and enthusiasm, because these people have a vocation. They must of course be well remunerated in order to make a living. However, no one will ever be able to repay in rands and cents the people who work in the spiritual sphere. How could one ever repay a clergyman in rands and cents for the work he does throughout his life among people in his community? The same applies when a person is concerned with social welfare services in the social sphere. The same applies as regards a teacher’s work with children. [Interjections.] There are things at stake here that do not apply in other spheres. Such a person is not ruled by materialism; his guiding principles are his vocation and service to the community. Basically, those are the philosophic tendencies that we on this side of the House endorse.

Social work as a practice ought of course to be singled out together with and among all other professions because it performs such a cardinal role and function with regard to its own directive. They, too, operate in a scientific way. To carry out research, certain practices are instituted, orientations are done, effective preventive services are instituted and ultimately, social work as such itself puts the question: What happens once we have carried out the scientific evaluation? In the first place one does of course try to identify and, in the second place, one tries to deal with the problem that has manifested itself by way of preventive services. If one has not been able to succeed in defusing social problems at the preventive level one can at least try to deal with the existing ones and take remedial action where necessary. I think that the most important objective that this specific profession sets itself is rather to take preventive action, but also to ensure that its welfare services keep abreast of circumstances. It is true that the area we are discussing is operative over a very wide field. It may appear that social work, viz. the welfare services of the Government, private organizations, churches, etc. do not enjoy a very high priority with regard to the profession as such. It is the view of this side of the House that churches and private organizations cannot do all the work alone but that the services of the State and the private sector must together build up a good mutual working relationship so that all three of those components can give of their best in this particular sphere. With that in mind certain programmes have been initiated and, for example, the social worker has been involved in this particular facet of society to act as promoter for his or her treatment programme with regard to that specific matter.

This brings me to the final point that I want to bring to the attention of the House. Clause 2 concerns the new Child Welfare Advisory Council. Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Parktown, referred to this council. I think that it is a step in the right direction to establish a body that will have a co-ordinating function, will be of a multi-disciplinary nature and which will cater for this particular field of work in our society.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown has given the House five reasons why he thinks this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I have just been listening to the hon. member for Brits, but I do not think he has succeeded in refuting the five arguments—one can add even more arguments—indicating why the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. I have no doubt of the fact that all of us in the House have a great deal of interest in, and appreciation for, this Bill. The Conservative Party appreciates the Bill itself and the thoroughness of the endeavour to present it to us in this form. We understand the importance of this Bill. I am, however, of the opinion that the law and its cause could be properly served if this Bill were referred to a Select Committee. In the light of the good work that has been done in regard to this Bill, we think that by doing so we could improve the Bill. A Select Committee could hear a wide spectrum of evidence. I trust the hon. the Minister will give due attention to this particular request.

The hon. the Minister is right when he says that the principles of this Bill extend far back into the past. I think it is of interest to us that this Bill had its origins in an erstwhile British law. All of us who have read the history of Europe, and particularly that of Britain, are aware of the fact that with the great Industrial Revolution, which took place during the previous century, and with the tremendous amount of urbanization that subsequently took place, with its appalling implications for family life, in particular as far as children and old people are concerned, the principles of the Bill were well entrenched since they derived from a particular human milieu that reflected the poor consequences attendant upon large concentrations of people. Here in South Africa we also, to a large extent, have the problem of the urbanization of people, something which does not only create problems in the urban areas. Problems such as child neglect are matters one does not only encounter in urban complexes. They also occur in rural communities, however sad this may be.

I do think, however, that we all greatly appreciate what has been done in recent decades by way of social work, in particular this facet of social work. Here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Brits. As far as my knowledge of the hon. member for Brits goes, he is competent to speak on this matter. In his academic training he made a particular study of this aspect. As far as that is concerned, I appreciate his standpoint and also many of the things he said here this evening. I want to associate myself with him when he says that we must greatly appreciate the work done by social workers, and not only their work, but also that of church organizations and other organizations which have, for many years now, been assisting the State in its functions in this connection. Then there are also the academics who have been lecturing at universities and been training our young people, from the very beginning, to do a specific and important task in our community. I say with all due respect to the hon. member for Brits—he and I have the same academic training—that I think that even a minister of a church does not always have such specialized training in social work.

The phenomenon we are faced with here revolves, to a large extent, around the family as the smallest social unit in the human community. As far as human communities are concerned, one can say that one is a modern man; one lives in a modern century, in a time in which we are also familiar with space, but there are certain basic functions and things in the human community that one cannot change, not with all the technology and everything that goes with it. In society the family, the smallest social unit, fulfils very many important functions, and the functions of the family in the most primitive of societies, the functions which welded the family as the smallest unit within the broader social organization, together, is that same unity which, in the most sophisticated and modern conditions, is the anchor that also has to keep modern-day society functioning. I want to add the fact that in the past century or two we have had the problem of people being taken out of their rural environment and of increasing populations going to live in large concentrations in the urban complexes. This has brought about a tremendous revolution, not only in regard to the material and cultural assets of human beings, but also in regard to their social and spiritual assets. Nor do I think that we, as politicians, people involved with statecraft, can get away from this very big problem. It is a tremendous problem that modern statecraft is saddled with.

I want to point out that the ill-treatment of the child—which in turn makes child care necessary—results from an unstable family life. A great deal has already been written and said about that. As far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for us all, it is a great source of concern that the family dissolution that we are experiencing leaves us with a community that creates problems for us in a great number of other fields. The concern is that much greater because we in South Africa are generally known as a conservative society, and that does not only apply to the Whites, but also to the Black communities. As far as the Black communities are concerned, in their social life they have certain fixed rules to assist them when, for example, a child is orphaned or his parents cannot look after him. Amongst them these rules are even stricter than amongst the Whites. I have found, as a teacher and as a lecturer at university, that when one encounters a student who is doing badly and asks him about the causes, one finds that very often his problem lies in the fact that his parents are having problems. Because the child has had no healthy family life, he is now experiencing problems. In our modern, established society, certain established values, built up around the human social structure, are today being questioned by libertines, people who simply question old-established values. One of those values involves sound marriage ties that arise out of the Christian and even non-Christian regulation of marriage. These values are rejected, and people enter into marriage and conceive children without wanting to accept their responsibility for those children. We can make laws in an effort to prevent this, but if we do not also look at the causes of phenomena such as child neglect, we will not really be able to solve this problem. That is why I say that it is important that we attempt to maintain the family unit and promote the fine ideals embodied in family life.

These days there are too many people who do not regard the responsibility of parenthood seriously enough. What I am therefore saying is that we cannot begin, at too early a stage, inculcating in prospective parents how essential responsible parenthood is. Discipline in family life, from the very beginning, is essential. As far as I am concerned, there are no steps that can be taken that are strict enough when it comes to a man and woman who neglect their children. One sometimes feels that one should prescribe much heavier penalties.

Mention was also made here of adopted children. I think one can indeed appreciate the fact of parents adopting children. I am aware of the fact that many small children thus find their way to parents who bring them up with the utmost care and love so that these adopted children can occupy as important a place in our society as those children who have the privilege of growing up in the care of their natural parents. In this matter the State has a great responsibility, and in this connection, the hon. the Minister, his department and their predecessors have, for many decades now, done great work in carrying out this function of the State. It is not, however, solely the task of the State, but also that of the church, of the school and of employers. In the times in which we live, I think that employers should also look after the family life of their employees. Over the years there has been much talk about migratory labour, about Black people who come to live in the urban complexes and about the resulting social problems. In a short space of time the Black man must be transferred from his traditional society into a highly technical society, so the Black people should also remind themselves that they are responsible for their own family unity and that this is not solely the task of the White Government.

Prevention is a very important aspect, and as far as that is concerned, I think the hon. the Minister is doing his best by way of this legislation. With this legislation we even steal a march on overseas countries, and they appreciate this fact. Legislation involving the protection of children is not simply ordinary legislation. It has to do with the protection of young children, children who are defenceless in the face of neglect and ill-treatment. That is why a Children’s Act must provide for their protection. Whilst listening to the hon. member for Brits, I was reminded of Mark, Chapter 10, verses 13 to 14, which read as follows—

1. 13 And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
2. 14 But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.

In our society today it is encouraging to know that even in New Testament days the accent was placed on problems of this nature.

On the other hand the legislation must not summarily deprive parents who are involved in their parental rights. There must be a balance in the legislation. In the Bill itself, I think, there are two shortcomings in this connection. In terms of clause 14(4)(b)(ii) the children’s court must prove that a child has been assaulted or ill-treated before such a child can be found to be in need of care and removed or placed, for protection, under the supervision of a social worker. The onus of proof in regard to specific assault and ill-treatment is more difficult to determine than any other grounds for a child being in need of care, particularly in the case of very small children who cannot openly lodge a complaint. The court will then chiefly have to judge on the basis of bodily injuries, because mental aspects such as fear and anxiety are difficult to prove. By the time proof can indeed be obtained, the degree of ill-treatment has reached such serious proportions that the child has already had to suffer tremendously. By that time the child could even be dead. In this connection provision has to be made for suspicion to be sufficient ground for action to be taken, because defenceless children are involved in this.

Nor should it be possible to deprive parents summarily of their parental rights. In this regard clause 15(4) contains the provision involving the finding that a child is in need of care. In terms of clause 14(4) the children’s court can, by way of an investigation, determine when a child can, without the parent’s permission, be put out for adoption. In clause 22, it is true, provision is made for an appeal, but the circumstances involved in finding that a child is in need of care are usually abnormal, tragic, highly emotional, etc. That must, of course, be borne in mind. At that stage it could happen that parents adopt an attitude of obstinacy, apparently not caring at all. One must, however, leave room for rehabilitation after the reconstruction service that is rendered, and for restoring family ties after rehabilitation.

When, however, a child is put out for adoption, there is no longer any room for restoring family ties. Attention must also be paid to the child himself, even though the finding that the child is in need of care is based on the reasons already mentioned. What child, knowing that his parents have probably been rehabilitated, will not want to be returned to the bosom of his family? An appeal immediately after a finding that a child is in need of care is extremely difficult, since it is perhaps negatively influenced by the parent’s situation, and the appeal could therefore, in consequence, be adversely affected.

In terms of clause 18(4)(e) a child over the age of eight years must himself consent to adoption. The question that arises in this connection is why an age of eight years was decided upon, and not six years, ten years, seven years or nine years. What difference does it make? A child of eight years of age can really not make any meaningful decision, particularly not in the light of the complications and consequences at stake here. The neglected and ill-treated child of eight years of age cannot really make a levelheaded decision. Emotionally he would not be in a position to do so and, in addition, would be confused and would make his decision under the constraints of his emotions and suffering. At a more advanced age, however, and in changed circumstances, that child would begin to feel differently; but by that time the die has perhaps already been cast. The child himself should therefore only decide during or after puberty—at the age of at least 14 or 15 years.

In clause 3(a), in line 55 on page 9, I think there ought to be an amendment. The word “welvaart” ought to be substituted by “welsyn”. The concept “welvaart” (prosperity) appears to focus solely on the material welfare of the child. I believe that here, however, we want to cover more than the mere financial prosperity of the child. Quite probably, in this context, the word “welvaart” is also an anglicism. Throughout the Bill the word “welsyn” (welfare) is used, for example in clause 11, clause 12 and elsewhere. There it is solely a question of the welfare of the child, and not merely a question of his prosperity.

In conclusion I want to put it to the Minister that even though we are requesting that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, we nevertheless think that it is good legislation. In the society in which we find ourselves I do not think we can adopt anything but tremendously stringent measures to counter the ill-treatment of children. By the very nature of things children and the aged cannot look after themselves. So if the hon. the Minister does not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Parktown, I am of the opinion that one must nevertheless, in some specific way, try to determine how this legislation can be improved at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, I can find no fault with what the hon. member for Rissik said about the Bill. He made it very clear that an unstable family life was the chief cause of many of the problems that children experienced. What is interesting is that if one looks at the hon. member for Rissik’s constituency, one finds—unfortunately I do not have the reference here with me—that in that part of Pretoria 62% of the parents who have their children living with them are single parents. This gives one an indication of the sort of problem experienced in this area. It also gives one an idea of the kind of problem one wants to try to rectify by way of this Bill.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister rightly mentioned the fact that a country’s greatest and most important asset is its children. It is specifically because we also attach such great value to our country’s children that we want to try to have the best possible legislation drawn up to deal with the problems affecting the child. That is the motive behind the amendment we are moving. One appreciates the fact that the department has, for a long time now, been trying to introduce a Bill that would solve the problem. One accepts the fact that the department has done its best to bring this about. This is, however, one of the most difficult fields to deal with. It is also one of the most difficult kinds of Bill to draw up if the object of such a Bill is to rectify the problem. It is specifically for this reason that it is our view that a broader investigation is necessary than has thus far taken place, although a great deal of thought has already been given to the Bill.

Thus far 20 amendments have already appeared on the Order Paper, and there are even more coming that I know of. This is an indication of the complexity of the kind of Bill we are dealing with. It is also an indication, I want to suggest, that there is indeed still room for improvement. As far as I am concerned, this is the best kind of indication that this Bill should perhaps again be referred to a Select Committee so that we can first discuss the amendments that have been proposed. An important amendment cannot effectively be discussed in a House such as this in which one cannot go into the matter in depth. As far as I am concerned, this in itself is sufficient reason for sending it to a Select Committee. The hon. member for Parktown gave five reasons why we are of the opinion that a Select Committee would be a suitable choice in this case. The first reason advanced—I am not going to repeat everything—is that the Hoexter Commission had not yet completed its task. It could be, of course, that only Chapter 2 of the Bill would be amended after the Hoexter Commission has submitted its report, but we do not know. The Hoexter Commission’s task is to investigate the whole field of family courts. It might well be, of course, that other aspects of family courts, for example adoptions …

Must all the other Bills that could possibly be affected, be left in abeyance until the Hoexter Commission has completed its work?

The position is that if the Hoexter Commission’s recommendation about a children’s court were accepted, it would be necessary to amend all existing legislation affected by this.

The children’s court was never at issue.

This Bill has been on the drawing board for eight years now, and it is our opinion that we could rather wait a few months longer to see what the Hoexter Commission has had to say about these matters, rather than pushing the legislation through now, because that is what we are busy doing. We are pushing it through. We hear that within a few months the Hoexter Commission will be tabling its final report. Then we shall be able to draw a comparison between what the Hoexter Commission has to say and what is contained in the Bill. I can see no reason why we cannot perhaps wait till next year’s session, because then we would be in a position to take the Hoexter Commission’s recommendations into consideration.

A further aspect which the hon. member for Parktown touched upon is the position of social workers. The hon. member for Brits also mentioned the position of social workers, and from the hon. the Minister’s interjections one gains the impression that he is perhaps going to say something positive about that later this afternoon. Perhaps he is going to make an announcement about the salaries of social workers, or possibly he is going to give some indication of an improvement in their working conditions. The hon. member for Brits tried to indicate with what great degree of appreciation he, and the Government as a whole, regarded social workers. If there is any group of professional people who find no indication of this in their working conditions, it is the group of social workers. If there is one group which is experiencing a crisis, it is the group of social workers. The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Brits know exactly what I am talking about. Social workers have, by now, had enough praise from the Government. What they are now waiting for is an actual improvement in their position. Could the hon. the Minister possibly give me an indication of whether we can expect something positive in this connection?

You will get your indication in good time.

In the Witwatersrand area 21 social workers completed their training last year, only 10 of whom subsequently chose social work as their profession. That was because the salaries were too low, the working conditions too difficult and the pressure too great. It is expected that only a small percentage of the 10 who did enter the profession, would still be in that profession in two years’ time. That is a general trend amongst social workers, and it gives us some indication of the problems they are faced with.

The hon. member for Parktown and other hon. members on this side of the House have, in the past two or three years, used every opportunity to deliver a plea for a better dispensation for social workers.

You really cannot attach all the blame to us. For half the period you mention, Andries Treurnicht was entrusted with that portfolio.

It is high time that social workers received the same improvements to their position as those received by teachers and nurses.

If social workers obtained the same dispensation as teachers, would that satisfy you?

It is difficult to answer that question. I would be satisfied if the same type of intensive investigation, attention and priority which is accorded teachers and nurses were also to be accorded social workers.

We would be satisfied if they are satisfied.

The second point raised by the hon. member for Brits was that welfare problems are, at present, dealt with by various departments. He indicated that this was because of the fact that the various population groups themselves wanted this. That is clearly something he has sucked out of his thumb.

Oh, no. Just go and read the minutes of all those boards.

If there is one field in which politics does not enter the picture and where racial differences do not cause problems, it is the the field of little children in need of care. One of the largest organizations active in this field is the S. A. National Council for Child and Family Welfare. This organization’s plea—the hon. member for Brits knows this—is for a system controlled by one authority. In their monthly publication, Kindersorg, of March 1983, this point is discussed. On page 2 mention is made of the following—

The people who have to deal with this problem, the people in daily contact with these problems, tell us that the fact that there are three departments involved in this, creates tremendous problems for them. They have asked the hon. the Minister to do something about this. Unfortunately the Bill before us does not afford much relief in this regard. There are, of course, very positive aspects of this Bill.

†I want to refer, for example, to the new provision which is generally welcomed by social welfare workers namely that an obligation will now be placed upon doctors and nurses to report instances of the maltreatment of children and of children in need of care. In my view this is also an improvement. I fact, we believe that it could even be extended to other categories of persons and we intend moving an amendment in this regard. We intend proposing that teachers, for example, be included as well. This is an aspect which in the past has created tremendous problems for social workers. They were confronted by members of the medical profession who maintained that their ethical rules prevented them from disclosing the fact that they had examined maltreated children. This aspect is, therefore, an improvement. There are others as well which I do not intend to deal with at this stage.

There are also weaknesses to which no reference has been made. I should like to mention one in regard to which an amendment may be recommended and that is the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court against an order made in terms of clause 15. The hon. member for Rissik has indicated that when one is dealing with the question of relationship between a parent and a child and the removal of the child from the custody of a parent, it is a most sensitive and controversial issue for the parties involved. I believe that it may well be necessary to provide for the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of decisions of this nature. It is correct that at the moment a right of appeal exists to the Minister. That is something that we appreciate but I believe that the parents whose child has been removed after a finding by the children’s court ought to be in a position to know that, should he so desire, the right of appeal exists to the Supreme Court against that order. There are problems connected with the provision for an appeal against such an order. It is not a straightforward matter. However, this again is an aspect that could be discussed in the Select Committee where experts could be called in to advise as to whether in fact it would benefit the parties concerned if there was a right of appeal. Again, we want to express the hope that this is something which we will be able to discuss in the Select Committee.

Social workers have indicated through the national council—the hon. the Minister knows which organization it is to which I am referring—that they would prefer this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading for that same reason. We believe that the Bill as it stands does have a great deal of merit but if there is one area in regard to which we can reach consensus, where we can make use of experts and where political leanings will not determine the outcome, it is in the sphere of child care. We want to ask the hon. the Minister once again to consider the possibility of referring this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading having regard to the grounds mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown. This would be of great assistance in dealing with the problem areas of children in need of care which in our country has reached alarming proportions. We know that last year almost 34 000 children of all races were placed in institutions or in foster care or received treatment. 34 000 children! One is dealing here with a tremendous potential asset for the country which, if not tackled properly under the guidance of an Act which has been thought through and refined properly in peace and calm, could create tremendous problems. I urge the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of a Select Committee. I hope that we shall hear a positive reply from him.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Durban Central, Parktown and Rissik are in agreement that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I think in general we are all in agreement with the hon. member for Rissik that this is in fact good legislation and that any changes that may have to be made will in all probability be minor changes.

I did not say that.

I therefore cannot see why one should refer the Bill to a Select Committee if one agrees that it is good legislation and that the necessary changes may be effected by means of amendments in this House.

The hon. member for Durban Central said that the S.A. National Council for Child and Family Welfare has also requested that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. That is true; I probably received the same letter from them as he did. They are nothing but a welfare organization. They are probably the largest welfare organization owing to the fact that they also cater for Blacks. However, they are by no means the largest White welfare organization. There are other welfare organizations. I think the hon. member for Brits referred to them. There is for example the S.A. Council for Marriage Guidance and Family Life. There is the AKDB, the welfare organization of the AGS—we saw a television programme about their activities last night. There is also the S.A. Council for the Care of Epileptics and so on. None of these welfare organizations have indicated that they should like the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee.

If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Durban Central placed an amendment on the Order Paper in which he asked that the advisory council should consist of 12 members, comprising one member from each of the relevant departments mentioned, while six members shall be appointed from a list of names drawn up by the National Council for Child and Family Welfare. I should like to know why he is giving only one specific welfare organization preferential treatment.

We can change that.

Why did he not bring the other welfare organizations into the picture at all? One may suspect he is associated with these people in some way or other. I cannot understand why a person would give such one-sided preference to an organization when it comes to representation on a council. There is something fishy in this business. [Interjections.]

The protection of the child and the promotion of his welfare and well-being is probably the one matter which requires the greatest responsibility and evokes the most emotion when being dealt with. The Creator has imbued all creatures, including man, with a tender and protective attitude towards all young creatures. Everything that is small enjoys the protective attention of all adults. Jean Jacques Rousseau, a writer who lived in the seventeenth century, wrote the following in an article entitled “The Origin of Society”—

If this natural impulse of the parent and the child is absent or is impeded by social instability, the child is homeless, abandoned and exposed to those dangers in life against which a normal adult protects the child. Then it becomes essential for the interests of the child to be protected in other ways for which legislation is necessary, legislation which has to be amended from time to time as circumstances change over the years.

This Bill is primarily an amendment of the Children’s Act of 1960, which is generally considered to be a good Act, but which after 23 years has become outdated. The provisions which have stood the test of time are being retained in this new Bill, while those which have fallen into disuse over the years have been omitted. In addition, new provisions which have become necessary have been included in this Bill.

The protection and care of children and juveniles was one of the first matters which received the attention of the central Government after Union. Between 1910 and 1936 three laws were published which laid the foundation for the care and treatment of the child in need of care and juvenile offenders in South Africa. The first of these Acts was the Prisons and Reformatories Act of 1911; the second was the Children’s Protection Act of 1913 and the third was the Adoption of Children Act of 1923. The need to revise the Children’s Protection Act of 1913 led to the drafting of the Children’s Act of 1937. This Act is considered to be the most important policy formulating document produced in the field of child care in South Africa. The demands of the time and the developments in the field of child care again made it necessary to revise the Act which led to the passing of the Children’s Act of 1960. The present South African child care policy centres mainly around the Children’s Act of 1960. The child care policy is not based exclusively on statutory principles. It has also been shaped by departmental, Ministerial and Cabinet decisions over the years. Voluntary welfare organizations have also directly and indirectly made important contributions to the policy.

One of the important principles which was recognized as long ago as 1913 when the Children’s Protection Act was passed, was that the family is the normal, social and biological structure within which the child has to grow and develop. This is important because a great deal of the criticism—by the Opposition today as well—was levelled at the so-called shift in emphasis in the legislation in that we are becoming increasingly inclined to look for bad parents instead of seeking out and caring for children in need of care. However, if we see the matter in its correct perspective, what is mainly at issue here is the parental ties with the child. No child lacks anything but what the parent neglects to give him. I therefore feel that it is quite correct for this legislation to place more emphasis on the responsibility borne by parents to care for their children, a responsibility which this legislation recognizes and seeks to promote. In order to make it possible for children in need of care to be cared for at home, as an alternative to the removal of children in need of care to institutions, a measure was introduced in 1921—Act No. 26 of 1921, for the payment of grants—known at the time as mother pensions—in respect of certain dependent children. Instead of removing the child to an institution, the money was given to an indigent parent so that that parent could take care of the child personally. That was the idea. In spite of this the number of children in homes rose considerably during the decade from 1920 to 1930. At the beginning of 1920 there were 17 homes, whereas by the end of 1930 there were 72. The number of children in homes virtually trebled during that period. Poverty was still the principal reason for children being referred to institutions. The publication in 1932 of the Carnegie Report on the poor white problem and the subsequent national congress on the same topic in 1934 led in the first place to urgent pleas being made for properly trained social workers to deal with needy and socially disorientated persons. In the second place, a separate department was established for the promotion of child care matters and the prevention of juvenile crime. In the same year, 1934, an interdepartmental committee on indigent, destitute and unassimilable children and juvenile delinquents was appointed to investigate a new comprehensive Children’s Act. As a result the Children’s Act of 1937 was piloted through Parliament and in the same year the Department of National Welfare was established, to which the administration of that Act was entrusted. This led to the establishment of the institutions, the instruments used to promote child care. In the first annual report of the new department it was reported that by the end of 1937 93 children’s homes for Whites had been registered. In the institutions there were 4 428 committed and 3 119 non-committed children, a total of 7 547 children. Of these 60% were sent to children’s homes as a result of indigency. The undesirability of this was pointed out and the principle was stated that no child should be referred to an institution merely on the grounds of the indigence of his parents. In 1951 a conference on children’s institution was held in Kimberley. Reference was made there to the large increase in the number of children’s homes. At that stage there were already 119 homes for Whites and the question arose whether there were not children in those institutions who did not belong there. As a result control measures and the emphasis placed in regulations on preventive services, apparently had the desired result. Fewer children were declared to be in need of care by the children’s courts. Whereas in 1937 these children had totalled 5 831 Whites, the number in the late ’fifties fluctuated between 2 500 and 3 000 children a year. The drop was really dramatic when the figures for a few years are compared, as I should like to indicate. The percentage of White children in need of care in connection with whom orders were issued by the children’s court, calculated per 10 000 of the White population, was 27,2 by the end of 1931. In 1950 this percentage was 11,5 and in 1960 8,2, after which there was a further dramatic drop to 7,4% in 1975 and 6,4% in 1980. This downward trend implies—and it is important because this has been proved—that social workers have gradually concentrated on preventive family services, and are applying less frequently to the courts for statutory orders. Factors making such a process possible are inter alia the following: The systematic extension over the years of the services of social workers by the State and by subsidized family organizations, improved techniques for dealing with family problems, more facilities which can be used as aids by social workers, a greater awareness of the value of family life and its maintenance.

In addition, fewer children were referred to children’s homes. Between 1935 and 1951 approximately 1 000 children were referred to children’s homes every year, whereas the number has decreased to fewer than 800 children a year since then. In 1980 the number dropped to 691, in spite of the fact that the White population had virtually trebled since the late ’thirties.

There has also been an important change in the sort of child referred to institutions. Whereas in the past most children were referred because of indigence, in later years the emphasis began to fall on children from broken homes, or on children of parents who owing to their social behaviour or way of life were considered unfit to care for their children, with the resultant adverse psychological and emotional effects which this would have on the children.

Today there are 80 registered children’s homes, with a total of 5 670 committed children, and 330 non-committed children. At present there are therefore fewer children’s homes than there were 30 years ago, when there were still 119 registered children’s homes, with 5 001 committed and 2 520 non committed children. The number of children in the 80 institutions has remained relatively constant, in spite of a considerable increase in the White population. The custom of making private arrangements for children to be admitted to children’s homes has also decreased considerably.

Whereas children’s homes originally catered for orphans, and later mainly for indigent children, nowadays children are mainly referred to children’s homes because of serious psychological conditions in the family and the adverse effects which these conditions could have on the personality of the child. On 31 December 1976 for the first time there were more children in need of love in foster care than in children’s homes.

This trend continued, and in 1981 there were 979 children in foster care as against 748 in children’s homes. The tendency to locate children in need of care within the community, usually under the supervision of a social worker, has continued to this day. Particularly during the past two decades the authorities have placed great emphasis on preventive services in connection with child care. Social workers in the service of the State and those affiliated to registered organizations provided country-wide preventative, protective and treatment services for children and their families entitled to those services.

The role played by the social worker in the development in the child care policy to date has been phenomenal, and deserves the greatest praise from anyone who is in any way concerned about the welfare of the country’s children. Allow me to add that it would be inappropriate to use an opportunity like this, in which one should pay tribute to these people, for political gain as the official Opposition is trying to do by pretending that they alone are in favour of improved salaries and that this side of the House does not appreciate what social workers are doing. We were also extremely gratified to take cognizance of the fact that the new Child Care Bill has been drafted in such a way—and rightly so—that the social worker is given a more important role in the legal implementation of child care in South Africa. This is in contrast with the allegation made by the hon. member for Parktown that social workers were dissatisfied with this legislation.

Provisions contained in the legislation point to a change in the role of children’s court assistants in that the objective is for this post to be filled mainly by social workers. This is a change with regard to the dispensation under the present Act. The legislation also makes provision for the extending of the powers of social workers employed by welfare organizations that provide family services. In future they will be able to take children whose safety and welfare is being threatened to such an extent that they cannot wait for a court order into custody without a court order. At present they can only do so if they have the written consent of a probation officer, a police officer or a magistrate. This is a further indication of the actual and active contribution which the new legislation is allowing social workers to make. It also expressly makes provision that the children’s court may request a report from the social worker to assist it in arriving at a decision.

We therefore find that the positive and active role the social worker played in the past in the development, the formation and the implementation of the present policy is rightly being acknowledged and for that reason provision is being made in this Bill for them to make a more active and more actual contribution to the implementation of child care. I think even the hon. members for Parktown, Rissik and Durban Central will agree with me when I say that we are actually all agreed that these people played a positive role in the past. They will also agree with me when I tell them that we should not use this worthy occasion to play the social worker off against the Government. It will not help them in any way. It will not help to promote this legislation; it will not help child care; it will not help anyone. I therefore want to conclude by saying that social workers deserve the highest regard for the task they have performed in the past and will continue to perform in future.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should just like to comment on the hon. member for Parktown’s attempt at a little cheap political gain over the issue of the free vote. I wish to remind him that there is a difference between a free vote and conscientious objection. It was not so long ago that we had a Bill before the House dealing with abortion and on which the PFP had a free vote. Does the hon. member have any objection to hon. members of this party having deep religious convictions about artificial insemination? Does he?

Of course not.

Thank you very much. Unlike the PFP it is not our intention to bring the Bill before us into the political arena. That is not our intention. After all, the hon. member for Parktown was the one who brought it into the political arena, not us. We hope the matter will be dealt with on its merits or demerits, whatever the case may be.

We too have had some concern about certain aspects of the Bill. I have spent considerable time with the officials of the department. In this regard may I place on record my sincere thanks for the time they have afforded me—well over three hours—to go through the Bill in detail with the problems which I had. I must say that they have been very patient and that I have accepted a lot of their explanations.

There are also a lot of other aspects which I intended to raise today across the floor, but these have been raised already. To save time I am just going to wait for the hon. the Minister’s reply.

I should like to refer to the hon. member for Rissik and his comments in respect of punishment not being great enough for parents who have mistreated their children. One must not assume that it is always wilful mistreatment. Many factors come into it, such as housing environment, alcohol and finance. All I can say is that before we judge we should say to ourselves: There but for the grace of God go I.

There appears to be a certain amount of controversy over the Bill before us, especially among social workers and in the National Council for Child Welfare Society, who represent the largest number of social workers in the country. To prove my point that there is controversy, one just has to look at the number of amendments on the Order Paper. There are more than 20 already. I understand that many meetings have taken place with the National Council and others, but still consensus has not been reached. It is a pity that when dealing with the welfare of children consensus cannot be reached. Other legislation in respect of child care has always been referred to a Select Committee, hopefully to reach consensus. I believe the hon. the Minister is not prepared to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. I have discussed the issue with him and I accept the reasons which he has given me. However, all I want to say is that nothing could have been lost by this Bill being referred to a Select Committee. Because certain parties reacted in a certain manner I believe the reaction should not have been the same. I believe nothing would have been lost and it would not have been a sign of weakness had the matter been referred to a Select Committee. In fact, I believe it would have been a sign of great diplomacy. However, be that as it may. In view of the principal changes of emphasis on this legislation, which I think is the main cause of concern, it might well have been that an explanatory memorandum, a White Paper, could have been provided by the department so that everybody could have seen what the actual true position was. This, in my opinion, would have allowed everybody to study it and we may well not have had the argument which we are having at the moment.

I am also pleased to see that the new advisory council is going to take in under its umbrella the whole welfare structure which is so fragmented at the moment. At the moment there are 25 regional boards, the S.A. Welfare Council and the Prime Minister’s welfare adviser, all which are to some extent concerned with and ascribed to the same functions as the advisory council is going to have. This is why I am pleased to note the comments by the hon. the Minister in this regard. Welfare should in fact come under one Minister and not under three, as it does at the moment. Equally, there should be one set of regulations for all races and not a different set of regulations for every race group. I believe that it is not a happy state of affairs that the administration of this Bill could be assigned to various Ministers. One State department for welfare, I believe is long overdue and I believe that, at the very least, we should have one set of regulations for all the race groups. It is very cumbersome for the welfare workers to work with more than one set of regulations, all for one Act.

Child care has always placed a high value on maintaining intact families and, in cases where children have been removed from their parents on restoring such children to their parents as soon as possible. Successful reconstruction in the case of parents whose children have been removed from their custody, is largely dependent on the co-operation between these parents and the welfare workers. I think the main cause for concern of the welfare worker is: Can this continue to be achieved when, in fact, under this Bill, it appears that the social worker will be instrumental in putting the parent in the dock, so to speak? Time alone will tell whether the fear of the social worker is well founded or not in this regard. I think the realities of the position must be realized. In many instances, where the child has been committed to a place of safety or an institution, it happens that when the child leaves that institution, irrespective of how badly his parents treated him or how bad his home was, the first place he will usually make for is back home. So one must only see what the provision is going to be here.

I believe that the provisions of clause 10(l)(b) are very significant, because extreme concern has been expressed in the practice of private and third-party adoptions and I think the regulations should be formed with this in mind. Clause 34—the “Transfer of children and pupils from one custody or institution to another.”—has created certain problems. The hon. member for Parktown has mentioned it. The problems have been in so far as the time factor is concerned and I believe that, with delegation, this could quite possibly be speeded up.

Clause 60 provides for regulations which will form an integral part of the legislation. This is particularly relevant to the implementation, hence it also involves, to a large degree, the officials and social workers concerned. Therefore, I trust that cognizance will be taken of their remarks and their recommendations when these regulations are drawn up.

Mr. Speaker, there is one point which I believe should be raised here. It was mentioned very briefly by the hon. member for Rissik, and that is the position of our aged. There are very many old people who are bed-ridden and who are being looked after by their families. I believe that a lot of these people are mistreated and, while this might not be the right place to discuss it, it is just the point that I want to raise and bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. He can give it a little thought and bear it in mind sometime in the future.

In closing, I would just like to say that I made a plea for the position of the social worker last year. Everybody has done so today, but more vociferously by the official Opposition. However, I believe that our social worker must be given a better deal in terms of working conditions and salaries. And I further believe that, if this is not done, a breakdown in the social services is inevitable. What must be accepted, is that there are many social workers leaving the profession. Having left the profession, they very rarely come back. What is even more alarming is the drop in the student intake for social work training. This is the alarming factor. There is nobody to replace those who are leaving the profession and the quality and quantity of social workers determine the ultimate outcome of the services rendered. Promises were made last year that the position of the social workers would be reviewed. To date, nothing has been announced. I believe that it is incumbent on the hon. the Minister to speed up a decision that will benefit our social worker’s profession. After all, whether we want to admit it or not, they are the pivot, the whole pivot, of our social structure and I believe this is a situation that requires urgent attention. As I have said, I do not want to bring this into the political arena, but I just want to raise the point, because I believe it is absolutely essential that this group of people, who form the pivot of our social structure, should get what they deserve.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I never usually interrupt the hon. member for Parktown when he is speaking. I would never have the temerity to call that hon. member a pig, but I would suggest that, if he does not know what to do with his mouth, he should put his trotter in it.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for South Coast ended his speech on such an unsavoury note because I thought that he made some very good points during the course of his speech. I should very much have liked to give a more unqualified approbation of what he said but in the circumstances, I am going to say less about him than I would have done.

Most of the speech of the hon. member for South Coast seemed to my mind to support the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Durban Central, for the necessity to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

You were not listening to me.

I was listening. I listened very carefully. The hon. member for South Coast said that he had accepted the explanations given by the hon. the Minister but that he also thought that a lot of good would have come out of referring this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading. I believe that some of the matters in the Bill to which he objected are principles of the Bill, and therefore the hon. member must know that if this Bill is passed in its present form at Second Reading, it cannot be amended at the Committee Stage as far as its principles are concerned, because they will already have been accepted by the House. Therefore, even, shall we say, inadvertently, the arguments he advanced this afternoon do in fact support our contention that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. I do agree with the hon. member in regard to one thing he said, which perhaps was not quite relevant to the Bill but which is, I believe, relative to the whole subject of welfare work, and that is that a very low priority appears to be given to social work and, in particular, social welfare in this country, and in this regard I want to deal directly with the Bill which we are considering here today.

In reading a memorandum which I imagine was circulated to all hon. members of Parliament by the Director of the Child Welfare Society, Johannesburg branch, I was interested to note that 0,35% of the 1982 budget was devoted to child welfare among Whites—I want to stress the words “among Whites”. Apparently no statistics are available in respect of the percentage of the budget that was devoted to child welfare work among Coloured, Indian and Black children, but I do not think that it requires much stretch of the imagination to realize that it would be very much lower than the 0,35% figure for Whites. I would imagine that this would be something to which the hon. the Minister would be applying his mind. He is new to this portfolio but I think he will agree that it will be impossible to effect substantial improvement as far as welfare work is concerned unless a great deal of attention is devoted to the financing of this very important aspect of social life in South Africa. This will mean all sorts of changes. Apart from the amount allocated by the hon. the Minister of Finance to the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, it may mean devoting one’s attention to the whole question of tax changes, in other words, rebates as far as donations are concerned such as are given in respect of donations to recognized and officially approved educational institutions. This is done in other countries and I think it would be a very good idea if South Africa could consider the same system of giving tax rebates in respect of donations made on a regular basis, not necessarily in respect of the odd philanthropic gesture, but regular donations made to approved welfare organizations. If that were done, it would be possible for the State not to have to devote so much of its budget to the assistance of welfare organizations and could enable them to improve the remuneration of welfare workers directly engaged by the department. At the moment the wage and salary levels are so low that, as other hon. members have pointed out, there is a shortage of social workers in South Africa, and this, quite naturally, is reflected in the quality of work and the number of cases that can be dealt with.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would do me the courtesy of listening to what I am saying?

Yes, if the hon. member comes to the Bill.

I am very much on the Bill.

The whole Bill depends upon the availability of social workers and unless the hon. the Minister is able to pay them salaries, and decent salaries, he will not be able to implement the Bill which he is introducing and which to a large extent will become the charter of child care in South Africa since almost all the provisions of the Children’s Act of 1960 are being repealed by this Bill. I am glad that I now have the attention of the hon. the Minister.

As I have said, I would have thought that in his general introduction of this very important measure, the hon. the Minister might have devoted a little of his time to stating that he thought there ought to be a far better dispensation for the social workers of South Africa.

The hon. member for Parktown mentioned—I want to reinforce what he has said—that the Bill unfortunately re-establishes one of the worst features of social work in South Africa. That is the fragmentation of social work upon a racial basis. We have the totally ludicrous situation with the Department of Health and Welfare attending to the health of all races, but only to the welfare of Whites, while it is the Department of Internal Affairs which has to attend to Coloured and Indians and the Department of Co-operation and Development attends to the social welfare of Blacks.

It is quite clear from the definition clause, and particularly from subsections (iv), (ix) and (xii) of clause 1 that the Bill re-establishes this absurd and highly expensive state of affairs. One would certainly have hoped that the new constitutional dispensation which we were awaiting with such eagerness would have outlawed any division of welfare work on a racial basis, but no such thing!

I do not believe that the new regional council which is being established is going to reduce the fragmentation in any way, as was suggested by the hon. member for South Coast. We have 24 such boards, all dealing with the same subject among the different racial groups. I think—this is an opinion which is voiced very strongly, by the Director of the Johannesburg branch of the Child Welfare Society—that this is a grossly extravagant way of using public money. One would have hoped that the Bill would have co-ordinated all these different functions, that money would be saved and thereby the social work services could be improved with the savings. No sign of this in the Bill, however! Indeed, instead of bringing about some form of rationalization, the Bill does exactly the oppossite. It actually in fact just creates another board. That is all the council is, that is all the new Child Welfare Advisory Council is. It is in effect simply just another board; it is yet another bureaucratic institution in an area which is already grossly overloaded with bureaucratic bodies. It is very far indeed from what the hon. member for Brits called “normal development of social services”—in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is an extension of abnormal services.

The basic principle of racial fragmentation is objectionable to us and as I say, we seek to change this before the Bill passes Second Reading and goes to a Select Committee, because after that it is not going to be possible.

The hon. member for Parktown has pointed out and also, I think, the hon. member for Durban Central—I shall therefore not enlarge on this—that producing the Bill now is really putting the cart before the horse. Why do we not wait for that portion of the Hoexter Commission’s report which is going to deal with the whole question of the establishment of family courts? It is quite obvious that if the Hoexter Commission recommends that, we will have to come back to Parliament and amend the whole of Chapter 2 of this new Bill. Why not wait? The Children’s Act has served quite well for a number of years and it can continue to serve the country until we have the report of the Hoexter Commission on family courts and we can then incorporate the suggestions in a new Child Care Bill.

I have mentioned the basic objections that we have in principle to the Bill in its present form. We also have a number of objections to the detailed proposals embodied in the Bill. As the hon. the Minister would have seen from the Order Paper, we will be moving a number of amendments. I want to give just one or two examples of our major objections.

The first is the manner in which the new Child Welfare Advisory Council is to be established. As the clause is presently worded, the entire council could—I do not say that it will, but in fact it could—be composed entirely of Government officials, whereas we believe they should be in the minority, not in the majority. Secondly, as the South African National Council for Child and Family Welfare points out in a memorandum which was no doubt distributed to all members of Parliament, the interests of the child were paramount in the old Children’s Act, and that is now superseded by the interests of the parent. That does not seem to me to be a good principle to establish.

Perfect rubbish.

Well, let me read out what this very large welfare organization has to say on this particular subject. It says—

I would have thought that that should be paramount. All of us hear about these horrific cases of the battered child, and of children who are left in the care of parents for weeks, months and sometimes years on end, until at last somebody takes it into his head to report the matter to the authorities and steps are taken.

This organization also says that under the provisions of this Bill, mainly clause 14(4)—

That is the point. These things are not committed in the open where everybody can see what is going on; they are committed in the privacy of the parental home. It is not possible for very young children to go and seek help for themselves or to give evidence against their parents. The organization also says that—

Apparently the council has tried to do something about this, but it has not received any satisfactory replies other than the Secretary for Justice who referred the matter back to this hon. the Minister’s department. I think we are entitled to further explanations because this is a serious charge which has been brought by a very responsible organization.

There are other omissions from the Bill which we will seek to do something about. There is the question of the infant protection visitor, which the Children’s Act of 1960 provided for in section 12, and the question of subsidized adoptions. While I am talking about that, I must point out that the foster parent grants are miserably low. I hope that the hon. the Minister is going to try to do something about that eventually. And, of course, there is considerable differentiation in the grants that are made between Whites, Coloureds and Blacks, i.e. R90 per month for Whites, R71 per month for Coloureds and R24 per month for Blacks. So it is small wonder that there are very few Black foster parents to be found who are prepared to look after a child for R24 per month. I notice that the previous Minister of Health and Welfare is giving advice to the present incumbent. No doubt he is assuring him that R20 per month is more than adequate for anybody to be able to feed himself on. [Interjections.]

You have not got a very good memory. It will improve on a R20 diet.

No, I have got a good memory. Everybody in the entire country, I am afraid, has an excellent memory as far as that particular remark of the hon. ex-Minister of Health and Welfare is concerned. [Interjections.] There is nothing much the hon. the Minister can do about it. He is on record, and I am afraid there he is going to stay for the rest of his days.

Finally, we have placed an amendment on the Order Paper to provide for the status of the child conceived by means of artificial insemination in order to enable the legitimization of such child. As the hon. member for Durban Central pointed out, we want to make some provision for appeals to a higher court when orders are handed down by children’s courts. We find it quite inappropriate that this measure makes no provision whatsoever for appeals. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could just explain to me in a little less guarded language, why he has omitted section 83 of the Children’s Act; in other words, the placing of the child in the care of somebody, pending the outcome of a divorce. I know that the hon. the Minister has said in his Second Reading speech today that he does not think that it is appropriate for this particular piece of legislation to contain that provision and that there is already provision in the Matrimonial Affairs Act. That is correct. Section 5 of that Act does make provision, but it seems to me to do so in a complicated way, whereas it could be done more simply as was done under the Children’s Act in section 83.

For these reasons it gives me very much pleasure to support the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton associated herself with the requests of other speakers of the official Opposition by asking again that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. Those hon. members should bear in mind, though, that this Bill did not merely materialize from nowhere. On the contrary, it was eight years in the making. What we have before us this afternoon is a well-considered piece of legislation, and I think that any differences which may still exist can just as well be settled during the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Houghton also asked for an improvement in the position of social workers. So did the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Parktown. We have no fault to find with those pleas, but we do object to the insinuation that it is only the PFP which has the interests of the social worker at heart. I cannot recall a single plea being made from that side of the House for the improvement of the position of social workers during discussions of the Votes in previous years.

You have got it quite wrong.

If it was in fact done, it was done in such a way that no-one knew about it. The hon. member for Houghton also expressed her dissatisfaction at the fact that child care, as well as other social services, are going to be dealt with by three departments and not by one joint department. For example, it was also said that health services are being dealt with by only one department.

But surely there is a very important difference. Surely it is a fact that illness does not manifest itself in different ways in the separate population groups. Surely there is also a widely divergent difference in approach on the part of the various population groups to marriage, and to family care. After all, the main function of social services is in fact to rehabilitate; to reinstate. If one does not take these differences in culture and in background into account, one is surely heading for chaos in dealing with the matter. In my opinion, an outstanding feature of this Bill is the effective measures which it contains to cope with specific child abuse. I say this knowing full well that criticism has been levelled from various quarters, precisely because it is suspected or because it is alleged that this Bill displays defects in regard to this matter.

I want to add at once that I do not believe that legislation alone can cope in the long run with child abuse. One could formulate perfect legislation, but child abuse would nevertheless continue if a radical change in the attitude of the parent itself was not brought about. I wish to refer to one example in this connection, which came to the attention of all of us last week. It is the now well-known Tinckler case, in which a father was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment for having shot his two young daughters. I do not think that a single provision in any law could have prevented such a thing from happening. Because this man could not cope with rejection, he took it out on his innocent children. This testifies to an immature personality, and no legislation can make provision for all circumstances and all cases. Therefore the measures contained in the present legislation are, in my opinion, adequate to help to combat child abuse.

I want to point out that child abuse is assuming alarming proportions throughout the world. In America more children under the age of five are dying because of ill-treatment by their parents than all those who die from tuberculosis, whooping cough, poliomyelitis, rheumatic fever and measles put together. In Britain 700 children annually are battered to death by their parents, not including the 400 children who incur permanent brain damage in the process. Between April 1982 and March 1983, 1 349 cases of child neglect and child abuse were reported among the White population in South Africa. In Pretoria and Johannesburg alone 200 cases of child abuse occurred. Of course we must also bear in mind that a very large percentage of the cases of child abuse are, for various reasons, never reported. It is perhaps a good thing, too, that we take cognizance again of heartrending cases of child abuse, which in 1982 had an aftermath in South African courts.

A woman was sentenced to a fine of R150 or imprisonment for 75 days because she tied her two-year old son to a tree by means of a rope around his neck, just like a dog. A father was gaoled for 10 years for strangling his wife’s illegitimate child. In April a little boy was found wandering through the streets of Johannesburg with his body covered in cigarette burn marks. The reason for that was that his parents had really wanted a little girl. In October last year a young Coloured boy was admitted to hospital after his mother had dashed him to the ground and his father had kicked him and jumped on him.

I think the Press plays a very important role in South Africa in giving publicity to this problem of child abuse. The Press makes the public aware of the problem, and in this respect deserves the thanks and appreciation of the community. However, it is a pity that this awareness on the part of the community does not also develop into involvement, because mere awareness does not help to solve the problem. Therefore I welcome the fact that an attempt is, in fact, being made by means of one of the provisions in the Bill, viz. the one in clause 42—to which reference has already been made this afternoon—to cause this awareness to develop into involvement. I am referring to the compulsory reporting of child abuse by medical practitioners, dentists and nurses.

It is also true that this clause as such is probably not without its problems either. It can sometimes happen that a parent, without intending to ill-treat his child, let us say in a fit of rage, hurts a child to such an extent that that child requires medical treatment. Because the possibility of prosecution exists, the parent can then fail to take the child to a medical practitioner. However, I think that the definition of ill-treatment of a child itself precludes the possibility of prosecution in these circumstances, because the generally acceptable definition of child abuse relates to a young child displaying symptoms known as the battered baby syndrome, resulting from repeated injuries inflicted over a period of time. What we are dealing with here is, therefore, repeated injuries inflicted over a period of time. In view of this, as I interpret the matter, the medical practitioner, or whoever it may be, is under an obligation to report that kind of ill-treatment.

Another problem which became apparent from any discussions with medical practitioners was that some of them were of the opinion that the entire question of professional secrecy was being jeopardized by this provision. However, when one considers all the ethical codes of conduct which exist for medical practitioners, it does seem to me as though professional secrecy is not an absolute. The most famous one, viz. the Hippocratic oath, reads inter alia—

I think we are all agreed that when a child is subjected to constant injuries and ill-treatment, it is definitely a matter which ought to be “noised abroad”. Consequently I think this deals with the problem of professional secrecy.

A feature of this Bill—it has also been pointed out here by hon. colleagues of mine on this side of the House—is that it is not only aimed at dealing with the symptoms of child abuse, i.e. the child itself, but also the causes, i.e. the parent. Surely it is a fact that the parents are the cause of child abuse. Consequently this Bill is not only concerned with the interests of the child as such, but implicit in the Bill is also the rehabilitation of the parents who ill-treats such a child. It would be meaningless merely to remove a child from the care of the parents who are ill-treating it without trying to do something about the situation of the parent who ill-treats such a child. I think the most meaningful action would in any event be to remove a child who is being ill-treated from the environment in which such ill-treatment is occurring, to rehabilitate the parents and then to return the child to the care of his parents. I do think, for example, that the discretion which the children’s courts may exercise to impose a rehabilitation order also emerges very clearly in this Bill.

One can also understand that society insists very firmly on heavy penalties for child abuse. Personally, I have no problem with clause 50 and the fine of R5 000 and imprisonment for five years for which it makes provision. In the long run, however, I think it would perhaps be in the best interests of the child if the court could also, for argument’s sake, impose a rehabilitation order. However, when it comes to outsiders who ill-treat children, for example a lover or someone like that, then I do not think that any penalties could be severe enough.

At some hospitals in South Africa units are already in operation which concentrate on rehabilitation. These multi-disciplinary teams have also achieved a very large measure of success. As an example I could refer to the work being done at the Red Cross Hospital in Rondebosch and at the J.G. Strydom Hospital in Johannesburg. However, the situation cannot be perfected. There were many cases in which parents had been subjected to this rehabilitation programme and, yet they literally battered their children to death at home. But this does not mean to say that this programme should be stopped. I still think that if we want to deal with this problem effectively, these rehabilitation units run by multi-disciplinary teams should be expanded on a far larger scale. One can only hope that the necessary manpower and funds for this purpose will be found.

The motto “prevention is better than cure” also applies to the prevention of child abuse. In a study in Denver parents were identified who might possibly ill-treat their children. Half of the group was subjected to professional treatment and the other half not. Among the group receiving treatment, no cases of child abuse occurred, while child abuse did occur in the other group. It is a fact that child abuse can be identified on the basis of a specific pattern. In contending with this problem, cognizance must also be taken of this pattern. It is an established fact that children who were ill-treated themselves, are also going to ill-treat their children. That is why the register which exists for the ill-treatment of children and in which cases are recorded is perhaps a very important source of locating and preventing future child abuses.

Young unmarried mothers who keep their children are also, according to statistics available at various hospitals, without doubt potential child abusers. Young mothers who keep their children are subjected to tensions which are unique to their situation. The inability to cope with this tension then leads to child abuse. I think there is a correlation between the number of unmarried mothers who keep their children and the ever-increasing number of child abuse cases which occur, although I do not wish to generalize. In 1979 there were 3 514 White unmarried mothers in South Africa, of who 1 346 were under the age of 19, which aggravates the problem all the more. I think the practice which has arisen of allowing unmarried mothers to keep their children will have to be reconsidered, particularly if one bears in mind that there is a shortage of children available for adoption.

Child abuse also occurs in cases where the bond between mother and child is severed through direct hospital intervention. In this way, for example, experts allege that incubator babies could possibly become the victims of child abuse. To deal with this problem effectively it is essential that the bond between mother and child should be reinforced as soon as possible. Consequently I wish to question the practice at certain welfare organizations of keeping babies who are available for adoption for six to eight weeks before giving them out for adoption.

Therefore it is clear that people who are going to ill-treat their children should be identified, and that this identification should lead to rehabilitation. However, it is also true that meaningful rehabilitation cannot take place if there are no social workers to initiate it. The shortage of social workers in South Africa has already been pointed out. Two years ago a disturbing editorial appeared in a newspaper in South Africa. In it the statement was made that children were dying in South Africa because there were not enough social workers. Perhaps the editorial was exaggerated in its presentation, but I think it contains a strong element of truth. I think this is a serious allegation which requires urgent investigation. For that reason I personally welcome the indication which the hon. the Minister has already given this afternoon that his department and he intends to give thorough consideration to the position of social workers.

Today people are being trained for almost everything, except responsible parenthood, and here I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Rissik. I honestly think that if we can succeed in intercepting this problem and if people in South Africa can be trained to act as responsible parents, half the battle will have been won. A possibility is perhaps to consider the establishment of a post for men or women social workers to visit schools and make use of the preparedness period to try to introduce school children to the responsibilities of parenthood.

In conclusion there are a few final remarks I still wish to make. I think that, with a few exceptions, we are all personally responsible for the adversities which afflict us. Not one of us can choose to be born and not one of us has the privilege of choosing our parents. When a child finds himself in a situation in which he cannot protect himself, I think it is necessary to attend to his position by means of legislation. I think the measures which do this effectively are clause 42 dealing with compulsory reporting of child abuse, clause 50 which makes provision for heavy penalties, clause 14 that seeks to establish whether specific parents are indeed fit to care for children and clauses 11 and 12, which provide that children who are being ill-treated, may be immediately removed.

In this respect I wish to refer and draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to possible deficiencies. The hon. member for Houghton pointed out that if a children’s court, for lack of evidence, cannot prove that parents were responsible for the ill-treatment or neglect of their children, the position is that such a child may again be subjected to ill-treatment which occurs in the privacy of a parental home. In this connection I wish to ask two questions only. It is a fact that parents are sometimes acquitted during court cases because they made use of excellent legal representatives. I should like to know whether clause 8 of the Bill makes provision for legal representation for the child as such. Perhaps this could meet the problem to a certain extent. Secondly I wonder whether one could not consider providing that in doubtful cases, even if there is insufficient evidence before the court to prove that the parents ill-treated the children, the children’s court may in any event impose a supervision order for not less than a year.

That is not what the legislation provides.

I am not saying that that is what the legislation provides. I am merely posing certain questions with reference to specific deficiencies in connection with clause 14. One last question on an aspect in regard to which I have personal misgivings relates to the nullification of adoption, in other words the specific clause which provides that when serious genetic disorders occur in a child who has been legally adopted, the adoption may be rescinded within six months. I cannot see why adoptive parents should specifically be given a preference over the biological parents. Genetic disorders are not always apparent at birth. It may take several months before such disorders become apparent. This is a risk which biological parents incur every day, and I think that when a parent goes so far as to adopt children in good faith and it becomes apparent that these genetic disorders occur, they should also bear the responsibility which biological parents have to bear in any case.

Finally I also wish to say that we should not create the impression that neglect and ill-treatment of children are endemic in our society. I think we should also convey our gratitude and appreciation to so many thousands of parents in South Africa who give their children the very best of everything no matter how dearly it may cost them.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Randfontein. I believe to some extent he has also made a plea for the appointment of a Select Committee because he has raised a whole series of matters which could fruitfully have been discussed in a Select Committee. I am sorry that he is bound to such a degree by his caucus that he did not feel free to call for the appointment of a Select Commitee.

We all know that the hon. the Minister is virtually brimming over with an announcement or a statement concerning the position of social workers. We have already had indications to that effect and the hon. member for Randfontein attacked the hon. member for Parktown for, as we say in English, jumping onto the band-wagon concerning the good news which apparently awaits social workers. Last session the hon. member for Parktown put several questions on the Question Paper concerning the salaries, wages and service conditions of social workers, and I believe his conscience in that respect is clean. I am sure that he will listen with great interest to the announcements by the hon. the Minister in this regard.

†Mr. Speaker, I want in the first instance to agree with the hon. member for Randfontein that this Bill deals with only a small percentage of children in South Africa. I think we can be thankful that there are not so many children who are in need of the care which this Bill seeks to provide. I believe that we are all concerned about children. I think everyone loves children and I believe that those of us who visit children’s homes cannot do so without being deeply moved and developing a lump in our throats when we see the conditions and the circumstances in which many of these children find themselves, as well as the sacrifice and commitment on the part of the men and women who care for those children. All of us in this House realize that this is an important measure. I think we are agreed on many of its provisions and we are grateful that hon. members of this House are concerned about this matter. I think it is also important to pay tribute to the people who care for these children in need. Those of us who have a Christian background sometimes forget that the communities that have the fewest problems in the field of child care are in fact the Jewish and Indian communities, although the effects of urbanization on the Indian community and the breakdown of the extended family have resulted in more need for child care. Of course, the largest amount of work done among children in need of care is done by the Dutch Reformed Church. Those of us who have visited their homes at Ugie in Greytown and the Abraham Krieltehuis in Johannesburg will know the tremendous work that that church is doing, as well as its sister churches, in this regard. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has its famous Boys Town and its Nazareth Houses, while the Methodist and Anglican Churches, and groups such as Dr. Barnardo’s Homes which do not have a denominational connection, also do a very important job of work. Many of these homes have been Victorian—they have been old-fashioned and they have been rigid—but they are changing and becoming more and more acceptable to children and more adaptable to the needs of our society.

The hon. member for Swellendam made a point of emphasizing the reducing factor in respect of child care in the White community. He pointed out that in the ’thirties when the Afrikaans-speaking community in particular was suffering from the effects of the depression and the vicious drought of those years, at the Volkskongres which followed that period and which arose from the Carnegie investigation, the maximum need for these services was evident. Of course, there is a sense in which children who need care such as this are a result of the urbanization process and a result of povery, but today in our White community the real problem is one of divorce, one of one-parent families, one of a nuclear family and one of the mother having to go out to work. These have produced different problems and different tensions.

We are now about to face a great wave of Black urbanization which will produce its own particular problems of child care. In Durban and elsewhere in Natal we have a terminology for children in need of care. In Zulu they are called the “amalala piabeni”, which means the “children who sleep in the pipes”, the children whom we see sometimes in Cape Town sleeping on doorsteps in the centre of town. They are the children who are destitute and in need of care.

I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department should look carefully at this area because one of the effects of this terrible drought we are having is that Black urbanization will be accelerated and therefore the need of Black child care. Let me give one example. There is a home for Black destitute children in the Edendale township adjoining Pietermaritzburg. This home is called Echo Jabuleli. It was started only two years ago, but it is already overcrowded and struggling to pay its way; yet all it needs is R1 500 a month to balance its books. I believe that that school and that home for destitute children is simply the tip of the iceberg.

I can talk about this from a personal point of view, but I know I can talk about it from the experience of everybody who is a farmer. On my farm I can think of at least four families with whom there are residing sisters whose husbands have died or who do not have husbands but still have seven or eight children. Simply out of compassion one allows these people to reside on one’s farm. I think there are hundreds of farmers in that position. I think those people are increasingly going to move to the urban areas where they will become a problem for us.

What are our objections to the Bill? Basically we are pleased that the hon. the Minister has introduced the Bill. We know that his department is very keen to modernize all its laws. It has made some steps forward, we believe. Some of the laws we do not like so much, however. Surely the present Act which is being modernized and brought up to date is part of the process. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should understand that there is general agreement on the need for the Bill. We believe there are many useful parts of the Bill. We primarily have two objections. The first one is to the make-up of the council which we feel is too heavily weighted in favour of officials from Government departments. The second one concerns the question of the shifting of the onus from being more or less completely on the child to being on the family.

The hon. member for Swellendam in particular seemed to suggest that the only people who really complained about the shift of the onus from the child to the parents were the South African National Council for Child and Family Welfare. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the other child care agencies, for example the church agencies, and in particular the Dutch Reformed Church agencies, did not come to see him privately to register protest about the Bill. While many child welfare societies—they are very important—have obviously done so to all members of Parliament and have lobbied members, I think it is only fair that the hon. the Minister should tell us whether he has received representations from other groups involved with children and child care matters. Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. the Minister should not rush this Bill into the Statute Book. This is a Bill concerning our children. In most cases they are the most helpless members of our society. Most of the abuse they suffer is, as we have pointed out, suffered in private. It is often due to very difficult circumstances, but fortunately it only affects a small portion of our society. They are helpless victims and I do not believe that we should become involved in a dogfight in this House on an issue about which we are basically agreed. I am sure that neither the hon. the Minister nor the Government would lose any face at all by agreeing to refer this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading. The hon. member for Randfontein, for example, raised a number of issues which can be discussed. There is the question of the children of unmarried mothers and the whole question of one-parent families. Then there is the related problem of the adoption of children out of one-parent families. What is happening at the moment, is that the one-parent family is becoming fashionable. The girl keeps the baby for two or three months and it then ends up in an institution because she finds it too much of a strain. In any case that child can then not be adopted, whereas there are many families who are keen to adopt children. We all know that, certainly in the White community, the waiting list is very long. These are some of the many issues we on this side of the House believe could be usefully discussed in a Select Committee.

I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to agree to the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said it was a pity that the hon. member for Randfontein was bound to the decision of his caucus. Is it not all the more regrettable if members do not deem themselves to be committed to their signatures as members of a Select Committee?

The hon. member for Parktown and successive speakers after him, tried to make out a case as to why this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The more this measure was discussed, however, the clearer it became that there was considerable consensus among hon. members on this Bill. The hon. member for Parktown said that we were awaiting the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission and that this commission would probably recommend family courts. If this structure is recommended and accepted, it merely requires a consequential amendment to include it in the Bill. In the main, hon. members agreed on the importance of the Child Welfare Advisory Council. The problems of urbanization, economic pressure and tense situations within the marriage give rise to problems in the family context which also include child problems. Hon. members agree in general that it is a good thing that this position should constantly be monitored by such a council. All the members who spoke praised clause 42 which deals with compulsory reports after an examination. My impression is that the chapter dealing with contribution orders is very well drafted, that it is very practical and that it will be very easily implemented. If the system of contribution orders could be made to work better in future, we would intercept many problems of this nature.

Most of the hon. members raised issues such as the onus of proof, the shifting of the onus of proof etc., but in my opinion did not motivate them very well. For example, it was stated that an onus rests upon the State which is impossible to pass on.

It is very clear that a child who is in need of care can only find himself in that situation owing to the behaviour of his parents and insufficient attention is being given to the provisions of clause 14(4)(b)(iv) for example, which are extremely wide. The relevant subparagraph reads—

We also have subparagraph (vii), which reads—

I suggest that it will not be easy for a parent to be acquitted with good legal representation, as was suggested here by some hon. members. The most important reason why this alleged shifting of the onus—with which I do not agree—is being exaggerated is because our courts consider themselves to be the supreme guardians of minor children. I should like to quote from Ex Parte Kommissaris van Kindersorg: In Re J.B., a 1973 case, in which a former hon. member of this House gave judgment, namely Mr. Justice Marais. The point at issue in that case was whether or not it was necessary to appoint a curator ad litem for a child. The court concluded that owing to the court’s position as supreme guardian of children it was not necessary. I quote—

Then the hon. judge went on to say—

I observe that there are amendments on the Order Paper which wish to prescribe to the court not to make certain orders before certain reports have been received. I suggest that this is being done owing to an erroneous view of the role played by our courts in this connection, and also of the officials of the courts who are in fact a mere extension of the courts in the performance of their duties. If this is taken into account I believe that everyone may rest assured that this legislation will work in practice and will not give rise to any problems. Consequently I gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all hon. members who participated in the discussion. In the first place I wish to express my sincere thanks for the fact that the discussion was conducted on such a high level throughout. It was pleasant—I almost want to say by way of a change—to attend such a discussion in this House again.

The hon. member for Parktown is not here at the moment. However, he tendered his apology to me …

He is coming back.

Oh, is he coming back? I thought he had already left for Waterkloof. I just wanted to say that he really should go; that would suit us down to the ground. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parktown moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into this legislation. Hon. members suggested that we could discuss this on a Select Committee. One can, of course, discuss anything on a Select Commitee. The question, however, is whether the reasons for proposing that a Select Committee be appointed are valid. Is the appointment of a Select Committee really necessary? One of the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown was that the Hoexter Commission, which is still engaged on an inquiry into certain legal systems, has not yet reported on the possibility of family courts. We are still waiting for it. I can understand someone putting forward such a suggestion. However, if the Hoexter Commission proposes certain changes in relation to family courts, quite a number of laws would have to be amended. We still do not know whether they are going to make such a proposal, and consequently to hold all legislation back until the Hoexter Commission has reported is, in my opinion, not feasible. In addition, I cannot understand how we can discuss it on a Select Committee.

In the second place the hon. member said that we had not taken the report of the De Meyer Committee into account. That is not correct, and is also not true. In its inquiry, ever since this Bill was in circulation—even in its previous stages—the Hoexter Commission submitted it to the De Meyer Committee. The De Meyer Committee had it at their disposal when they wrote their report. Subsequently the report of the De Meyer Committee was in turn taken into consideration.

The hon. member went on to point out that the De Meyer Committee referred to reform schools and that we are not repealing the clause in terms of which reform schools are established. That is correct as far as the De Meyer Committee is concerned. Strictly speaking, however, reform schools fall under the control of the hon. the Minister of National Education. That hon. Minister will come to this House with the necessary changes when it is possible for his department and when a suitable opportunity for him and for this House presents itself. He will then have to effect an amendment or make an insertion in regard to one of the laws administered by him. Until such time, however, certain legislation which is administered by my department must remain operative. Subsequently it, too will be repealed, but it does not affect the present legislation. Consequently that third reason which the hon. member advanced does not apply any more either.

The hon. member also advanced a further reason by saying that we were not repealing the utilization of probation officers either. That, too, is correct. The utilization of probation officers is not being repealed because basically probation officers are used in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act; in the case of prisoners released on parole, etc. Consequently this is not necessary in regard to the provisions of the Children’s Act. They are not being utilized here. However, it will also have to be retained in this legislation, until such time as it is possible to make provision for this, by means of other legislation it will also be deleted.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Parktown also referred to the question of divided control. That is of course his own opinion. The whole argument is that social work, social services, should all fall under and be controlled by one department. He also advanced this as one of the reasons why this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. A Select Committee will, in fact, be able to discuss this, it will be able to vote on it, but it will not achieve unanimity in regard to the question, and even if it did, I want to say at this early stage that I cannot accept it. Is it therefore meaningful to refer this Bill to a Select Committee on that account?

Then your signature will again mean nothing.

Yes, then your signature will again mean nothing. [Interjections.]

A further reason which the hon. member mentioned was the question of onus. All the hon. members opposite in fact pointed out that whereas the emphasis had previously fallen on the child, it was now being shifted in terms of this Bill, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North summed up so well, so that it would no longer fall on the child alone, but on the child and the family collectively. If the hon. member wishes to change this on a Select Committee, I want to tell him at this early stage that it is unacceptable to me, because I think it is high time we also held the parents of such children liable. Consequently this is not only concerned with the child. The child does not live in a vacuum. The hon. member for Rissik spelt it out in an excellent way; he enjoyed himself again today and he made a very good speech. He was not always dealing strictly with the legislation, but he philosophized in an enjoyable way, and I did not begrudge him the pleasure.

Do you want him back?

No, I do not want him back. [Interjections.] As I have said, we are not prepared to consider that approach. It is an established fact and we have taken a final decision in that regard.

Why is it so important for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee? I shall tell hon. members what it is. I listened to the hon. member for Parktown’s speech, and if I may quote him a text now, as some of the hon. members did, then I want to say: “These are the hands of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.” Or in this case: “That is the voice of Marius, but the ideas are those of a woman sitting behind him.” [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member allowed himself to be taken in tow by all those letters which the hon. members received. It is more than likely that these people came to see them, too.

Let me just clear up one matter. The impression should not be created that the National Council for Child Welfare did not have access to me. They did come to see me.

They said so.

The hon. members are asking for a Select Committee, but there are other ways in which one can do things. As hon. members heard, this Bill was eight years in the making. A draft measure was drawn up and published in the Gazette for comment. Then the department drew up another draft and on my instructions sent it to a few organizations, including the National Council for Child Welfare. They perused it and then had an interview with me on the matter. However, one cannot satisfy those people. I went further and invited them to come and talk to the department.

Do you think they are not interested?

As I have said, I invited them to discuss matters again with the department, and they did so. They came to speak to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He gave them a hearing. They also spoke to the previous Director-General, and he listened to what they had to say. When the new Director-General was appointed, they came to see him as well. We spoke to these people a great many times.

Then why are they dissatisfied?

I do not know why. They also went to complain to the woman who is secretary to the law society because she had an exceptional knowledge of the Children’s Act. The law societies then got into touch with us. I told them that they could discuss matters with us, and they were also here. We spoke to them again and I accept that the law societies were satisfied. They let me know through the hon. the Minister of Justice that they were grateful that we had accorded them courteous treatment. Can you see, Sir, what we are dealing with? Fortunately I can at least say that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North spoke the truth without thinking—he does not think very frequently—when he said at the beginning of his speech that the largest organization doing welfare work in regard to children was not the National Council for Child Welfare. He spelt it out. It was the N.G. Church. The Church did not come to me in secret. They came to discuss the matter with me and we negotiated with one another. Afterwards they wrote me a wonderful letter expressing their thanks for the fact that we had been able to negotiate with one another so well. We still differ in that there are certain matters which the Church would like us to include in the legislation, but which are simply impossible to include. However, I accept that that is point of the Church. The Church wants us to insert a provision in the legislation stipulating that a baby born of N.G. Church parents may only be given for adoption to members of the N.G. Church. We try our best in practice to arrange matters this way. However, these are not things which can be written into legislation. We have problems of that kind. However, we are on an extremely friendly footing with one another. Then what happened here? The National Council for Child Welfare descended upon those hon. members and sent each one of them a letter, and later a telegram as well.

You also received them.

According to those hon. members, everyone is dissatisfied now. However, that is not the case. There is only one that is orchestrating everything.

That is not true. The social workers in general are also dissatisfied.

It all comes from the same source. The social workers are dissatisfied, but they are dissatisfied about their salaries.

Yes, but also with the legislation.

I agree that they have reason to be dissatisfied with their salaries. However, we shall rectify the matter soon. Consequently this must not be presented as being a problem.

I have already explained why we are not prepared to refer-the legislation to a Select Committee. The hon. member also raised quite a-number of points in respect of specific clauses of the Bill. However, I do not think the Second Reading is the right time to reply in that connection. We can discuss those matters during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Brits, in the words of the hon. member for Rissik who spoke after him, spoke like a person who knew what he was talking about. He did this kind of work and he therefore knows all about it. Basically he discussed the Child Welfare Advisory Council. This is an advisory council which is acquiring statutory powers. This council already exists to a large extent, and its purpose is to establish co-ordination between the various departments. It is an advisory council to the Minister. Statutory powers are therefore being granted to this council to enable it to perform the overall co-ordination, which all of us admit must be there.

People draw a comparison and say that we only have one Department of Health, but that so many different departments are being entrusted with social services. We do not have only one Department of Health. Apparently the hon. member does not live in South Africa. We have eight Black Departments of Health and the four provinces each have such a department as well. Therefore there is a total of 12.

It is absolutely ridiculous.

The hon. member may call it ridiculous, but it is something which has nothing to do with this Bill at all. The hon. member for Parktown’s information is wrong, and he knows it.

*That is the situation. That comparison which the hon. member drew is not a valid one either.

I have already pointed out that the hon. member for Brits elaborated on the Child Welfare Advisory Council, how it should function and how the State operates in regard to the care of these children. I have great appreciation for a man who knows what is going on.

The hon. member for Rissik’s speech dealt basically with the value of family life and the question of broken homes. I am in complete agreement with him.

The hon. member agrees with me and is also not prepared to conceded that there should be one Department of Welfare for everyone. He is not prepared to make that concession. He is also prepared to allow parents of the child to be held liable. What I cannot understand is why the hon. member agrees that a Select Committee should be called for. [Interjections.] I know this is for his own reasons, but it is not what he said. The hon. member came to one point in the legislation, viz. clause 14(4)(i), (ii) and (iii), and read this in conjunction with clause 15(4). The hon. member for Brits thereupon pointed out that he had placed an amendment on the Order Paper which would eliminate the hon. member’s objections.

The hon. member for Durban Central mentioned an astounding figure. I hope it is not correct. I hope this is not what he found in Waterkloof or in that part of the world where he went canvassing from home to home. The figure which he mentioned was that 62% of the parents in Rissik are single parents. Can that be true? I do not accept that.

I shall bring you the publication.

It will shock me rigid. The hon. member for Rissik must look after his people better. The hon. member for Durban Central also made a plea for social workers. I have no fault to find with that; we are all putting in a plea for them. He must realize that it is not that the State does not wish to help these people, but when one is dealing with occupational differentiation, all the cases have to be investigated by the Commission for Administration. The Commission for Administration has no other option but to determine priorities in terms of which first the one occupation and then the other is investigated. The hon. member can argue with me and tell me that their priorities are wrong, and then we can discuss the matter. I may perhaps agree with the hon. member, but I just want to tell him that I have been assisted by the Commission for Administration in that their work as far as social workers is concerned has almost been completed, and an announcement in this regard will be made soon.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can he give us some indication of when a statement will be made on the position of the salaries of social workers?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to allow myself to be committed by a reply I would think that the discussion of my Vote would be a better opportunity to speak about financial affairs than during the discussion of this Bill.

†The hon. member said that we should appoint a Select Committee in order to make use of experts in this field. I want to tell the hon. member that we have made use of experts.

*The hon. member for Swellendam elaborated at length on children’s homes and identified a downward trend. It is difficult to discuss this matter briefly. I should like to infer from the hon. member’s speech—I admit I do not know whether my interpretation is correct—that because children’s homes are becoming fewer and the number of children is growing, children should rather be taken in and brought up by families. If that is correct, I would be very happy, and I wish to express the hope that the number of children’s homes would diminish even further.

The hon. member also expressed his appreciation of the social workers profession, and particularly the work those people are doing.

†As far as the hon. member for South Coast is concerned, he expressed certain doubts in regard to certain clauses. We can discuss these matters during the Committee Stage. He also mentioned the position of the social workers. We are all very worried about social workers. I agree with the hon. member that we cannot make this legislation work when it becomes law without the services of social workers. It is absolutely vital that we have the services of social workers. I think that the stage will have to be reached in regard to the development of social work where the emphasis will have to be moved from the study of individual cases as to the question of community development. If we can reach that stage where the emphasis is being placed by social workers upon preventive and developmental work rather than on the study of cases, I think we shall have gone a long way. However, I do agree with the hon. member that we should be sure that we do have the services of social workers to do this job.

As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, half of her speech did not deal with the Bill at all and the other half was a repetition of what the hon. member for Parktown had said.

I was answering you.

The hon. member repeated what the hon. member for Parktown had said.

Not quite.

Yes, quite.

Did the hon. member for Houghton not do it very well?

Much better than the hon. member for Parktown. There 1 agree. [Interjections.] However, being an old hand in Parliament I expect that from her.

“Old” is the operative word!

As far as most of the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton are concerned, I have already answered them.

The hon. member for Houghton raised one matter to which I have not as yet referred. She spoke about the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to the finding of the children’s court. The question of appeal is a very important one and in this case the appeal is to the Minister. The policy is that if there is an appeal, the matter is investigated in depth once again and further inquiries are made after which the Minister then decides. I know that the hon. member for Houghton is in general not very happy about it being the Minister’s decision but I am sure she will realize that in many if not all of these cases that come before the children’s court the people involved are mostly very poor people. Money is really important in these cases. The whole idea is to keep costs to these poor people—and in this regard by “poor” I do not mean impecunious but pitiable—as low as possible. That is why we have not made provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court in these cases.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the question of fragmentation, the Hoexter Commission and the Child Welfare Advisory Council. I have already dealt with these matters. The hon. member also referred to section 83 of the Children’s Act. As I stated in my introductory speech, the position in regard to section 83 is being handled in more or less the same way and in virtually the same terms as it is dealt with in the Matrimonial Affairs Act. I think that that is where the matter should be dealt with. The law advisers feel that the same problem should not be dealt with under two separate laws and that is why it was not included in the provisions of this Bill.

*In my opinion the hon. member for Randfontein dealt basically with one of the problems we have to solve. Whether we can do so effectively by means of the Bill is something he spelt out himself, but I think we can do it as effectively as we possibly can. One will never be able to prevent it. The entire argument of the hon. member demonstrated how necessary it is that one should have this kind of legislation in terms of which one can regard the child as part of the family, where the parents and the child are jointly responsible and not only the child is considered. I think the hon. member was correct. He also put two questions to me.

The first question was concerned with the question of legal representation of the child. We would not like to have legal representation in our children’s courts for children or the parents. If we can avoid it, we do so. One can imagine how emotionally taxing it must be for a child if he is exposed in a children’s court to cross-examination by a legal representative. We do not think it is correct, but if it has to be done, the Bill does make for provision for it in another place. The hon. member could take a look at clause 9(l)(b)(iii). In that clause provision is made for legal representation, but we prefer not to include it where the hon. member would like to have it, since we believe it is the task of the social worker to establish what the needs are and to carry out a proper scientific investigation. If the social worker needs legal representation, it is placed at his or her disposal and they may appear in the children’s court.

In this connection the hon. member for Parktown said that he believed the commissioner should be required to consult a social worker while the Bill provides that he may do so. It would suit me, but then I would have to know that there were sufficient social workers available. The fact of the matter is that there are not enough of them available. If we want the legislation to be workable in practice, it is not possible to provide in it that the commissioner shall do this.

The hon. member for Randfontein’s second question was concerned with the question of genetic disorders in a child who has been adopted. We gave serious consideration to this matter. And the fact is that because we were concerned about it, we made provision that if genetic disorders should become apparent within six months after a child had been adopted, such disorders have to be reported. We must adopt a very cautious approach in dealing with adoptions. If an adoptive parent does not have the assurance and cannot be given the assurance that the child he is adopting does not have genetic disorders—not all genetic disorders can be determined at birth, but all of them can at least be diagnosed within a period of six months—the adoption of children may become problematical. One could also have the position that fewer good adoptive parents would become available if they did not have that assurance. That is why I believe it is in general in the interests of children to have such certainty. Although we are concerned about children who have genetic disorders, and we feel profoundly sympathetic towards them, we believe that if a child manifests genetic disorders within six months after his adoption, his adoptive parents should not be compelled to keep him. In any event it could in future be in the interests of the child that such an obligation should not be imposed on his adoptive parents.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North virtually repeated what had already been said. Fundamentally he emphasized the great work which social welfare workers are doing. Then he spoke about “an almost complete shift from the child to the parent”.

†I think his summing up of that is correct. That is, however, how we want it and I am sure that that is how he wants it. I thank him for his contribution.

*The hon. member for Nelspruit facilitated my reply by clearing up a few outstanding legal points which I had not dealt with, and I am very grateful to him for doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to let these few words suffice.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Three-dimensional industrial articles have been protected by copyright legislation in South Africa since 1916. In the past, certain restrictions have been imposed on such protection, especially in the case where an article was a design which was or could have been protected in terms of the Designs Act, 1967, and was exploited in commerce, whereupon such articles then lost their copyright protection. Here I am referring to section 11 of the repealed Copyright Act, 1965.

However, it must be mentioned at once that a design can only be registered under the Designs Act, 1967, if it has aesthetic value. The result was that industrial articles which did not have aesthetic value and the shape of which was determined by their function, such as machine parts, could not be registered under the Designs Act and therefore enjoyed copyright protection for the full period of literary and artistic works, namely the life of the author plus 50 years from the end of the year in which the author died. As against this, a design registered in terms of the Designs Act is only protected for a maximum period of 15 years.

When the present Copyright Act, 1978, came before Parliament, it did not contain a provision similar to section 11 of the repealed Copyright Act, 1965.

In some circles it was felt that the term of protection afforded functional three-dimentional industrial articles was too long and that it should be shortened.

Accordingly, the Select Committee recommended that the advisory committee on copyright law established in terms of section 40 of the Act should give attention to this as a matter of urgency.

†The advisory committee has given careful attention to this matter since its formation, and invited interested parties through Press statements and the radio to submit such representations as they would wish to make in connection with the Copyright Act, inter alia, in connection with this matter.

After considering the submissions that were made, it was clear that a polarity of viewpoints had been reached. At one extreme were those who were involved with innovating and developing new articles and who felt that they would be entitled to enjoy the material benefits of their intellectual or creative effort and that, conversely, others should be restricted from reaping where they had not sown in the field of intellectual endeavour. At the other extreme one had the users of the articles who believed that they ought to be able to obtain goods, and particularly replacement parts, freely and at the lowest possible price, and manufacturers who wished to make inexpensive competitive products.

These two extreme viewpoints cannot be reconciled, and what is necessary, therefore, is to achieve a balance between providing a reward and incentive to the individual, against the interest of society as a whole, which requires, in the first place, that the individual should be given an incentive, but, in the second place, that industrial development should not be stultified.

The aforementioned principle is given recognition in the Patents Act and the Designs Act. Under those Acts, a registrant is given a monopoly in the use of a particular design or in the manufacture of a particular article for a period of five years with the option to renew this period of protection for two further periods of five years each, in the case of a design, and 20 years in the case of a patent.

*During October 1980, the advisory committee on copyright law heard verbal evidence in addition to the written representations which had been received. On the whole, the verbal evidence which was given simply confirmed the contradictory standpoints and interests and did little to help find a solution in which these would be reconciled.

Meanwhile, the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents also gave attention to this matter and eventually submitted a draft amending Bill to the advisory committee for its consideration. There is little difference between this draft amending Bill and the one which has been introduced here today. After the proposal of the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents, as contained in the draft amending Bill, had been studied by the advisory committee, the committee decided that the desired balance could be obtained by limiting to 10 years the period within which a copyright owner can prevent other people from making indirect three-dimentional reproductions of his work, the period to be calculated from the end of the calendar year in which authorized reproductions of the work were first made available to the public.

†Seen from the point of view of the copyright owner, this means that he has a period of ten years from the time when he first puts his product with his design on the market, during which period he can exploit that product fully; thereafter the design of the product falls within the public domain. Seen from the point of view of society as a whole, or of the low cost manufacturer, this means that after the lapse of the initial ten-year period from the time that the product first appeared on the market, the product can be reproduced and exploited freely to the wider benefit.

An important factor is that copyright does not grant absolute protection but merely protection against copying. This position is in contradistinction to the position of a patent or a registered design where actual copying is not a prerequisite for infringement of the right of property. Even though the design of an article may be protected by copyright, there is nothing to prevent a third party from, through his own original effort, arriving at the identical design.

The advisory committee also felt that there is no reason why the original work or the drawing from which the three-dimensional article was made should not enjoy the full period of protection available under the Copyright Act. The interests of society as a whole and of low cost manufacturers go no further than being able to copy the article derived from the original work which is available on the market.

*The Bill also provides for a rebuttable presumption of awareness with regard to the alleged infringement by a person of the copyright in any artisitic work of which three-dimensional reproductions have been made available to the public by or with the consent of the copyright owner, if, at the time when they were so made available, certain prescribed information was reproduced on a label or other mark.

Furthermore, the Bill provides for the insertion of a section which provides for the three-dimensional reproduction of an artistic work if the Minister deems it necessary under certain circumstances. This principle has already been recognized in the Act, in terms of which the Minister can make regulations with regard to the regulation and control of the distribution, performance, or exhibition of any work. I am referring now to section 45. Just as in the case of section 45, it is not the intention to put section 45A into operation before a situation arises which requires that it be done, in the national interest, for example.

A draft amending Bill which corresponded with the Bill under discussion in all essentials was published for general information and comment in Gazette 8342 of 13 August 1982.

The comment received in response to that was mainly a repetition of the representations which had been considered before publication, which clearly demonstrates that the amendments were proposed with the greatest circumspection.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right at the outset that, even though this might be a highly technical matter and one in which there may not be the greatest interest in the House, it is actually a very important matter for the industrial development of South Africa and, in fact, for the whole development of our own industrial position. It is for that reason that as long ago as 11 April we wrote to the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism with reference to this Bill, as follows—

That request was made in a spirit of co-operation and helpfulness to deal with a non-political matter which is very important to the country and which is highly contentious. As that was not accepted, I now want to move as an amendment—

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I was addressing you on the issue relating basically, as we have said, to a technical matter, but which in fact is a very important matter for the industries of South Africa.

Perhaps I can best illustrate the whole matter by quoting an example which was referred to me and which is in fact fairly common knowledge. There was a young man in South Africa who decided that he was going to manufacture a particular type of jack which up to that time had been imported from abroad. This particular jack is used in underground mining for lifting vehicles which have come off the tracks back onto the tracks. It is therefore something which one would normally expect to have. Before he proceeded to go into this venture he asked that a check should be made in the patent office to see whether there was a patent which would prevent him from manufacturing the jack. A check was made to see whether there was a registered design and whether he could do this. He obtained the advice, completely correctly, that there was no patent or registered design. So there appeared to be nothing to impede him going into this business. He duly set up a factory and went into business. However, after a very short while he received a summons based upon the fact that he was alleged to have infringed copyright, based on the contention that he had reproduced in three-dimensional form articles which were shown in two dimensions in drawings made in 1922, not in South Africa, but in the United Kingdom and to which a copyright attached. He found that these drawings which had been made in 1922 had been made by a man who was still alive. The copyright on the drawings of course extends for another 50 years after the death of this particular individual.

What is remarkable in this particular case is that in these circumstances where somebody wants to set up a South African industry and where there is no patent or registered design preventing him from doing it, a copyright existing in another country can prevent the establishment of that industry in South Africa.

There is another example, the example of a case which went to court in Natal. I am sure my hon. colleague from Berea will know of that case. Someone wanted to go into the manufacture of a certain heavy type of earth-moving equipment, but the court found a copyright attached to the teeth on the particular mechanism used to take out the earth. This prevented the manufacture of this type of machinery in South Africa.

The argument which the hon. the Minister has used, namely that the inventive genius should be protected, is one which one obviously supports without any difficulty. For that reason we have a patents law and for that reason one can register a design. If you are an ingenious person you can get the protection in our law. However, what we find very difficult to understand is that a company is allowed to come to South Africa from, say, Taiwan, the United States, Germany or South Korea and while it has no protection by way of a copyright in its own country in respect of these particular things which we are now seeking to protect, the moment we want to use that copyright here in South Africa we have to pay it royalties otherwise we cannot use it at all. A fundamental principle, I would imagine, that exists is that in a country where one is seeking to establish industry, where one is trying to get onto one’s feet, where one is trying to build up a new industry and where one has this tremendous need for the creation of jobs as we have in South Africa, one would certainly not give more protection to people who are not South Africans than they have in the countries where they come from. This is something which, with respect, one finds remarkable, absolutely remarkable. And what is interesting, is that the type of law that we are seeking to introduce here, is not in existence in that form at all in the European Economic Community; is not in existence in the United States of America and is not in existence in the Republic of China, and so one can go through a whole lot of laws. One of the examples that is very often given, is that if you want to go into the manufacture of something, you start off by manufacturing the spare parts which are needed for that. These people who seek to do that in South Africa, the ordinary South African, is not infringing a patent. He is not stealing somebody’s genius, but he is in fact stopped because of the law which exists at the present moment in respect of copyright relating to this type of activity.

Nobody is going to argue that, when it comes to ordinary copyright, whether it be a book, a painting or some other thing which needs to be protected against being copied, there should be no protection for that in our country. Nobody is going to argue that. However, one of the difficulties that one has, is that you can get a longer and a more effective protection under the copyright legislation than you can get under the patent legislation in South Africa. And this seems to us, in a country which is seeking to develop its industries, to be an utterly illogical thing. It is perfectly true that this matter has been a matter of controversy, because what is argued—I think argued incorrectly, to my mind—is that it is suggested that this stops South African genius. The suggestion is that, by not having protection of this nature, South African genius, in these circumstances, is being inhibited. But that is not correct, because there is ample ability to register a patent; there is ample ability to register a design and there is, in fact, ample ability to protect normal copyrights in the sense that we have had them. However, what has happened in South Africa was that there was a degree of protection in terms of the law, going right back to laws which existed in 1965 and earlier. All of those gave a degree of protection. The law was then changed and we found that the so-called famous section 11 was no longer part of our legislation. In these circumstances we now find that we are in a situation where this type of drawing is protected for a lifetime and for 50 years thereafter. As a result of that, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has correctly stated, a controversy arose, not only between those people who sought to get the protection and those people who sought to manufacture, but also in the profession itself. The Institute of Patent Agents sat on this for a long time and they themselves could not come to terms in respect of it. The reason many they cannot come to terms is very easy to understand. It is because very many of them obviously—I cast no reflection on their professional integrity—are influenced, be it subconsciously, by the fact that they act for particular clients. And people sometimes sort of get into the way of thinking the way their clients would think. We have all seen that in our own professions, but, subconsciously, we find ourselves affected by it. The result was that they never came to real terms. What they did was to suggest a compromise solution, which made very many people, both in the profession and in the industry, utterly unhappy. I have tried to demonstrate the reason why their unhappiness exists. What we are doing now in terms of the law as we are putting it forward, is that, instead of having unlimited protection, it is intended that, in respect of these so-called “… works of artistic craftmanship, or works of craftmanship of a technical nature,” and drawings of this kind, we are going to get a protection which is going to last for ten years since the end of the calendar year in which the authorized reproduction of such work was first made available to the public. What is interesting here, is that we are not saying that it is ten years from the time it was first made available to the public. We are adding a presumption that the matter is deemed to have been first made available to the public on the date of commencement of this Bill. Therefore, even if it has been made available earlier than in the Bill, the 10 year period will only start to commence from the time that this Bill comes into operation. I have tried to show and I want to show further that this means in effect that in these circumstances one can obtain greater protection under copyright than one can obtain in terms of a patent or in terms of a design. The submission which I want to make to the House is that whereas the Bill before us does bring some relief to an unsatisfactory situation, it actually perpetuates the difficulty that will exist for 10 years from the time that this Bill comes into operation or, in respect of future matters, for 10 years thereafter in respect of each particular matter.

I would like to raise specific points of criticism in relation to the Bill as it stands at the moment. Firstly, I believe that the protection that is sought to be given is in fact not being given in respect of real inventive steps but is rather being given in respect of a shape or configuration that is produced by means of limited technical skill and labour. In reality, it is the invention on the part of the really imaginative person for which we have the Patents Act. In terms of that Act, one can have designs registered. In this case, we are protecting people where there is in many cases only limited technical skill and labour put into an effort, and we are adding to this.

My second point of criticism is that there are serious economic consequences for the country, particularly in assisting foreigners in a way that they do not enjoy in their own countries. They are receiving this privilege to the prejudice of local manufacturers in South Africa. In the main, the pressure that has been brought to bear in order to ensure that there is at least a 10-year period which is of force and effect, that it is not abolished altogether and that it is not made shorter, has come in the main from people who are receiving royalties or who are seeking to protect the designs which, as I have indicated, in their own countries would not in many cases enjoy that protection.

The third criticism I have is that we are giving protection in South Africa to three-dimensional reproductions, which is probably the most stringent protection given in any country of the world. Not only is it the most stringent protection but in many cases it is not given at all to people in the countries from which these foreigners originated. It does seem to us that this is not the type of thing which a country in the state of development of South Africa should be enacting. The question I wish to ask in this regard is whether a matter in regard to which neither the genius required for a patent nor the skill nor the novelty required to register a design should be protected in this fashion by means of a copyright law. In our submission one of the further complications is that even though the present Bill seeks to enact a provision in which certain presumptions are created—one puts a little “c” on an article and appends a name and a date to it—there is in fact no such thing as there is in respect of patents and designs where one can ask: “Is there a copyright in respect of this article? Let me go and check it out in an office. Let me go and see if it is registered.” There is no such thing. It is not only use in the Republic of South Africa that is at issue but also use anywhere in the world. I want to revert here to the poor manufacturer who tries to go into this business in order to deal with derailings underground. How on earth can such a person find out whether there is in fact a copyright which he will be contravening? If there was some means of registration, then the position would be quite different.

Let me give another example in regard to the question of spare parts. In France there is no protection for this type of thing in respect of spare parts. If one is ingenious and can register a patent or a design then one will certainly be protected. However, once that has expired or one does not have that ingenuity, then France gives one no protection at all. Even in Britain, in one of the inquiries which were carried out by the Monopolies Commission, the following is said—

I am told that competition is what we believe in. I am told that we are supposed to be in a free enterprise system. We now are going to have a constitution which in its preamble, I am told—this is quite fascinating and it is very relevant to this debate so that I am not really anticipating anything—has a provision that we will have as a national goal—

Are you now going to vote “yes”?

What I find most remarkable is that these gentlemen are talking about that in the national goals, but when it comes to actual legislation, it is for us in the Opposition to talk about preserving competition, about achieving our national goal, about protecting our industry. We must try to see that there is not this unreasonable restriction in respect of competition.

Our courts have tried to deal with this. Let me quote just one judgment with which you, Sir, are perhaps familiar. I refer to the John Waddington case where Claassens, J. said—

That, Sir, is the law as you and I learnt it. That is the law relating to patents. When a patent is expired, then it is public domain and anybody can use it. That is the law in the USA where it says that once it becomes public domain, then it is free, then the free, competitive enterprise of people can do with it what it likes because the inventor has been compensated by the period during which law protected his invention.

What we are now doing is to create a situation where, never mind the patent but because of the drawings which exist, one can now have a further privilege, a further protection which appears certainly to us to be quite wrong. I ask a very simple question. I challenge any hon. member in the House to tell me why, for instance, the South African industry should be hampered in the example which I gave in respect of the manufacture of earth-moving equipment merely because somebody has made a drawing of the teeth, the lips of that earthmoving equipment. Why should it be? There is no patent for it any more, there is no genius involved in it, because had there been, it would have been registered as a patent. No, there seems to us to be a case here why we are assisting people to protection which they certainly should not continue to enjoy.

Let me put a case which I believe should find favour with hon. members on the other side. Firstly why should we, as I have indicated, be worse off in South Africa in respect of our industry than people in other countries? Secondly, is there not a need to have an inducement to our industry to develop in South Africa? Thirdly, is it not important that our industry should be equipped to deal with the manufacture of articles which may become vital to us by reasons of boycotts, by reasons of sanctions? Fourthly, should there be this encouragement to the increased outflow of royalties from South Africa where in fact we are paying in foreign exchange for the outflow of royalties from South Africa in order to go to people to earn royalties for the use of their drawings which royalties they cannot earn in their own countries? That is what makes it so ludicrous is that we, with our own foreign exchange problems, are encouraging this situation in South Africa. Then of course, when it comes to the question of inflation, by paying more royalties we find ourselves in the situation where costs are obviously being increased.

To my mind these are valid arguments as to why we should not give this added protection and why asking even for this period of 10 years is asking too much. However, it is argued that this is also a conflict situation where you have people with different views. If there are people with different views, the views must be tested as to what they are. There is not one argument which is advanced by the people who advocate that this period should be extended which is not covered by the answer that if there is ingenuity, then it can in fact be registered as a patent or as a registered design. There is no logic in why that should not be regarded as adequate protection in the circumstances.

We are parties to the Berne Convention and we have dealt with the Paris revision of it in 1971, in terms of which this whole issue as to how it should be dealt with internationally is covered. In terms of that international agreement we are quite competent to say today that we want to abolish that 10 year period and that we want to give no added protection in respect of copyright.

I think there is a sound case to be made out for this. We ask that if the hon. the Deputy Minister will not agree to make the changes to the Bill, he at least allow it to be referred to a Select Committee so that the evidence can be put before the people who have to make the law. Whatever else is the situation, no evidence has been put before us as parliamentarians. The arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister in his speech have certainly not been of such a nature that one is convinced that this Bill is in fact necessary. What is necessary, is a Bill to abolish the period altogether, but 10 years is too long a period. That is why we made the appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he feels that there is substance in these arguments—I believe there can be no contradiction of them—he should agree to the Bill going to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in telling the hon. member for Yeoville that I agree with him to a certain extent. I will agree with him that it is a very technical measure and I also agree with him that it is definitely not necessary to have a political debate about this measure. However, I am very sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member that we must refer this Bill to a Select Committee. I am tempted to ask him, in the first instance, whether he will abide by the ruling of such Select Committee. [Interjections.] That question is not intended seriously. My question in connection with a Select Committee is what a Select Committee can, in this case, do better than the present advisory committee.

*I should very much like to go into that aspect in a little more detail. This amendment Bill has to do with a number of amendments to the Act of 1978. As the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out, it specifically has to do with one vexing problem which it is very difficult for the respective parties to solve. It is, in reality, being left to the legislation to find a solution somewhere between the two absolute poles. The one party wants protection for a long period, whilst the other party wants no protection whatsoever. It is specifically a matter of involving the position of three-dimensional articles. There is, as I have said, a difference of opinion about the period for which protection should be afforded. This specifically relates to functional articles, as the hon. member for Yeoville rightly pointed out, i.e. articles whose form is dictated by their function. It is interesting that through their institute and through Assocom, which is representing them, the designers on the one hand want full copyright protection, i.e. for the whole lifespan of the author plus an additional 50 years thereafter—and this is what the position is under the present legislation and what it really was in the past—whilst on the other hand the consumers, and in particular the Chamber of Mines, insist that in the case of functional articles there ought to be no protection, as the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out. I think that the golden mean, for which this Bill is now making provision, i.e. that in regard to the two dimensional aspect, i.e. the drawing and the design, there will be full copyright for the person’s full lifespan plus an additional 50 years, whilst in regard to three-dimensional articles there will be copyright for a period of 10 years, is a very equitable solution. The problem, however, is that no one is satisfied. On the one hand the hon. member for Yeoville is asking for a Select Committee, his idea being that there should be no protection, whilst he has an amendment on the Order Paper that proposes that “ten” should be deleted and substituted by “five”.

That is second prize.

Well, I am afraid the hon. member may probably have to be satisfied with third prize.

It is a compromise.

On the other hand Assocom is asking for 15 years. It is now either a question of full copyright or 15 years or, as second prize, five years. It is surely clear that a compromise of ten years is an excellent solution as far as this situation is concerned.

This Bill was published in August of last year for the first time, giving rise to an interesting controversy in the financial publications in this country. The Financial Mail of 1 October of last year, for example, had the following to say—

Then the article goes on to quote a patent attorney as saying—

Another attorney is then quoted as saying—

Some attorneys argue that South Africa would then become a less attractive market for foreign investors.

What is important, however, is the following—

That is again the other side of the case. What is interesting is that the maximum period of protection for patents is 20 years, whilst for models the maximum period is three times five years, i.e. 15 years. It seems only right to me that in the midst of these polarized interests, ten years is the logical choice. If we were to experience problems in practice, the matter could be referred back to the advisory committee.

I think it is essential for this House to take note of how the advisory committee is constituted, because that is the very same advisory committee that came to light with this recommendation.

I do not want to offend hon. members of this House, but I doubt whether a Select Committee could, in regard to such a technical aspect as this, suggest a better solution than the advisory committee was able to do. The advisory committee consist of Justice Van Reenen as chairman, Mr. Gideon Roos, erstwhile Director-General of the SABC and, as part of his duties, also director of SAMRO, which deals with music copyright, and DALRO, which deals with literary copyright, as well as Adv. Plewman, SC, Adv. Schoeman, ex-Registrar of Patents, and two patent attorneys, Mr. Owen Dean and Mr. Wilken.

In connection with the article I have just quoted from, Mr. Owen Dean specifically also said in the Financial Mail of 26 November of last year—

I want to emphasize that period—

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

Just let me first finish quoting. The report goes on to state—

In the light of what I have just quoted, there is very little doubt in my mind that this is indeed the correct decision to take. Just for the sake of background material, there are some points I want to fill in. The Copyright Act of 1978, which is now being amended here, is one of the four Acts dealing with immaterial law, in contrast with all the other Acts which have to do with material law. These four Acts have to do with immaterial law. The Acts I am referring to are the Copyright Act, the Designs Act, the Patents Act and the Trade Marks Act. These rights are protected world-wide by way of certain international agreements. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the Berne Convention on literary and artistic works which was accepted nearly 100 years ago, in 1886, a convention which has subsequently been revised several times and of which South Africa is also a member. It is very important to take note of this particularly since we are, these days, excluded from so many international organizations. South Africa is, however, still a member of that convention.

That convention sets a very high standard of protection and presents authors with a comprehensive set of rights. It is essential, particulary in view of increasing international communication, that copyright is not only protected on a national basis, but also on an international basis. The Berne Convention attempts to ensure that works originating in a country which is a member of the convention will automatically enjoy the same protection in other countries as it enjoys in the country of origin.

That is the whole point.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is that note is also taken of the specific rules applicable in that country.

No, that is specifically not the case.

So if such a rule does exist, it will be adhered to.

No, that is not the case.

The convention prescribes certain uniform rules in connection with certain aspects, but also takes note of, and gives protection to, particular regulations of member countries of the convention.

In conclusion I just want to say that I am convinced of the fact that this specific matter, which is a very technical and a non-political matter, has received indepth attention for a period of almost three and that it would be impossible—I want to emphasize this—to find a solution which would satisfy all parties. In this case the legislator has no other alternative but to settle for a compromise and entrench this in legislation. I believe that the compromise entrenched in this legislation is the best possible solution under the circumstances, and for that reason I gladly support the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in the CP have had a look at the Bill. I myself have also had a look at it, and I must confess that I do not understand as much of the Bill as I ought to understand. [Interjections.] I shall therefore simply be led by my intuition and say that the CP supports the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me that the hon. member for Rissik is so quick to follow this party’s example. What is involved here is the question of copyright that we must defend for them, but in the election struggle in the “Bergs” it was proved that whatever we implemented, they would copy us. Let me tell them that they are free to take out copyright on their heartland policy, their homeland policy, but no one would, in any case, try to make it, export it or buy it from them.

I do, however, want to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville who made a few interesting remarks to which I think one should give some attention. He began his speech by referring to the legislation as reasonably technical legislation of a fairly complex kind. He then made the plea that it should be referred to a Select Committee of Parliament. I now want to ask him: In order to prove what? The parties in the House see to it that they designate knowledgeable people to be members of the committees set up to examine various Bills. We have, however, just heard one party say that it does not have enough knowledgeable people. Then we also find, as was the case last week when we were discussing toll roads, that once the experts have come to a unanimous decision in such a Select Committee, the non-experts in the caucus overrule the decision of the experts. Then they come back to this House with another decision. I therefore agree with the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Paarl. We on this side of the House have called our experts together and had a look at the legislation, and we can find no fault with it.

I also want to engage the hon. member for Yeoville in debate on another matter. He quoted the example of the jack, and I want to use that example to prove to him that copyright which could, under the present legislation, continue in existence for a period of 80 years, cannot remain in existence for longer than 10 years under the new legislation. This is surely a tremendous improvement for industry and industrial growth in South Africa, and it is no use trying to make the point that one should not grant copyright to people who bring a product to this country.

I want to refer to another example which the hon. member quoted. He said a person could make a drawing of a front-end loader—I think that is the piece of equipment the hon. member wanted to refer to. If he has made a drawing of a portion of it, but does not have enought money to patent it or to build it and prove that it works, in going from one industrialist to another with his drawing and explaining to them what the equipment can do, he may very quickly find as an artisan that some or other industrialist, who does have the money and is empowered to do so, may make a drawing of the equipment and thus take it over—and that is then the end of the individual’s patent, because he only had it on paper. I think this type of copyright is a very good thing to protect the kind per person who cannot afford to manufacture an article.

I do, however, now want to come to the actual subject of my speech. I want to agree with the hon. member for Paarl that it is always difficult to bring about a compromise between two parties. This is particularly true, as the hon. the Minister has also said, in a case such as this where the two groups involved have adopted diametrically opposed points of view. When someone has to act as arbiter in such a case, it is advisable to ensure that he himself has no interest in either of the two groups’ point of view. I believe that those of us in this House who have looked at this matter can make an unprejudiced judgment and come to a decision.

In the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister, it seems very clear that the standpoints of the interested parties are polarized, and therefore the legislation will not satisfy either one of the two groups. We on this side of the House do, however, feel that the relevant parties have thus far been sufficiently consulted. The hon. the Minister has indicated that this matter has, for several years now, been in the melting pot, and we believe that a fair decision can now be made in the interests of both groups.

The most important aspect of the Bill, in my opinion, deals with the copyright of drawings and the reproduction of products which have a utilitarian purpose and which are to be manufactured by an industrial process. The amendments, as I see it, grants protection to the author for a period of 10 years, which in my view gives him sufficient opportunity to pick the fruits of his ingenuity and labours. Thereafter he must be satisfied to have the free-market system run its course. He must accept that we must subsequently allow healthy competition to proceed in this growing industrial country of ours. After 10 years someone who is protected by the Act has normally recovered the capital he initially invested to get a specific product onto the market. Because he manufactured tools in order to get the product onto the market, as far as his price structure is concerned he also has a head start on those who enter the same market after 10 years. Besides, he has the added advantage that the name of quality of his product is already established. He therefore has a reasonable head-start on those newly entering the market.

On the other hand, this legislation now creates an opportunity for those who are competing in the same field but who have for a period of 10 years, not been able to scoop off the cream, now to be able to scoop themselves to drink from the same pail. That is how we feel the free market system ought to work in this case. Everyone must get sufficient opportunity to contribute towards promoting their own interests and the industrial progress of our country. Such contributions by the individual must be acknowledged and rewarded, but the community must not be asked to say thank you for a whole lifetime and then still 50 years more. The modern world is a different place to survive in, not only for the individual, but also for the State. We therefore cannot allow South Africa’s growth and development to be hampered. As far as that is concerned, the hon. member for Yeoville will find that we on this side of the House do agree with him to a certain extent because we believe that excessive protection should not be granted to the individual’s interests in this case either. We believe that the individual’s rights must be protected within certain limits. This must go hand in hand with, and be weighed up against the interests and rights of the rest of the community. It is a fine balance that must be achieved here, and that is why we believe that the point of balance contained in the amendment is very well defined. We acknowledge the fact that it is a point of balance that can shift, depending on the degree of stability, peace and quiet prevailing in the country. I believe that when a country is faced with a crisis of survival, that point of balance might shift closer to the interests of the country and the community, whilst in peace-time, when stability prevails, it might be moved closer to the interests of the individual. When, a modern world such as today’s world, we are dealing with rapidly growing technology, with countries competing seriously in the industrial field, the interests of one’s country’s industries must be borne in mind when legislation of this nature is considered, legislation that could impede the growth of the industries in the country, as the hon. member for Yeoville has rightly pointed out. This could also place one in a weaker competitive position than other countries. For that reason we on this side of the House remain true to our policy in saying that the interests of no individual or group are greater than the interests of the country. In a hostile world we must have the interests of our citizens at heart, but they in turn must not lose sight of the onslaught being made against our country on all fronts either.

It can be argued that with this proposed legislation we could make international companies sceptical when it comes to investing here and approving manufacturing licences, but I think that is a poor argument. If one looks at South Africa’s position in the world ratings of financial institutions used to advise their clients about where in the world to invest, one sees that South Africa occupies an extremely interesting position and that that position improves from year to year.

I have no doubt that the Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister has placed before us ought to be supported, and I agree with the hon. member for Paarl that this side of the House should give its full support to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Boksburg has made rather an interesting speech. I want to point out to him that what we are really dealing with here is the matter of the vested interests of the inventor, of the person who designs a product, of the people who manufacture it and of people who want to copy things and make so-called pirate parts, as has been said, in the interests of the economy of South Africa.

If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Yeoville wants to know what a fair period of protection is. I think that is a very valid question and I think that is what this Bill is all about.

We have on our Statute Books three Acts which protect people in the field of inventing, producing, writing or whatever it may be. We have the Patents Act, which, as we have heard, gives protection to the inventor, the person who thinks up something really original and presents it to the public. The protection under the Patents Act lasts for 20 years.

Then we have the Designs Act, which in the initial stages gives the designer protection for five years, and if he so wishes he can extend it for a further five years, and even for a third period of five years, giving him a maximum period of 15 years. Maybe this is a very wise provision because, as we know, with many things of a design nature, fashions change, and maybe after five years the person who has designed it will not want to extend the period of protection for a further five years.

But then, Mr. Speaker, we are also dealing with the Copyright Act, which I personally believe was originally thought up to protect, let us say, the literary people, the people who write a book or a work or produce a particular sculpture which can be copied. We have many modern techniques of making moulds which easily facilitate copying. To my way of thinking the Copyright Act was essentially designed to give people of that type that sort of protection. However, it also protects publishers in respect of certain printed works, and the protection we give them is the lifetime of the holder of that copyright plus 50 years. What has happened over the years, however, is that because the definition of a so-called artistic work includes a three-dimensional model we now find that people take out copyright protection for things of a functional nature that are manufactured. Therefore a person can copyright a trailer or a caravan or even the design of one of these very benches in which we are sitting. It is felt that the protection given under the Copyright Act is excessive for that type of functional article. We have to admit that innovators and inventors, those who contribute some of the major discoveries of our age, need some form of protection. That is why people are prepared to spend many years of their lives thinking up new ideas. This all costs money and takes time. They do it from a profit motive and therefore they have to be given some sort of protection. I think that what me must not lose sight of here is that for these people, the originators of something really new, the maximum protection they can receive is only 20 years whereas the Copyright Act gives a manufacturer if he copyrights his design of a functional item the lifetime of that individual plus 50 years. I think that is a little unreasonable.

I should like to put it to the hon. member for Yeoville that the question of the Designs Act needs some clarifying. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister may be able to assist us in this regard. I believe that under the Designs Act, the item for which one is seeking protection must have some aesthetic value; that is to say, people will buy it because it has eye appeal. For instance, a person may design a new dress for a woman and then wish to protect that design. A person may design a new shape for a motor car and can then obtain protection for that shape in terms of the Designs Act. However, if my facts are correct, I do not believe that the Designs Act gives protection to something of a functional nature such as a crankshaft or a piston in an engine. The Designs Act cannot be used to give protection to the manufacturer of that particular item. What these people do then is to take out a copyright. They ask for copyright protection of their product. They copyright it under the definition that is included in the Act in that it is a three-dimensional model or reproduction. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the protection given under the Copyright Act of lifetime plus 50 years is fair in the light of the fact that an inventor is only given protection for 20 years and the designer of something of an aesthetic value is given protection for a period of five years which can be extended to a total of 15 years. I think that this is the essense of what we are debating here this evening.

This is quite a controversial question. The hon. member for Yeoville has suggested that we should refer this Bill to a Select Committee. This matter has quite a history attaching to it. When the Copyright Act was first introduced in 1978 it gave three-dimensional industrial articles whether functional, like a piston or a crankshaft, or otherwise, such as a sculpture, the full period of copyright protection, and this gave rise to a controversy even while the legislation was before the House. Those hon. members who were here at the time may remember that. The Bill was referred to a parliamentary Select Committee, which the hon. member for Yeoville has suggested should be done with the legislation before us now. The Select Committee debated this matter at great length and eventually recommended the adoption of the Bill in its unaltered form but referred this very question of the protection enjoyed under copyright by three-dimensional industrial articles to the Standing Advisory Committee appointed under the very legislation that was passed by Parliament in 1978. Once the Act was promulgated the standing advisory committee accepted an offer from the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents to formulate an appropriate principle for placing a limitation upon the protection enjoyed by reasons of three-dimensional industrial articles under copyright. The patent attorneys debated this very question for two years before presenting a draft amendment back to the advisory committee. This draft amendment differed very slightly from the Bill which we are debating today. The standing advisory committee, after receiving these recommendations from the patents attorneys, in turn held public hearings in October 1980. The whole question of the protection enjoyed, by three-dimensional industrial articles under copyright, and also the subject of the patents attorneys proposed amendment were again discussed fully. This took another two years. In the end this Bill was placed before the House.

As has been said, it is a compromise between two vested interests: Those who hold copyright and those who want to use that design for manufacturing purposes but mostly for the profit. There is no agreement in the legal profession on this. One finds that there are patent attorneys who support the Bill. They support it for quite a variety of reasons. There is for instance one patent attorney who says the Act as it stands today—

Another attorney was far less enthusiastic about this. He said—

There was also an attorney who said—

You do not agree with that.

I do not, but these are the arguments of the legal fraternity who argued for their particular vested interests or of those whom they represented. Another person arguing for the Bill said that he believed it was necessary to allow copying—

So the argument went on. The hon. member for Paarl quoted from the same article I am quoting from. It was said that consensus in the legal profession is that the Bill is sound in principle but the period of protection should be raised from 10 to 20 years. That goes as far as the protection which a patent gives.

My view is that the people who have been debating it or who have been looking at the various arguments have hit upon the right compromise at this stage, viz. 10 years. I can sympathize with the hon. member for Yeoville who has an amendment to reduce it to five years. The fact should, however, be considered that at the present time under the present Act, the protection is the lifetime of the person holding the copyright plus 50 years. This is a considerable period. A young man such as myself … [Interjections.] … should I hold a copyright on some article, will be in the position that his grandchildren will enjoy this for many years to come because I am going to live to a ripe old age. I think to reduce the period to 10 years is quite reasonable. We in this party are therefore going to support the measure and for the reasons I have given we cannot support the request of the hon. member for Yeoville for a Select Committee. As I have said, this debate has been going on since 1978, and still there is a lot of controversy.

I should like to put it to the hon. member for Yeoville and also to the hon. the Minister that had it been possible to protect the design of a functional item under the design legislation, then perhaps we should exclude such an article from being covered by the Copyright Act. If that was possible, then possibly the definition of what an artistic work is, which is the basis of protection under the Copyright Act, would be, in terms of a definition which was given to me by an authority in this field, viz., something in regard to which, if at the time of its making the principal intention of its maker was that it should have a substantial aesthetic appeal to the beholder. That would be a more correct definition of something that should be covered by copyright in the sense that it is an artistic or literary work and not a functional, three-dimensional model.

As I have said, we will support the hon. the Deputy Minister’s motion and not go along with the request for a Select Committee. However, there is one thing that does concern me and I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I sincerely hope that he is going to be able to clear this up. I have had these representations made to me and I put them to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

With regard to clauses 1 and 2 of this measure it is clearly stated in the proposed amendment to the definition of “artistic work” and in the wording of the proposed new section 15(3A) that if this Bill becomes law, then a three-dimensional article “having a primary purpose which is utilitarian” and which is “manufactured by industrial process”, will enjoy copyright protection as an “artistic” work. That is the way I interpret the provision in this Bill. However, the Patents Act, No. 57 of 1978, which is expressly referred to in section 29(1) of the Copyright Act, excludes from patent protection inter alia an artistic work. While a three-dimensional article, the primary purpose of which is utilitarian and which is to be manufactured by an industrial process, would otherwise have qualified for patent protection if it had sufficient originality so as to meet the standards of novelty and inventiveness, which is quite clearly set out in section 25 of the Patents Act, it is now excluded from patent protection on the grounds that it is an artistic work. This is a legal opinion and I feel that I should raise it at this stage of the debate so that we can get the hon. the Deputy Minister’s view on this. Briefly, what it means, Sir, is that the definition of “artistic work” as we are now amending it, is going to include “functional items”, which under the Copyright Act and the Patents Act are excluded from being patented in terms of those Acts. Maybe we have a contradiction here, but perhaps not. The hon. the Deputy Minister may be able to sort this legal problem out for us.

Having said that, I can understand the need for this compromise. I think it is a little unreasonable to give protection of a lifetime plus 50 years to some article which may in fact have been invented in another country and brought to this country and which may not even be enjoying patent protection or any other type of protection in the other country, just because someone brought it here and had the foresight, in terms of the Copyright Act, to take out this sort of protection.

You do not have to lodge anything; you do not have to register anything.

That is another problem we have with this provision. The hon. member for Yeoville says that there is no central register where one can register all these copyrights. The problem is that people can amend the design slightly, can alter it and change the dimensions, and then have that copyrighted as well. There is no central register which a person who wants to manufacture that particular type of article can consult to see whether he is going to infringe any copyright protection. The idea of putting the little copyright “c” on the article is probably there to inform the public. My recommendation to anybody who is thinking of copying an article is, before he does so, to go to the manufacturer of that article and to say: Is this article copyrighted, and if so …

He will say “yes”. What do you think he will say?

This is the dilemma in which we find ourselves. The hon. member for Yeoville says that he will say “yes”, but there is no central registry for it. However, this is something which I believe future committees of the legal profession and specialists in this field are going to have to try to sort out. As the hon. member for Paarl said, there is the Bern Convention which is investigating this. I think this is a world-wide problem and I do not think it is possible for a Select Committee of this House to resolve that problem. I believe that the legal minds not only of South Africa but also of other countries are going to have to get together to try to find some solution to the problem. However, at this stage, considering the stage of industrial development in South Africa, as I have said on a number of occasions this evening, to have such tremendous protection for such a lengthy period I think is unreasonable. In principle we go along with protection for 10 years for a three-dimensional model which is of a functional nature and which is going to be produced by a manufacturer.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to thank all hon. members who took part in this debate. In particular I should like to thank those hon. members who are supporting the Second Reading of this measure. I should also like to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that I appreciate the seriousness with which he dealt with this matter. I should also like to thank him for the letter that he wrote originally, to which I gave him an indication that a Select Committee would not be accpetable to us. Therefore I am sorry to confirm to the hon. member tonight, in view of the many arguments put forward already by hon. members who participated in this debate, that I am unable to accept his amendment to the Second Reading.

*No one is disputing the fact that there are contradictions and contradictory interests with regard to the protective measures that should be taken in terms of this Copyright Amendment Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville correctly referred to the fact that he had received representations from industrialists, or people in industry, and even from members of the Institute of Patent Agents, who were of the opinion that there should be no period of protection in this case. On the other hand, as the hon. member for Paarl correctly indicated, representations have been received from industrialists and interested parties in the industry who actually want a much longer period of protection. In my reply, therefore, I hope to refer to those facets and to some other questions asked by the hon. member for Yeoville and by other hon. members. In fact, I referred in my Second Reading speech to the fact that there would always be contradictory interests, and I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville, with all due respect, that a Select Committee would not offer any solution, as some of the other hon. members have already pointed out. It is precisely for this reason that a advisory committee on copyright law has been established.

The hon. member for Paarl also referred to the composition of the advisory committee, and this gives hon. members an indication of the format of the advisory committee on copyright law.

†When it became clear that the Government intended to proceed with the recommendations of the advisory committee, i.e. to allow copying of three-dimensional articles in certain circumstances, these groups approached me again. The one group consisted of those who represented the designers and innovators who request full copyright protection both for the two-dimensional drawings and the three-dimensional articles produced from the drawings, and the other group consisted of those who represented the industrialists who requested that no protection be afforded to indirect copying. I should like to say that where the request was made to be allowed to copy three-dimensional articles in certain circumstances, the one group requested the period of protection to be extended to 15 years and the other group want the protection to be limited to five years. I have advised those groups that I intend to proceed with the proposal contained in the Bill but that the position would nevertheless be clearly watched. They have also been requested to submit facts regarding any hardship that may be experienced one way or the other as a result of this proposal for consideration by the advisory committee, and I should also like to reiterate that request here this evening.

I should like, however, to refer to one further aspect to which my attention was very recently drawn. That is the fact that copyright may have extended protection to designers whose rights had already expired before the Act came into operation. I am not referring to this amending legislation now but to the Act itself. It was therefore suggested that a further proviso be added—which is now done in terms of clause 2 of this Bill—in order to prevent this situation from occurring again. This matter will have to be considered by the advisory committee but as it is not yet certain whether clause 2 will require further amendment or whether another section of the Act should also be amended I propose to proceed with the present clause but will not bring it into operation until such time as the advisory committee has considered the matter and submitted their recommendations to me for further consideration.

South Africa is a member of the Berne Convention. So is the United Kingdom, as well as some 70 other countries. I must point out that there is no provision for the registration of functional items under either patent law or design law. Patent registration requires novelty as far as invention is concerned. Design law requires aesthetic value, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has also pointed out. The same position prevails in, inter alia the United Kingdom. Section 11 of the original Act never dealt with functional articles. The relevant section had reference to articles which appealed to the eye and not to the function of articles.

*The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to what he called the question of artistic craftsmanship. There have been certain decided cases in this connection as well. I shall come back to this presently, when I reply specifically to the last questions asked by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. Without this amendment, however, our courts have already ruled that copyright does exist in functional articles. The purpose of this amendment is in fact to restrict this long period of protection as far as three-dimensional articles are concerned. In many countries they use the so-called Unfair Competitions Act to combat copying. In South Africa we do not have such an Act.

†The United Kingdom has no copyright registration. In fact, according to the Berne Convention, one may not even enforce copyright legislation. Something which exists, such as “functional”, cannot be invented, and therefore one cannot have it patented. I should, however, point out that South Africa is not a country of pirates. If we were to allow piracy no one would be prepared to supply us with industrial equipment. If there are countries that do not afford us protection it is not our fault.

*I wish to thank the hon. member for Paarl very sincerely for his contribution. Actually, he greatly facilitated my task. He has also replied very effectively to the proposal made by the hon. member for Yeoville to this House in connection with the Select Committee. What I am particularly pleased about, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the hon. member for Paarl also dealt at length with the whole process of development of this legislation which is before the House tonight, as well as with the controversial clause concerned, and that he also explained the history of the standpoint of the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents, and of the attitude of the advisory committee, and mentioned the time those things occupied.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He gave us a resume of the history of this specific clause, something which he has done in depth and in detail.

*I am glad, too, that the hon. member for Paarl also referred specifically tonight to the composition of the advisory committee, and indicated that this measure had therefore been the subject of serious consideration.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Rissik for supporting the legislation on behalf on his party.

Similarly, I want to thank the hon. member for Boksburg for his contribution. He rightly indicated that the interests were obviously polarized into two groups. He also pointed out that there had to be a delicate balance between the interests of the individual and those of industry, and I fully agree with him there. He concluded by saying that the interests of the country should take precedence.

†I have already referred to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who has quite unequivocally stated his support for the fact that protection should be for a ten-year period and that it should not be extended to a longer period. The hon. member also referred to certain representations and said he had received legal opinion. He referred to the question of the definition of “artistic work”. I should like to say to him that protection of utilitarian articles as artistic works under copyright law has been acknowledged by the courts both in the United Kingdom and in South Africa. This has been the position since 1911 in the United Kingdom and since 1916 in South Africa. To my knowledge no problems have been experienced in regard to patent protection where that protection was sought for an article which had a utilitarian use and which may have been denied such protection because of section 29 of the Patents act. I think that that is the position, but this may be a bit speculative.

I should like to refer the hon. member to three recorded cases in which the courts dealt with the protection as mentioned above. The one is Scaw Metals Ltd. vs. Apex Foundry, 1982 (2), S.A. Law Reports, p. 377. The second is Tolima (Pty) Ltd. vs. Horatius Motor Accessories (Pty) Ltd., a case in the Witwatersrand Local Division, No. 8309/81. The third is J. K. Fulton (Pty) Ltd vs. Logic Engineering Enterprises (Pty) Ltd, 1983 (1), P. 735, which is also a Witwatersrand Local Division court hearing. In the second case to which I referred, that involving Tolima, there were amendments to both patents and copyright at the same time and the intention was therefore to take it out of copyright, but the judge said that that did not make sense. I just thought I would give the hon. member this as a reference.

*Finally, I want to thank the hon. members once again for their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. member for Paarl and the hon. member for Boksburg for their contributions and support. I also thank the hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Rissik for their support and the hon. member for Yeoville for his contribution on this Bill.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

1. 1. On page 4, in line 1, to omit “10” and substitute “5”.
2. 2. On page 4, in lines 8 to 13, to omit paragraph (b).

May I just deal with this very briefly. I want to say at the outset that I think that one experiences a degree of frustration when one puts a case which is then turned down without there actually being an effective answer to the arguments advanced. This is exactly what has happened here this evening. What is interesting, and what I do not understand, is that not only did the hon. the Deputy Minister reply. Two of his colleagues took part in the debate. Furthermore the hon. member for Amanzimtoti supported the legislation, as did the hon. member for Rissik, although the least he said, the better. However, not one of them actually dealt with the arguments which have been advanced.

I know when to speak and when not.

That is right. I think the hon. member was the most effective of those who did try to answer me. However, the problem is that no answers were given to the case. The hon. Minister, for instance, referred to the Berne Convention. The relevant paragraph of the Berne Convention reads—

This article is not applicable because it deals with a different matter, namely with photographic works and applied art—

The hon. the Deputy Minister will no doubt know that the Berne Convention has been revised repeatedly and that the one which we are dealing with now is the 1971 Paris revision. In terms of that countries such as, for example, the United States, have a legal situation in that the United States Supreme Court has found that any laws which seek to inhibit this are ultra vires. It is stated very clearly that an industrial article which is not registered as a design is in the public domain. Will somebody tell me why the United States can do this and we cannot? The hon. the Deputy Minister said that we are not a country of pirates. Is the United States a country of pirates? They are doing it. If they can do it, why can we not do it? Take for example the European Economic Community. There one is entitled to make a copy of drawings which apply where the article itself is not protected. The European Economic Community are not a bunch of pirates. So we cannot be pirates if we were to do it. Nobody in the whole debate has answered the simple question—I pose it again now—why it is that somebody who has no protection in his own country can come to South Africa and get a royalty out of South Africans? That is the thing I want answered. The hon. member for Paarl is smiling. He should rather answer me. That is what I want. He wants to go and pay royalties for things which we cannot get in other countries.

Let us take a simple example. Let us take the case of a South African who goes to a country within the European Economic Community with his design and drawing. He cannot get a royalty or copyright protection. How does one explain that? To me it seems such an elementary thing. If one cannot as a South African get protection in the United States and Europe and one cannot get protection in Taiwan and all these other countries that import to us, why can they get protection here? That to me is a very simple question. I am waiting for that answer.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made the point—I think he made a valid point, because his speech was actually on my side, but for some reason the vote was the other way around—that, as I had indicated, there is no registration of a copyright. The hon. the Minister said that one cannot have a registration of a copyright. Of course one cannot have it of a book, but one can have an obligation to register where there is to be industrial multiplication. One can have that. Why can we not have that if that is intended? Then, if it is a question of covering it by means of a design, a very simple amendment to the Designs Act could be made in order to permit the registration of designs as designs even where the shape is purely functional. If one did that one would solve a lot of these problems.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister a very simple thing. If he gives protection for five years now—and he has already indicated that he has some problems about the new paragraph (b) which I am talking about and that the whole of this new subsection may not come into force—he can always give a couple of years more if he thinks we are wrong. However, once he makes provision for 10 years and he gives vested rights in respect of 10 years, then it is very difficult to cut it down. That is why I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment of five years, because if events show me to be wrong, then he can extend it. That seems to me not an unreasonable request to make to the hon. the Minister.

The other problem which I have, which I think he will agree is a very real problem, is with regard to the new subsection (3A)(b). It reads as follows, and I quote—

Sir, I find it, with great respect, very difficult to understand that where a particular item has been already on the market for nine years and 11 months, it is going to be covered for another 10 years because we are now introducing this Act. It does not make sense. With great respect, I think that paragraph (b) should be deleted. I think there is a very strong case to do that, because it really seems quite unjust that in the circumstances one does not provide for the question of making it public to start from the day one actually made it public. What is worse, if one looks at paragraph (a), it is not just a question of making it public inside the Republic, but anywhere in the world. Therefore, he really is making provision for something that has been made public throughout the world, maybe for the last 49 years where a man has died, or in the case where the fellow concerned has not even died yet even though the invention is more than 50 years old. What he is therefore saying in those circumstances is that the reproduction has been going around the world, it has been used there, but now we in South Africa are so kind that we are going to give it another 10 years’ protection so that our people can pay royalty on it. To my mind the case has been made out that paragraph (b) should go and that instead of 10 years, we should have five years in respect of this particular provision.

Mr. Chairman, we are now dealing with the second prize, because the hon. member was initially fully in favour of there being protection. As an alternative he is now suggesting a period of five years.

It is the second line of defence.

If we go on like this, it will soon be 71/2 years, and then we eventually get back in any case to 10 years, as provided for in the Bill. I want to tell the hon. member that in my view there are no provisions in the Bern Convention covering this specific aspect. Each country must decide what is best for it. I have no doubt that in a developing country like South Africa, where we need a great deal of this expertise, this is the best that can be done in the circumstances. As the hon. member for Boksburg said a moment ago, we must remember that we are reducing protection from what is potentially say a period of 80 years to one of 10 years. In South Africa, with its shortage of skilled labour and entrepreneurship, we need this kind of protection to obtain this information and this new copyright.

I should like to react to the hon. member for Yeoville’s remark about the proposed new subsection (3A)(b). The hon. member is concerned about the fact that someone who has already been going for a period of 9 years and 11 months, will now gain an additional 10 years. The hon. member for Yeoville must simply bear in mind that at the moment, before the commencement of this legislation, a person enjoys protection for his full lifetime plus 50 years.

What I am saying is that if it is the final year, he gets an additional 10 years.

If, after 80 years … [Interjections.] Well, that would indeed be the exception to the rule. I feel that we should even grant that protection to presently operative cases.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Paarl.

†I should also like in the first instance to thank the hon. member for Yeoville and hon. members of the Opposition for allowing us to take the Committee Stage now. I really do appreciate it.

In regard to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville as to the situation in the United States, I am advised that the United States of America belongs to the Universal Copyright Union. The United States has copyright registration and we have a bilateral agreement with the United States to give protection to each other’s owners of copyright.

*Mr. Chairman, the position is also that a member of the Berne Convention has to afford protection to fellow members. We have published the names of all the countries involved—I can give the hon. member for Yeoville the reference—in the Government Gazette. In terms of Schedule I this notice came into effect on 1 January 1979. The countries are listed in alphabetical order, starting with Argentina, and a tremendous number of countries are mentioned. The position is, therefore—and the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to this—that a member of the Berne Convention has to afford protection to fellow members.

As far as the argument raised by the hon. member in connection with the five years and the 10 year is concerned, I want to tell him that in the light of our discussion this evening, and the events which led up to a period of 10 years being decided on, this decision was not one that was taken lightly.

Hon. members have indicated how long this matter was debated by the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents, the Standing Advisory Committee and even by the attorneys. Eventually a compromise of 10 years was agreed on. These were also people who did not want any protection. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Yeoville made an appeal in this connection. There were people who have valid arguments in support of a long period of 15 years. It is therefore extremely difficult, in this regard, to make any concessions at this stage and to say that we should simply accept another period now. These would really give little satisfaction to anyone, particularly those persons advocating a specific period of protection in this case.

†As far as the proposed new subsection (3A)(b) is concerned, the position is as I indicated in my reply to the Second Reading debate, and that is to the effect that the Copyright Act of 1975 may have extended protection to designers whose rights had already expired before the principal Act came into operation, and so it was suggested that a further proviso be added to this clause to prevent such a situation arising. As I see it, the situation is that it is not as a result of the amending legislation with which we are dealing tonight but from the provision that exists in the present legislation. We are already reducing the period of protection to 10 years and in the circumstances I regret that I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what actually he has in mind in regard to delaying the bringing into force of the provisions of clause 2. I say this because the provisions of clause 6(2) read—

Does he intend to bring into force the proposed section 15(3A)(a) and to leave section 15(3A)(b) over? It would be highly undesirable to have a situation that one actually delays the 10-year period starting because one is not certain about paragraph (b). Would he bring into force paragraph (a) and leave (b) over? That is really what I should like to ask him there.

I should like to deal with the hon. member for Paarl. One of the things which I think he should be aware of—I am sure he is—is that even if one cannot claim royalty in the ordinary sense of the word because one brings know-how into the country, one gets knowhow payment if one bring one’s knowledge into the country. One can negotiate that with the people to whom one brings the know-how.

The difficulty with which we are dealing here is quite different. The difficulty here is that one wants to manufacture something inside South Africa. One does not need the know-how of the other man, but there happens to be a drawing. That is really what the dilemma is in which we are.

I am enjoying this debate, but I am not sure anybody else is. I therefore do not intend protracting it unduly. In the USA in the case of Sears vs Comco it was held that an industrially reproduced article which did not enjoy patent or design protection was placed in the public domain once it was marketed and the article could be copied. It was also stated that unfair competition law in any State of the Union to the contrary was held to be ultra vires.

The situation is that while we have an agreement with the USA, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, the South African who goes with his plans to the USA gets no royalty, and if anybody from the USA comes here to take our plans, there is no royalty payable, but when somebody comes from the USA where there is no royalty payable and no protection, we have to pay him a royalty here. This is really the most Irish situation that I have ever heard of. It just does not make sense. We come to an agreement with people in order to give them a privilege. Well, that is most remarkable. I have always thought that things are supposed to be bilateral. In this case, however, it is quite clear that we draw the short end of the match without any doubt whatsoever.

Unless I have convinced the hon. the Deputy Minister now, I intend leaving it at that because even though, as I have said, I am enjoying this debate and I should rather like to continue it, it is quite obvious that the Committee does not show this great enthusiasm for the Copyright Act which a couple of us appear to have.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, the situation is that we have a bilateral agreement with the USA to give protection to each other’s copyright owners.

*Even if the position were as the hon. member for Yeoville suggested, it is specifically our intention, by way of this legislation, to make our law tougher. The hon. member asked me about the coming into operation of clause 2. The intention is not to bring the envisaged section 15(3A) into operation immediately, the motivation for this having been given in my reply to the Second Reading debate. I shall forward the representations of the hon. member in connection with paragraph (a) of the envisaged subsection to the advisory committee. In any case, in terms of the Bill it can be brought into operation at any time.

†Apart from this I should like to say that the arguments put forward by hon. members tonight will also be brought to the attention of the standing advisory committee for its consideration.

*Under these circumstances I should like to thank the hon. member for his contribution and conclude by saying that I am unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the advisory committee would take note of what has been said here, but I want to ask whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can perhaps give us an answer now to the question raised by the hon. member for Yeoville when he first spoke on this clause. He asked whether the Designs Act could not be amended to include three-dimentional models of a functional nature which are manufactured, and if that could be the cause, whether the Designs Act could not cover the very things we are talking about instead of the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act would then be limited to items of a literary nature or of a truly artistic nature, items which have an aesthetic value and are pleasing to the eye.

There is also one point I would like to put to the hon. member for Yeoville. He talked about people coming to this country and having a degree of protection which perhaps South Africans do not have in other countries. I just want to put it to him that people often bring things to South Africa, manufactured machines or goods, which are necessary for the industrial growth of this country. The local pirate manufacturer often picks out the eyes of the total machine and then produces those and not the entire machine. Often this acts as a disincentive to people bringing their ideas or machines to South Africa. They fear the pirate operations in this country. It may be that a degree of protection is required under those circumstances. As I said at Second Reading, we are talking about vested interests here. We may need certain industrial, agricultural or other types of machines for our economy, and people are only prepared to bring them here provided they are given some degree of protection. I just wanted to put this point to the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I have taken note of the remarks of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, and especially of the remarks he has just made about the so-called pirate manufacturers. However, I have to tell the hon. member that we will probably have this problem with us for quite some time. One of the specific tasks of the advisory committee will be to take a careful look at these matters and to perform what I would almost call a monitoring function. It may be that in the future the advisory committee will be able to come forward with solutions to particular problems, including the problem areas indicated by hon. members here this evening.

South Africa already has a bad name as far as the so-called pirate firms are concerned.

*I want to assure hon. members, therefore, that in this field, we shall take great care in dealing with these matters. I shall request the advisory committee to go into every matter to which hon. members have referred.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, the clause in itself appears to have merely a change in wording in the sense that the words “distribution” and “performance” are substituted for the words “circulation” and “presentation”. In itself the amendment is to my mind not objectionable, but I would like to take this opportunity of raising with the hon. the Deputy Minister, because of the change in wording, a matter which is causing a tremendous amount of harm and in regard to which we are really dealing with pirates in the true sense of the word, which is highly undesirable. I refer in particular to the video film industry in South Africa. I hold no brief for the people who produced the film Ghandi, but the story is doing the rounds that even in this town at present there are pirated copies of Ghandi being rented out. So too are pirated copies of films that are made all over the world. There are pirated copies of television shows that have been taken off the television screen and are being shown. What is happening is that the legitimate operators who have to pay the normal royalties and fees for the use of these films are finding themselves utterly undercut by the pirates who get these films for next to nothing because they are in fact just copies. I think that the public is also to a large extent to blame because it finds itself getting copies of video films which are of poor quality and which are obviously copies of copies. Yet the public hires these copies and it uses them and it allows itself to become a party to this. I wonder whether the time has not arrived when the hon. the Deputy Minister should indicate to the public not only that the copyright laws of South Africa are going to be very stringently enforced but also that if members of the public encourage the abuse of the copyright laws and knowingly participate in this, they expose themselves to penalties for so doing. This is a field where certainly the question of a reputation of being a pirate becomes very important. I do not believe that we should have that reputation and I believe that we should take stringent measures in order to see to it that where there are legitimate operators they are enabled to conduct legitimate business and are not undercut by people who are indulging in illegitimate activities. I am not even referring to the banned films and pornographic films that are made available to the public. All of those fall perhaps into another category, but the reality of the matter is that in the video film business in South Africa at the moment we are living in a pirate era and it should be brought to an end.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee. As far as I am aware the Department of Internal Affairs is at present investigating this whole problem area to which the hon. member has referred. In that sense thus the matter is sub judice and I should not like to make any further comments on it. I would suggest that we await the outcome of the investigation and the report.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some indication as to how he contemplates using the power that is contained in this clause. In this particular provision—

We now have a new definition of “artistic work”. Subsection (2) of the proposed new section 45A deals specifically with the question of making these articles available. Subsection (3) deals with the remuneration that can be obtained by people who are involved. I should like to know what the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind. Does he in fact have in mind that he will make regulations in regard to the very matter that we o "have been debating under clause 2 and, if so, what sort of regulation does he have in mind? Secondly, does he also have in mind ensuring that where the royalty is not a reasonable remuneration, he will act in order to ensure that it is a reasonable remuneration? The threat of arbitration and the costs that are involved in that seem to us sometimes to be a deterrent to the ordinary small manufacturer who wants to use something that is necessary for his business and for which he should pay a reasonable royalty, but who certainly should not get involved in expensive arbitration and matters of that sort.

Mr. Chairman, all I can say at this stage is that consideration will be given to this matter when it is in the national interests to do so. According to my advice, the situation is that this has to do mainly with the question of dramas. It is a clause we would prefer not to put into effect, and I wish to point out to the hon. member that the fact that we do not intend putting these provisions into effect immediately, indicates that it is a measure the Minister will resort to only after very serious consideration, and probably only if it is very clearly in the national interest. I also wish to point out that this is not an alien principle, but one which is already contained in the Patents Act, 1978.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we asked during Second Reading that this measure should be referred to a Select Committee. We requested that because we do not believe that there should be a 10-year period of extension. We tried during Committee Stage to reduce the period to five years. We actually believe there should be no extension at all but none of our suggestions met with favour here.

Secondly, we were concerned about a provision in respect of when the 10-year period started, something about which we are also still concerned. Therefore we must express a degree of unhappiness in respect of this particular measure. We believe that it is better than not having a change at all. Therefore we will not vote against the Third Reading. It is an interesting precedent, Mr. Speaker, which you might consider. The point at issue is whether the measure, as it stands now, is better or worse than it would have been had it not been changed at all. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, what I should like to say to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—because I was waiting for him to come back—is that one of the major problems that I have with this Bill is that it goes, as I indicated during Second Reading, contrary to what he considers should be a national goal of this country. This is one of the problems, Sir, that we are expected to support private initiatve and effective competition …

Will you then support me?

Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to support this but meanwhile the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is now about to vote against his own national objective because this measure indeed stifles competition, and also private initiatve. I am amazed that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would allow such a thing to take place in his own party. On the eve of a most important series of by-elections, on top of it, we have yet another example of double talk. [Interjections.] I find that absolutely unbelievable, Sir. I just cannot understand it, Mr. Speaker. It is utterly beyond me. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I just, in a final note, make one plea—in all seriousness—to the hon. the Deputy Minister because we have conducted this debate in a good spirit, in a spirit which I appreciate? That is that I am concerned because we are in a country which needs technological skills, which needs to encourage its people to develop their skills, which needs to extend its industry and which cannot afford to lose foreign exhange unnecessarily. Yet we have more stringent laws than developed countries such as the USA and countries in the European Economic Community. We are enforcing tonight far more stringent copyright laws than they do. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to go back to his committee and ask them to re-examine this, even after he has passed this law. The spirit in which we approach this is that we would like to encourage ingenuity in South Africa. We would like to encourage industrial development in South Africa, and we do not believe that this measure is in the best interests of that approach. That is why, even though we accept that this will become law—being in the minority, we have no choice but to accept that—we appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, because I am sure he does not disagree with the principle I have tried to advocate, to re-examine this and, if he finds next year that we can do better, to come with another piece of legislation to improve this.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for the fine spirit in which he has now accepted the third prize in the compromise which was reached here. I wish to inform him that the advisory committee will undoubtedly be monitoring this matter continually, in the best interests of technological development in South Africa. In conclusion, may I say to the hon. member that they may do better than gain third prize in Waterkloof! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to make as brief a speech as I did during the Second Reading debate. The CP also supports the Third Reading. After having supported the hon. the Minister so well during the Second Reading, I did not expect the hon. member for Boksburg to bare his teeth at me. I shall leave it at that until next week.

I am grateful, too, that the hon. member for Yeoville praised my Second Reading speech.

The Bill is a little complicated, particularly to a person with my background. However, I have listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I have in fact read the Bill, and I do not think it is a bad piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problems supporting the Third Reading, having supported the Second Reading. The hon. member for Yeoville has made great play of the fact that this country needs technological skills and that we need to develop these skills. He said he felt that the period of 10 years to which the Bill limits protection is too long and that this will stifle private enterprise and private initiative. I want to put it to the hon. member that so far we have dealt mainly with functional items, three-dimensional models of a functional nature, which are manufactured by an industrial process. The hon. member has, however, limited his thinking, as far as private enterprise and private initiative are concerned, to the industrial sphere. I should like to put it to him that this free enterprise philosophy also applies to the professions. That hon. member, belonging to the legal profession, must realize that, when it comes to vested interests, the legal profession complicates things. It has taken six years to try to resolve this …

You were much better in the Second Reading debate than you are now.

Well, that hon. Minister is also a member of the legal profession. The reason why it has taken six years so far is that the lawyers have complicated matters. [Interjections.] What has happened is that some have exercised their initiative and their right to free enterprise to come with all sorts of reasons why the period of protection should be 20 years instead of five years, while others insist that it should only be for five years. I should like to put it to the hon. member that it is possibly the legal profession that has been creating problems. [Interjections.] I have often said that engineers solve problems while legal people cause problems. In any event, we take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti got himself into hot water when he started discussing the question of the legal profession. As I indicated in another debate, the situation is that, as is often said light-heartedly, when you ask five lawyers for a legal opinion you may get seven opinions. I should like to say to the hon. member that perhaps he should keep out of the legal profession for the time being.

I am trying to stay away as far as possible.

I should, however like to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his support.

*I should also like to thank the hon. member for Paarl and the hon. member for Rissik for their support.

†I should also like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his approach. I agree with him that the Bill was dealt with in a very good and positive spirit. The situation is that we would like to see good legislation come about. Therefore I should like to say again that all the arguments put forward and the points raised will receive the attention of the advisory committee.

*We are agreed that we want to develop and encourage ingenuity. We want to encourage industrial development and therefore do not want to introduce any preventive measures. At the same time, however, one will not be encouraging ingenuity unless specific protection is granted to resourceful people. These are the people who make a tremendous contribution to the development of industry, who are skilful and think up and register new designs. In specific cases they can, therefore, claim protection.

I just want to point out that clause 4 relates to section 45 of the Act. This deals specifically with the matter of dramas. In terms of clause 5 of the Bill a new section, section 45A, is to be added to the Act, a section which more specifically concerns the manufacturing sector. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to this earlier.

I should like to thank hon. members for their contributions and support. I trust that this legislation will have the desired effect.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Patents Act, 1978—Act 57 of 1978—came into operation on 1 January 1979 and repealed and superseded the previous Patents Act of 1952 in its entirety. However, in the meanwhile a few problems in connection with the interpretation of certain provisions of the existing Act, in practice, have come to light, and the amendments proposed in this Bill, on which the South African Institute of Patent Agents was consulted, are exclusively, except for a single exception, aimed at eliminating any doubts or confusion which may exist regarding the exact intention of the relevant sections.

†The one exception that I have referred to above is where it is proposed in the Bill to provide for a penalty clause if a person claims that a patent has been applied for in respect of any article and no such application has been made, or any such application has been refused, withdrawn, or has lapsed. The proposed provision is an innovation which is considered necessary.

The proposed amendments were published in Government Gazette No. 8433 dated 29 October 1982 for general information and comment. Only one organization commented on the Bill and, in fact, objected “in the strongest possible terms to the proposed amendment” contained in the then clause 1. This clause provided for the payment of a prescribed fee to be included in section 9, which states that only agents may act in matters in terms of the Act. The proposed clause has been deleted and provision has now been made in clause 5 of the Bill before the House for the payment of renewal fees by a patentee or an agent. This new proposal should overcome this organization’s objection.

*Mr. Speaker, owing to the general nature of the amendments incorporated in the Bill, I am not going to be more specific regarding their nature, because we are dealing with existing legislation which is merely being more clearly defined.

However, if hon. members wish, I shall give further explanations, where necessary, during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think this Bill will have a quicker and easier passage through the House than the last one. We support the Second Reading.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has made two points. I think the one in regard to the penalty that applies if one represents that an article has in fact been patented is more than important, particularly, I must say, in respect of imported articles, many of which come from abroad with a statement on them that they are patented. This is done in order to try and stop people from manufacturing them here, but these statements are in fact quite incorrect. We therefore certainly welcome this provision.

As regards the hon. the Deputy Minister’s objection and the proposed section 46 in terms of which the patentee can either pay himself or his agent, I should like to say that I am not a patent agent and have no vested interests, but I would make an appeal to people to take the trouble in these complicated matters to get the advice of experts rather than to try to be their own advisers. I think they would be well advised to do so, much as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti would like to act for himself. For his own benefit I want to tell the old adage that if you are your own lawyer, you must remember that you are not only being advised by a fool; you are also a fool for taking that advice! I therefore leave it to the hon. member to choose whether he would like to act for himself or not, but I think in patent matters in particular expert advice is essential.

In conclusion I should like to use the opportunity to pay tribute to what I think is an organization that is sort of lost in obscurity, but which I think actually does a very good job and that is the South African Inventions Development Corporation, a body which falls directly in the field relating to patents. This organization, which I believe does not receive enough publicity, is available to South Africans who have ingenuity and want to apply that ingenuity, but who need help financially and otherwise to do so. There are many people who have good ideas and who perhaps do not know of the existence of this organization. I believe it should publicized to a greater extent so that people will know that if one has an invention that can be patented and one cannot afford to have it fully exploited, one has the opportunity to approach this organization to assist one.

To show how many people come with propositions—in fact very few do—I should like to quote from the last annual report of this organization, as follows—

That is not a lot over 20 years, but what is significant is that of these only 24 were accepted. I quote further—

One actually finds that of the propositions submitted only about 0,16% in fact came to anything which is profitable. However, Sir, I think the reality is that South Africans are people who have ingenuity. I think we should encourage that ingenuity in our people—and here is an organization which can help a man who does not have the resources in order to exploit it. To my mind this is where free enterprise has an attractive face, because here the ordinary man is given an opportunity to get on and have the same kind of facility at his disposal which he might have if he were a person of greater substance. Therefore, in supporting this measure I want to say that I should like to see that there is greater publicity given to this organization and that more South Africans who have this ingenuity use this South African Inventions Development Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon. member for Yeoville. I support him wholeheartedly with regard to the information he has conveyed to this House. I am grateful that he has raised the matter here.

One does not always realize what the degree of development is in one’s country until one has to deal with one’s country’s patent laws, its patentees and its patents. Then only does one realize that one is living in one of the few countries in the world that protects the ingenuity of its people in this way. Then only does one realize the potential of the people of one’s country, its engineers and its technicians. When one effects minor alterations of this nature to the legislation, one realizes what this brain power means to South Africa.

Of course, we on this side of the House have acquainted ourselves thoroughly with the contents of this legislation and we support it wholeheartedly. We find no fault with it. However, legislation of this nature occasionally contains something that gives rise to concern, and I have found something in it that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. One is concerned about the fact that at times this legislation permits people to be able to use the legislation to pretend that certain patents exist which do not, in fact, exist. One could also use this legislation to cause someone to think that he has applied for patent rights, whereas in reality, he has not done so. Therefore we are very grateful that these provisions are being incorporated in this legislation. We on this side felt so strongly about those aspects of the legislation, that we want to address a request to the hon. the Deputy Minister. We do not wish to delay the legislation at this stage, but we do want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to ask his department to investigate whether it is not time for us to consider seriously the fine and the period of sentence for which provision is made in section 8 of the principal Act, with a view to a possible increase. I should like to move such an amendment, but because it affects other sections of the legislation, I feel that an investigation should first be held and that the hon. the Deputy Minister could then raise the matter here again on another occasion. My motivation for this is that I think that the Patents Act is often abused by people, as I have already said, and that we should deter those people by prescribing a heavier fine or sentence. If we do not prescribe a sufficient deterrent for such a potential offence, it is no use our introducing this kind of legislation on patents. The State does not have sufficient people to appoint as inspectors to investigate dealers who sell articles in respect of which they claim patent rights exist or in respect of which they claim to have applied for patent rights. The man in the street who has to compete with such a so-called patentee or applicant, accepts the honesty of the advertisement claiming that the product has been patented or that application has been made for a patent. He would therefore not simply go and investigate such an allegation, since possibly he cannot afford it, or else he does not have the manpower available and because this would cause trouble for him, with the result that he, the consumer and our country, would suffer. Therefore in my opinion we should give this legislation more teeth so that these chancers will know that we strive for honesty in the business world. If we could catch him, then at a later stage we could afford the law sufficient opportunity to punish him properly. I also see this as another way of combating inflation and further encouraging free competition.

Mr. Speaker, we live in an era of mass production and that is why, when one considers this legislation, one must take cognizance of the quantities and the profit per item which this legislation could have a bearing on. If an article is marketed at 10 cents, the fine of R1 000 would perhaps be sufficient to deter the so-called “patentee” or “patent applicant”, since he would have to sell more than 100 000 such articles in order to recover his fine. On the other hand, we know that some mass-produced articles are sold for as much as R10 000 per item, and that in such a case the fine could be recovered by the sale of one item. Therefore I request that the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously consider this aspect of the legislation to see whether we could not alter it at a later stage. I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the CP also supports this legislation. We are pleased to see that as in the case of the 1978 Act, there has once again been a considerable amount of consultation with regard to this matter. Not only was the submission approved by the S. A. Institute of Patent Agents, but the proposed amendments were also published in the Gazette.

It will be recalled that the 1978 Act was in fact the result of the work of a working group which had been giving this matter attention since 1971. In his Second Reading speech the then Minister of Economic Affairs mentioned a number of organizations that had been consulted in this regard. Furthermore, it was said that in particular there had been consultation between the public and the private sectors concerning this matter. I wish to focus the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister on the fact that organizations such as the Bar Council, the Association of Law Societies, the Chamber of Mines, the S. A. Inventions Development Corporation and other industrial organizations, as well as the S. A. Institute of Patent Agents, were consulted. I assume that despite the fact that it was, in fact, the institute that came forward with the submissions and that the matter was advertised, other important organizations were also consulted in this regard.

Legislation in this respect originated in the European Convention on Patents. Therefore this matter also has international implications. I should like to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister also consulted the international organizations that have a say in this.

The hon. member for Boksburg referred to the new provisions as set out in clause 8. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that his opinion was that the new provisions was deemed to be essential. I should like to know what his reason is for saying that. Have there been evasions; were there reasons that made this change essential?

I note that in clause 8 mention is made of “vervreem” instead of “verkoop”, and in the English text, “disposes” instead of “sells”. Note that the Afrikaans “vervreem” does not become “alienate” in English. The precise meaning of “vervreemding” sometimes leads to many problems. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could not at some stage give attention to the definition of the word “vervreemding”, or “disposal” in English.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from what has already been said that the provisions contained in the Bill resulted from proposals made by the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents. These proposals are mainly of a technical nature or are designed to clarify certain points contained in the Act. As such they will improve the Act and therefore we in the NRP support them.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised the matter of clause 8 which amends the section covering penalties. I think he said this was a good measure because of imported goods which were often marked as been patented whilst in fact they were not patented. It reminds one that there are also many goods which are marked as having been manufactured in certain places when really they come from places totally different to what the people who purchase those goods have in mind. For example, one hears of stainless steel coming from Sheffield, but then one finds that it comes from somewhere in the Far East, although it carries the inscription “Made in Sheffield”. One wonders exactly how one can ensure that that sort of misrepresentation does not occur.

I am also glad that the hon. member raised the question of the S.A. Inventions Development Corporation. As a matter of interest, I may mention that we have a programme for young people on television these days which encourages them to think up new ideas. I think it is essential that we instil in our young people at a very early age the whole idea of inventing new thing. Perhaps that programme will advertise the fact that there is such an organization as the S.A. Inventions Development Corporation which can assist people in promoting these new ideas.

With these few words I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we welcome this measure and that we will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his party’s support of this Bill and for the remarks he made. At the outset I would also like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his contribution and for his support of this measure. I would like to endorse his remarks as far as the S.A. Inventions Development Corporation is concerned. I agree with him that people working in this field should be advised by experts rather than be their own advisers.

*I thank the hon. member for Boksburg for his contribution and I want to tell him that I shall take a serious look at the matter of the penal provisions. I shall compare the penal provisions in the other clauses with these penal provisions and shall then discuss the matter with the hon. member at a later stage.

I thank the hon. member for Brakpan for his support and willingly undertake to look at the matter of the word “vervreemding” as against the word “disposal”. I also want to tell the hon. member that in this case there was not such wide-ranging consultation, because the amendments contemplated here, although published as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, were actually only aimed at clarifying provisions which are not quite clear in the existing Act. Nothing new is actually being introduced into the Bill. After publication, we did not receive any objections to the measure, with the exception of the doubts I referred to in my Second Reading speech.

As far as clause 8 is concerned, the situation is that too strict an interpretation was placed on the word “verkoop”. That is why this word has been replaced by the word “vervreem”. This matter was discussed with the Language Services Bureau. I shall nevertheless bear in mind the hon. member’s remarks in this connection. As far as this clause is concerned, too strict an interpretation was placed on the existing provisions on the Act. We are merely making provision for wider scope in this connection.

I again thank hon. members for their contributions and for their support for the measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 5:

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

The position is that renewal fees now have to be paid by the owner himself, or by his agent. However, it frequently happens that patent rights are disposed of just before the payment of the renewal fees and that the new owner then has his own agent. This could cause confusion as to whose agent is authorized to make the payment at a particular moment during that period of disposal. As it reads at present, the clause is too restrictive and the amendment is therefore aimed at overcoming the problem I have just mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.