Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we opposed this Bill consistently during the Second Reading debate and we opposed the Bill, in its detail, during the Committee Stage. The Bill before us has nonetheless passed through those stages and no amendments were accepted. In fact, I can say that the arguments placed before the hon. the Minister unfortunately fell on barren ground. I therefore think the House will not be surprised to hear that we, in these benches, remain unconvinced about the urgent need for a Bill of this nature. Our views have not changed at all. We believe that the final effect of this Bill is to further separate, in the eyes of the law, South African citizens by virtue of their birth or descent, from South African citizens by virtue of naturalization, making fish of one and fowl of the other.

This is an extension of an existing principle already to be found in our law, and it is something that we cannot support. We have started before, and I shall state it one last time, that there is no objection, from those of us in these benches, to temporary residents convicted of the offence mentioned in this Bill being removed from South Africa. There is also no objection to a permanent resident, who remains an alien though he is living in South Africa, being removed from South Africa upon conviction of such an offence. We say that citizens by birth or naturalization may be heavily penalized, and we will agree with both a heavy financial penalty and a heavy penalty in terms of imprisonment being imposed. We support all those aspects, fully realizing the damage that can be caused to South Africa by the smuggling of money out of the country. We continue to feel, however, that no case of any substance has been made out for the difference in treatment of offenders who are all fully-fledged South African citizens. The principles relating to the punishment of South Africans should, we believe, be uniform regardless of how citizenship was acquired. Accordingly, in those few words, we remain steadfast in our opposition to the passage of this Bill at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton is quite correct, of course, in saying that hon. members of the Official Opposition have opposed this Bill throughout. In doing so, however, I feel that they have exposed their true feelings about this measure. They were not satisfied with attempting to make an amendment during the Committee Stage, but also opposed the principle of this Bill consistently at all its stages. Even in the Third Reading stage they are still opposing the principle of this measure.

The hon. member for Sandton alleged, just as the hon. member for Constantia did during the Second Reading, that they endorsed the principle of the Bill and that all they were objecting to was the fact that this measure was being made applicable to naturalized citizens as well, but I am afraid that I cannot accept that as a valid argument. It seems to me that this is just a useful peg on which hon. members are trying to hang their basic opposition to the measures.

If we look at the arguments which have been advanced, by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, inter alia, it becomes very clear what the attitude of the hon. members of the Official Opposition towards the measure is. The hon. member for Johannesburg North complained of the fact that the offences dealt with by this measure are considered to constitute disloyalty towards the Republic of South Africa. When the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior asked him what else it might be, the hon. member for Johannesburg North failed to reply, and when I myself wanted to ask him a question about it, he said that he was not prepared to answer questions. I want to allege that the hon. member for Johannesburg North has let the cat out of the bag concerning their attitude towards this measure. They do not want to accept the principle that, in the present circumstances, offences of this nature do in fact amount to economic sabotage of the Republic of South Africa. This is basically what their attitude amounts to, but they do not have the courage to say it straight out: Now they come along with this type of academic argument that they support the principle but are sensitive about the rights of the naturalized citizens of the Republic.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also spoke about the supposedly bona fide offenders. I want to allege that this is complete nonsense. I do not expect an hon. member with the background of the hon. member for Johannesburg North to argue with such naïveté and sentimentality in the House. He should know better than to tell us that people commit these offences for other reasons than to harm the Republic of South Africa. Any offender commits the offence concerned for motives of his own, but that does not make it any less of an offence. If someone commits economic sabotage because he wants to make financial provision for himself abroad or because he wants to help a relative there, that does not make his economic sabotage any less serious. It does not matter what his motive is. Surely it is naïve to suggest that where the offender did not positively intend to sabotage the Republic economically, but nevertheless did sabotage the Republic for motives of his own, he should be seen in another light.

I want to allege that in cases of currency smuggling, administrative action on the part of the Minister is obviously called for. There are circumstances which may not be relevant to the trial of someone who is charged with currency smuggling, but which are in fact important for placing his behaviour in perspective.

For this reason, the court cannot always make an accurate evaluation of the seriousness of the offence on the basis of the evidence before it. The court can only pass judgment on the specific offence before it, but the court cannot always make an evaluation of the whole set-up. That is why the hon. the Minister should be in a position to take a decision in the light of the information at his disposal. For the same reason, the sentence which the court imposes after having tried an accused is not necessarily a true measure of the seriousness of the offence which was committed. That is why it will not be advisable either to lay down a specific sentence, whether imprisonment or a fine, as a norm or basis for action by the hon. the Minister.

It has also been alleged that this measure will cause us not to treat the citizens of the Republic of South Africa on an equal footing. However, let us be completely honest about this: If we take a look at the reality of currency smuggling, it is true that the naturalized citizen is in fact more tempted to succumb to this type of offence. Also, such a citizen usually has more opportunities to commit this kind of offence than a South African by birth. It can be ascribed to the circumstances of such a citizen. Surely one cannot overlook these facts. Therefore it would be naïve not to make this legislation applicable to naturalized citizens as well.

The hon. the Minister emphasized this, and just for the record I want to repeat it, because I do not want to digress on this: No person will or can be rendered stateless as a result of this legislation. Therefore, the kite which hon. members of the Opposition tried to fly in this connection simply will not rise.

Let us leave it at that. I cannot help getting the impression that in opposing this measure, these hon. members of the Official Opposition have basically just shown their lack of confidence in the way in which the hon. the Minister will handle the measure. I want to say that I am convinced that if this measure had provided for hon. members of the Official Opposition to have a share in the administrative action which the measure provides for, they would have had no objection to it. In other words, it means that they have a fear complex …

They are having hallucinations.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that they are having hallucinations, and this is correct. They are for ever putting up their own targets and then trying to shoot them down. They do not react to realities; they react to the fantasies which they conjure up in their nightmares about what is going to happen. This is what they react to and what they build their opposition on.

I have no hesitation at all in supporting the Third Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in let me say the responsible Opposition … [Interjections.] … made our position very clear during the Second Reading debate and also during the Committee Stage, viz. that we would like to see stringent measures being taken against currency smugglers and currency offenders. I believe that there is, on this cardinal issue, common cause between us and hon. members in the Government benches. One also wants the Bill, in its application, to act as a deterrent. When one is dealing with currency offenders, it is perhaps far more important, in the interest of your country and in the interest of the economy of the country, to adhere to the dictum that prevention is better than cure.

*In my opinion I am giving a summary of the viewpoints of the opponents of this legislation when I say that their arguments are based on the premise that because one cannot deport a person who is a South African citizen by descent one should not make this kind of provision applicable to a naturalized South African citizen. The basic problem that we have to contend with in this regard, is what is the most effective punishment for people who are sabotaging the country’s economy. This is what I should like to deal with briefly.

I believe the most effective punishment in such cases will be to sentence such a person to imprisonment and to deprive him on his release of the opportunity of continuing to live on the fat of the land which he wanted to sabotage economically. The most effective punishment which will serve as a deterrent is, in my opinion, a combination of imprisonment or a steep fine and deportation. If one wanted to level any criticism at this legislation, it would be that the most effective punishment applies only to a section of the offenders. All that the legislation does in fact do is to lay down that the criminal who is not a South African citizen by birth or descent is the only one against whom this legislation can be employed as an effective deterrent. In this regard I have a problem with regard to the people who cannot support this legislation. Do they not support it because they feel that one should not distinguish between citizens or because the legislation cannot be applied 100% effectively? If they allege that they oppose the legislation because it cannot be applied 100%, I can understand that. I cannot, however, understand why anybody should not want to support the legislation just because it would be applied effectively to one section. Should this legislation be declared totally ineffective for that reason?

†I therefore simply cannot see the reason why hon. members of the Official Opposition are persisting with their attitude of opposing this piece of legislation. The legislation is going to punish at least one section of criminals 100% effectively. We have the opportunity here to nail a certain section of the enemies and the economic saboteurs of South Africa 100%, and all of a sudden hon. members of the Official Opposition say that because one can only grab 50% of them and ease the problem only by 50% and not 100%, the whole issue should be left. It is on that basis that I find the Official Opposition completely illogical. The NRP knows that this particular piece of legislation is not going to solve the problem altogether, but it can at least be applied effectively to a section of the offenders and because of that we are prepared to give the legislation our support.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply very briefly to the debate, because the arguments which were advanced have been advanced repeatedly. Nothing new has actually been added. I want to say at once that as Minister of Immigration, I am very keen to draw good immigrants to South Africa, and on the other hand, as Minister of the Interior, I am very keen to have people who settle permanently in South Africa become citizens of the country by means of naturalization, so I am very sensitive to the fact that we must have minimal discrimination between a South African by birth or descent and a South African by naturalization or registration. Mr. Speaker, does our whole history not prove that we do this very thing? With few exceptions, this country has become just as much a country of hope, promise and opportunity for the South African by naturalization or registration as for the South African by birth or descent. The exception is the one we are discussing now. However, it has repeatedly been pointed out that we are not dealing with a new principle here and that the principle has long been established in existing legislation. I have no qualms about taking action against somebody who enjoys the opportunities of this fine country of ours and has even reached the special status of a South African citizen by naturalization, if he seriously shocks to the confidence which South Africa reposes in him by committing economic sabotage.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Mossel Bay and spell this matter out very clearly, because we do have such cases. One can have the case where a naturalized South African citizen is caught and sentenced by an competent court because he was committing economic sabotage on a large scale by bleeding white his new country, South Africa, to the advantage of his country of origin. In many cases these offenders send money to their country of origin. What the hon. member for Sandton is actually asking me is not to act by means of deportation either in these cases. I am not prepared to give anyone this advantage in such a serious case simply because he is a South African citizen by naturalization.

I said during the Second Reading debate, and I want to repeat it now, that there is a very small difference in the penal provisions which are applicable to the various types of citizens. As regards South African citizens whom we cannot sentence with deportation, I have already said that in cases where they have committed this crime, i.e. the contravention of the exchange control regulations, I shall very seriously consider withdrawing their passports in future. This will also be a very serious and heavy penalty.

In conclusion I want to repeat that I shall always be compassionate in dealing with the small operator if there are extenuating circumstances and if it is his first offence. To tell the truth, there have already been several cases before me where I showed some compassion. However, I cannot go further than this, because then I would be watering down this legislation, and in the serious times in which we are living, it is legislation which must be aimed at preventing a serious form of sabotage against our fatherland.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a very short Bill and I hope it will meet with the approval of all hon. members.

Clauses 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are concerned with and flow from the amendments and changes proposed in clauses 2 and 3. Consequently I need concern myself only with clauses 2 and 3.

I should like to deal with clause 2 now. There is a shortcoming in the existing Act at present. In terms of section 2(1)(d) we may, at the moment, accord diplomatic immunities and privileges to public international organizations and institutions of which the Republic is a member. So there are two requirements which not all organizations to which we should like to aecord immunities and privileges, are always able to meet. These two aspects are independent of each other, but may also supplement each other. One is the requirement that the organization has to be a public international organization, and the other is the aspect of the Republic having to be a member of that organization. Apart from the International Committee of the Red Cross, we do not foresee at the moment there being many such organizations. However, one does not legislate for one organization only. One attempts to amend the principle in such a way that we may be free in future to accord privileges if such organizations were to emerge. What we have in mind at the moment, however, is specifically the International Committee of the Red Cross, which, in actual fact, is a private organization consisting of Swiss citizens. It has a membership of 25, recruited by means of co-option. The Government of South Africa cannot become a member of that organization and, in addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross is not a public international organization either. There are some experts in this field who maintain that a public international organization is an organization the membership of which is open to governments. If we should like to accord immunities and privileges to the International Committee of the Red Cross we would have to amend the Act in such a manner so as to have it refer to “organization” only, and we would have to delete the words “of which the Republic is a member”. This is essentially what clause 2 is about.

I should also like to point out that it would not be just any organization that would be able to lay claim to immunities if we amend the Act in this way. An agreement would still have to be concluded determining the scope of the immunities and the privileges.

Now I should like to refer to clause 3. As regards the consular representatives of other countries, the position at present is that my department arranges some of these privileges for them administratively. There is a difference between diplomatic missions and consular missions. As far as consular missions are concerned, we have the problem that there is really no certainty in law as to precisely what privileges may be accorded to the consular representatives of other countries.

Similarly many of our consular representatives overseas do not always have certainty as to what privileges they may lay claim to. It is so that some of our consular officers overseas sometimes enjoy privileges which we cannot accord to the consular representatives of other countries in this country as no legal basis exists for doing so. In order to overcome this unequal administrative accordance of consular immunities and privileges, we want to amend the Act in a way so as to empower the State President to conclude treaties with other States in which the rights of consular officers can be mutually arranged and determined on a basis of reciprocity.

And that, Mr. Speaker, is the full story.

Mr. Speaker, we shall not be opposing this Bill. Quite clearly, when a sovereign country is asked to yield up some parts of its sovereignty in respect of immunities and exemptions from its criminal and civil jurisdiction, it does so with due care. We have therefore examined the Bill with the greatest of care in order to ensure that the kind of powers which the hon. the Minister is seeking are in fact consistent with the practice of international law and do not constitute an excess above what is normal practice within the community of nations; and I may say that we are so satisfied.

If one looks at the precedents, one finds that as far back as 50 years ago in the Yearbook of International Law reference was made to the necessity of taking executive powers in order to deal with special categories of diplomatic officials or people acting in related capacities, who are not themselves defined as diplomats, in order to meet the special needs which arise from the extension of international activity beyond the purely diplomatic activity. There it is conceded that the number of such missions, the number of such international activities, is increasing and will continue to increase well beyond the scope of purely formal diplomatic exchange between nations. In this Bill we are essentially dealing with such cases. We are dealing with the kind of case where organizations which are neither purely public in the strict sense of the word, nor necessarily international in the strict sense of the word, may nevertheless require the kind of protection which is afforded by an Act on diplomatic privilege and immunity. We believe that the hon. the Minister has made a case and we believe also that the question of consular representatives does require special attention. The old Act has been somewhat restrictive in that regard. Putting it all together, we on this side of the House shall raise no objection to the Bill. We believe that it achieves the object with a minimum of fuss. We believe that it will be applied for the purposes which the hon. the Minister has stated and, therefore, we shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is very necessary indeed, and for that reason I am pleased that it has the support of the Official Opposition. I think it is a matter which deserves unanimous support, as was very well elucidated by the previous speaker. The essence of the Bill is to be found in the long title, i.e. “to provide for the granting of certain immunities, rights and privileges to certain persons”.

Clause 2 simply extends the limiting connotation which this used to give the legislation. This gives it a wider meaning which is very welcome.

As far as the career-consular officers are concerned, it must be pointed out that everything is arranged with other countries on a basis of reciprocity. In other words, we do to other countries what they do to us. What it actually amounts to is the old dictum “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Since there is so little legislation coming from the Department of Foreign Affairs—the last legislation, I think, we had from this department was in 1962—history is actually being made today with the introduction of legislation by this department. I am glad that it is receiving unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Potgietersrus has mentioned that this is the first bit of legislation put forward by this department since 1962. I was just wondering whether the hon. the Minister—seeing that he has been kept so busy looking after South Africa’s external affairs—had forgotten what it is like to pilot a Bill through Parliament. Nevertheless, I would like to congratulate him because, I believe, that since he became Minister, this is the first Bill he has brought before the House. I am very pleased to note that we can all agree with this Bill. We see the need for giving the Minister the powers to grant diplomatic immunity to organizations of which South Africa is not a member. Therefore we do not have any problem with this at all.

We also see the great need for rationalizing or for bringing into line this matter of career consulates, officers, etc. At the present time our relationships, I believe, with some countries are being carried on rather an ad hoc basis. I believe that the powers which are now granted in terms of clause 3 of the Bill will bring this into line with other countries and will also clear up some outstanding matters in this regard. Therefore we will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, all that remains for me to do is to thank hon. members for their co-operation. It is greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main object of this Bill is to extend, where necessary, secrecy concerning matters relating to source material.

†It is therefore necessary that the publication of information concerning the occurrence of source material and other relevant information, without the legally prescribed permission, be prohibited. The disclosure without the necessary permission of the Atomic Energy Board of such matters as price and all aspects of sales transactions, particularly the identity of the parties thereto, must also be prohibited. Hon. members will readily appreciate that disclosure of certain information in any way may have extremely detrimental implications.

*In addition it is considered advisable to make provision for any proceedings whatsoever with regard to shareholding in source material producing companies to be held in camera.

Provision to prohibit the disclosure of confidential discussions between producers of source material in certain countries between 1972 and 1975 has become essential.

The unauthorized disclosure of any information in regard to nuclear sites which are licensed or are to be licensed, including overseas contractors in particular, for the protection of their technical and even patented knowledge, is being prohibited in the Bill.

†It is imperative that I be empowered to refuse to disclose the reasons for a decision in the exercise of a power under this Act if I am of the opinion that the interests of the security of the State require such action—such action shall also not be subject to review.

*The penalty provision concerning secrecy is being extended so as to cover also any contravention of the further provisions requiring secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this Bill with rather less rapture than was the case with the previous Bill. I shall say why. In fact, I believe we shall have to take our ultimate attitude into reconsideration depending on the kind of satisfaction the hon. the Minister gives us in the course of the discussion of the Bill.

This is a matter with which I am personally not unfamiliar and I fully understand the difficulties which the hon. the Minister has in mind in regard to the unwarranted disclosure of confidential information about the mining, the exploitation, the sale and the development of nuclear materials. The problem is well understood by us. What concerns us, however, are the very wide powers which the Minister is now taking. One may even go so far as to say an attempt is now being made to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. The reason why I say this is that for a good many years it has been possible to disclose information, on a fairly wide basis, about the exploration for uranium in South Africa, the development of new plant, the export of uranium, the kind of revenue earned by uranium producing mines and the kind of reserves which they believe they have. Information has been made available not only to shareholders in South Africa, those people who are asked to put up money for what is relatively a risk operation and who obviously seek as much information as they can, exactly as they would if they invested their money in any other company, but information has also been made available to other organizations and institutes, necessarily including those abroad with whom we seek to do business. I should like to mention an example. When one sells uranium to a Japanese power company, that company will, in the nature of things and in the manner in which they do business, expect to receive some very detailed information about the kind of operation on which they will have to rely for the safe delivery of their future uranium needs. In the course of such business it is necessary to disclose information not only to the South African investors who make the development of a uranium or a uranium by product company possible, but also to some extent to the clients who expect to be given an assurance as to the safe conduct of the contract and the security of future delivery on which they will be highly dependent because very important energy commitments and very large amounts of money will be involved. What is more, this process has been continuing over a number of years.

I now come to the Bill in clause 1(a) of which it is provided that no person shall, without the consent in writing of the board or of the board in consultation with the Minister, divulge any of these things. In fact, it is provided that no person shall, in the interests of secrecy, divulge matters which have been divulged on quite a large scale and which have formed part of the body of common knowledge in the industry for a good many years. One wonders why, in fact, it is necessary to take quite such a tough line about this as is taken in the Bill.

I should like to deal with the prohibition in paragraph (v) contained in clause 1(a) of the Bill. It reads—

There is a large body of literature about the enrichment of uranium, for example. A great deal of technical information is available and is freely supplied. I am not suggesting that industrial secrets are freely supplied, but a great deal of technical information is freely available in the technical Press. This is a subject which is taught in universities, and it is necessary that it should be taught in the universities. It is necessary that technical data and scientific material should, in fact, be available for the training of nuclear scientists. Nuclear physics is not a subject which is taught in secret places. It is openly taught in the universities around the world. On a strict reading of this particular clause, we find that without the written permission of the hon. the Minister nuclear physics may no longer be taught in South Africa, nor may any information be divulged about any such activities, whether inside or outside South Africa.

In other words, without the written permission of the hon. the Minister, I may not discuss a nuclear enrichment process in, for example, Japan or America, even though the said information is freely available in their own technical journals. This seems to me to be very wide and far-ranging. But it goes even further, as can be seen from clause 1(a)(vii). Without the written permission of the hon. the Minister, it is stated, nothing may be said about—

The Atomic Energy Act does not only deal with the making available of information. It also deals with a very wide range of other activities. Some of these activities relate to the peaceful uses of atomic energy, for example the production of isotopes for medical purposes, the irradiation of vegetables and fruit for the purposes of conservation, etc. All these things relate to work done by the Atomic Energy Board. On a strict interpretation of this clause, however, it would be an offence for me to discuss these matters without the written permission of the hon. the Minister.

Let us, however, go a little further along in the Bill. There one finds a slightly different approach. In clause 1(b) it is stated that—

1. (a) any proceedings, including arbitration proceedings, under this Act, be held in camera and that the public be excluded from being present thereat.

I commend the words “the Minister may direct that”. I think it would be a more practical and reasonable approach, in view of what I have said, if the hon. the Minister adopted powers to direct that some of the matters specified in 1(a) should not be disclosed to the public without his permission. To adopt the attitude adopted in this Bill, however, and to say that nothing concerning such a wide range of matters may be disclosed without the hon. the Minister’s written permission is to put a muzzle of secrecy on the free discussion of matters which are already largely in the public and private domain, matters which are the subject of free discussion at universities and the subject of free discussion between experts, stockbrokers and investors. A good deal of this information is, in fact, an essential part of common discussion in the whole field of nuclear power, and to prevent or prohibit these things in the absence of the written permission of the hon. the Minister would, I think, be unreasonable and impossible. Let me say again to the hon. the Minister that we understand the reasons for tightening up the legislation. We do believe that the prohibition aimed at in clause 2, for example, is justified in view of certain circumstances which arose between the dates mentioned in that clause, i.e. between 1 January 1972 and 31 December 1975. There is good reason why the hon. the Minister should specifically forbid the publication of information in that regard, but in clause 1(a) the prohibition is so wide-ranging, and touches so many aspects in the field of common knowledge and common discussion, that I believe that the clauses would be stated in other terms. It should not be provided that the hon. the Minister prohibits totally without his written permission. It should be provided that the hon. the Minister may, in certain cases, direct that such prohibition be enforced—in other words, that he may select certain items, certain areas of danger or certain sensitive areas in respect of which he may say that information may not be disclosed. One could go on to raise further objections in greater detail, but I believe those could be better discussed in the Committee Stage. I should, however, like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, if the Bill must stand in the form in which it now stands, it would be as well to add a saving clause seeing that over the past years a great deal of information has in fact been made available, information which it will no longer be legitimate to make available in terms of the Bill. A great deal of this information will have to continue to be made available in the ordinary exercise of non-secret business and I believe it would be as well for a clause to be inserted in this Bill to the effect that information that has been implicitly authorized by the board in the past shall continue to be free for discussion unless specifically withdrawn by the Minister. Let me say what I mean by this.

It has for example been permitted for stockbrokers, investors, economic analysts and financial journalists to discuss various aspects of investment and production in the field of nuclear energy, in the field of uranium production. I believe that, rather than suddenly draw a veil across this kind of activity, rather than pull down the shutters on it, it would be as well to insert a saving clause in the Bill to say that the activities which were authorized, permitted or licensed in the past shall continue to be so in this respect and that there will be no penalty attached to the continued discussion of these matters unless the Minister specifically by notice indicates that a particular subject has become taboo. To pull down the shutters on the whole lot is, I believe, unrealistic and will in fact be detrimental to the open discussion and development of an industry which is a very important one in South Africa and which should continue to draw the interest, comment and support of the population at large. I believe that to draw an iron curtain between the industry and the investing public will in fact be a disservice. I believe that it is healthy to have free discussion. Let the hon. the Minister isolate those areas which he believes to be dangerous, but let him not have a blanket prohibition on all these matters because, even though the Minister may say he does not wish to draw an iron curtain, it will have just that effect unless provision is made for some kind of window through which communication can pass.

Mr. Speaker, we of this party have the same sort of sentiments as the Official Opposition in regard to this matter and whilst we are inclined to support the amending Bill, there are certain aspects about which we are also very concerned. The extent of the powers given to the hon. the Minister is certainly very great and is unusual in the technical industrial sphere. We understand that, considering the extent to which the world is shrinking, as a result of international communication, and the possibility of a very concerted effort at industrial espionage in South Africa, the nature of nuclear energy and its vital importance both in the strategic and industrial spheres that this makes it necessary for this kind of legislation to be introduced in this particular respect. However, one wonders whether the hon. the Minister has taken into account the possible effects on research workers, both in South Africa and overseas, who are involved in nuclear research. It is fairly well known that a number of the foremost scientists in this country are offered bursaries by overseas organizations. It may become a logistical problem as far as the publication of dissertations in this field are concerned if other universities sponsor this kind of research. One also wonders what the repercussions in future will be, regarding international agreements concerning co-operation with organizations, or the countries of origin of these organizations, which may have a slightly more liberal or less restrictive approach to the publication of information.

A further difficulty which we have with this Bill and which we would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s comments on, is a difficulty which we will be raising during the Committee Stage regarding the possibility of making innocent people guilty by virtue of a lack of knowledge or by accident. I refer particularly to those individuals who are liable to prosecution because of the receipt of information which may be illegal. Furthermore, there is the question of the publication of information in countries where South Africa may not be able to prosecute or pursue its legislation unless it has an extradition agreement with that country. There may also be the problem—and I would appreciate the hon. the Minister’s comments on this when he gets round to this aspect—of the difficulties which companies will have when they market in this country, or ourselves marketing outside South Africa, certain items of industrial hardware which are necessary for the processing of source materials, or radio active material. A lot of companies are involved in the use of equipment in respect of which the marketing would be extremely difficult unless they had relatively easy access, and the facility to discuss certain technical aspects with their clients, for the marketing of their equipment with mining and processing companies.

Furthermore I think the whole question that was raised by the Official Opposition of considering the possibility of not imposing a blanket ban or disqualification on the publication or dissemination of information, is perhaps something the hon. the Minister has thought about. He can possibly give us justification for this as compared to the prohibition of the dissemination of specific information. We will also be raising certain specific items during the Committee Stage. What I have set out are, however, the areas of main concern to us and about which we would like to hear from the hon. the Minister as far as his motivation therefor are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I must say at once that I sympathize with the point of view of the two hon. members who have just spoken. When this legislation was drafted, I thought about it myself. I immediately want to concede that the Bill, as it stands, is very drastic. It is very drastic to say that one is going to draw a veil across these matters. However, we are dealing with a very sensitive situation here and, just like South Africa, all the countries of the world are trying—because this is an extremely dangerous and sensitive area—to exercise proper control over material and the availability of information. Particularly due to the circumstances in South Africa, it is essential that we should take all the necessary precautions.

The hon. member quite rightly indicated areas where such measures can only be implemented with great difficulty. It will be difficult to allow information—even perfectly normal information—to be published, or even to leave open the normal process of the exchange of knowledge between universities.

I should like to submit a proposal to those two hon. members. I think they understand the position and I, in turn, am fully acquainted with the problems the hon. members are experiencing. They are not problems I regard lightly because I went into them myself. I want to give the hon. members the assurance that I am quite prepared to negotiate with them in this regard after the Second Reading, with a view to considering the insertion of amendments in the legislation in order to obtain satisfaction. Hon. members will understand that there are certain matters which I do not want to touch on in the House precisely because they are sensitive matters. I suggest that we accept the Second Reading of the legislation and that we consult with each other before the start of the Committee Stage so that I can accommodate hon. members when they propose amendments which will be acceptable to both the Government and the Opposition. I have already said on a previous occasion that if there is one aspect on which the House cannot afford to be divided, it is the type of measure we are dealing with. I should like to have the co-operation of all sides of the House in this regard. Therefore, I do not want to discuss the matter any further now as I will discuss the matter with hon. members and with the department before the Committee Stage to see if we cannot obtain satisfaction by accommodating hon. members and accepting the necessary amendments.

How nice to get a reasonable Minister now and again!

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, on the very day the Bill was first published, I was telephoned by a reporter working for The Citizen newspaper in Johannesburg. She asked me to comment, at that moment, on the provisions of the Bill. Having had only a few moments to look at the Bill I said to the reporter that the Bill appeared to be aimed at the bringing of more people into the S.A. Defence Force at a time when thousands of foreigners, who are permanently resident in South Africa, are avoiding military service of any sort by virtue of their retention of foreign citizenship. In the second place I told her that the Bill represented a drastic change in the policy of the South African Government in regard to citizenship and citizenship laws during the post-war years.

Finally I told her that it was clear that the Bill had wide implications and that my caucus and my party, before making any policy statement on the Bill, would have to meet soon to consider carefully all the ramifications of the measure. The reporter then asked me whether it could be said that the Bill would come as a shock to immigrants. I replied that that could be said, as prospective immigrants would now have to decide whether to come to South Africa in terms of an entirely new set of rules. That was the entire interview. I think hon. members will concede that what I said about the Bill during the Second Reading stage and what other speakers from this side of the House said about it, was very much consistent with what was said to that newspaper except that at the Second Reading I was in the fortunate position that I was able to take the matter further in a more positive manner because a policy decision had then been considered and taken by my party.

The article appeared in The Citizen—I have it here—but it was not entirely accurate. The words that I had used were not used in the correct sense that I had used them. The article was not, however, so badly written or so inaccurate as to merit or necessitate, in my view, any further action.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

No. Then came the Second Reading debate, and following me in the Second Reading debate was the hon. member for Brakpan. Over the past few years I can remember being followed by perhaps one, two or three hon. members in the House who regularly seem to speak when I sit down. I remember that the hon. member for Bellville of years gone by, Mr. Louis Pienaar, often used to get up and, having heard what I and other hon. members of my party had to say, would argue very logically about the matters we had raised. In this regard I also remember the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is to be a Minister, arguing very sincerely and, to my mind, very well on many matters and, in fact, sometimes even teaching some of us a thing or two. One had to work hard to keep a jump ahead of them. However, that has not been the case in this debate and with that particular spokesman. It seems to me that the hon. member for Brakpan in this debate, and I must admit in other debates, has shown himself to be intent not on reaching consensus or persuading members as to the efficacy of his viewpoint, but rather on scoring one or two rather cheap political points and if possible, even if a measure is agreed upon, scoring points which might be damaging and, I am afraid to say, even nasty.

The hon. member made two contested statements in the Second Reading debate. Holding an edition of The Citizen in his hand he said, firstly, that I had said the Bill was a shocking measure. Now, Sir, this was not factually correct as I have already explained to you. I did not say that it was a shocking measure or that it was a terrible measure, but I said that it would come as a shock to a limited group of people. I think hon. members will realize and will understand that that is quite a correct statement to have made. Secondly, the hon. member said that I had said that this was a drastic measure. Those words do not even appear in the article in The Citizen. What was stated, was that the Bill represented a drastic change in Government policy in post-war years. I am sure, Sir, that you will agree that the Bill which is before us today does, in fact, represent a fairly drastic change in Government policy in post-war years. We welcome that change. But what I did not like and still do not like, and I would like that hon. member to know it, is the attempt by him while he was speaking to cause a narrow political argument to erupt, even when there was full agreement on the measure before the House. I know what happened. I realize what the difficulty was. The hon. member for Brakpan and perhaps some other hon. members had prepared for the debate on the basis that this party was going to oppose the Bill. That is what happened. When it became apparent that the PFP was not going to oppose the Bill they had to scrap the speeches that had been prepared.

That was the shock!

The difference is that some of the previous speakers on this sort of measure, such as Mr. Louis Pienaar and the hon. member for Vereeniging, were able, when this sort of thing happened, to rise above it. They were able to take into account the new circumstances arising from what the Opposition had to say, and were able to come to a meeting of minds. In this case the hon. member did not have enough background to alter his speech in the circumstances. [Interjections.] Above all, what I think was the height of rudeness in the debate, was the hon. member’s refusal to allow, when it was only he who could allow it, an explanation to be made by me at the time when his false remarks were made. I believe that is cheap politics at its worst. South Africans are divided by enough matters of ideological import and consequence. I believe that when consensus can be achieved it should be lauded open heartedly, and should not be knocked on the head. I believe that we owe that to our electorate.

I wish to turn to the Bill itself. The Bill is now in its final stage. Persons coming to South Africa hereafter will come in the knowledge that we offer them our benefits, our hospitality, our friendship and our citizenship and with that will go the responsibilities as well. I believe the benefits of coming to South Africa are far more numerous than those of staying away, despite all the problems that we face today. South Africa is still, and can be created into an even greater, land of opportunity. South Africa is a land of sunshine, a land of challenge for the future, for all of us and for all who come to this country. I believe it is correct and proper that new South Africans help to shape that future just as we welcome them into our ranks.

That this Bill brings problems with it, I think is not in dispute. I think it is common cause and has been agreed across the floor of the House that the Bill will have an effect upon the much needed immigration to South Africa. The final effects of the Bill will not be seen for a year or so and let us hope that the effect on immigration which it will have is minimal and not large. I think this Bill will create a measure of resentment amongst Black people in this country who, at the time we are making citizenship available to certain people after a period of residence of two years, still find themselves without citizenship. I think that is something which must be considered, although certainly not in the light of this Bill, because it is a separate issue. However, I do believe that overriding these issues, and perhaps the disadvantages of this Bill, is the fact that the interests of the country are best served not by fair-weather friends, but by fully integrated citizens sharing a common interest and a common goal. We shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton began his speech by launching an attack on me about the interpretation I attached to a report in The Citizen of 25 February 1978, concerning what he supposedly said. The interpretation which I attached to that statement of the hon. member for Sandton, was attached to that report by the news editor of the newspaper himself, viz., as being a “shock for settlers”. The title of the report in The Citizen read: “Shock for settlers. New Bill will catch draft dodgers.” Mr. Speaker, you yourself had something to say during the debate in connection with an explanation which the hon. member wanted to make. I think it may be suitable to quote the last part of your finding. (Hansard, 1 March 1978, col. 2168)—

Mr. Speaker, you yourself did not give him the opportunity and I find it strange that the hon. member should now expect me to give him an opportunity of furnishing an explanation in this regard. The news columns of the newspapers are open to them. From time to time, even during debates, they run to the newspapers to make statements about matters which are under discussion in the House at that stage.

In this case the report was placed as far back as 25 February and until 1 March 1978 the hon. member had not yet done anything at all to moderate the effect of his statement. Apart from that, the report which appeared in the newspaper, had already been published by that time and the damage it did, had therefore already been done. It will therefore not help the hon. member to provide a long explanation to try and explain his confused case. The hon. member goes on to say that I am trying to make political capital out of their embarrassment. This is surely what we are here for, not so? He is always trying to steal a political march on us, and we will do it to them too. Here, it is a case of them disliking the Bill at first sight. Some hon. members did not like it. But after this matter had been discussed in the caucus, the hon. member saw the matter in a new light because otherwise, before this debate took place, we should have received an indication at least from that party as to how they felt about the Bill.

I should just like to make a few brief remarks about the Bill itself which may have been omitted during the Second Reading debate. When a prospective immigrant comes to South Africa, the acceptance of citizenship must always be a voluntary action. It must be a decision subject to his permission. That particular element is still in effect in this Bill, viz. that the immigrant voluntarily must make the declaration that he intends to become a citizen of South Africa. Taking into consideration the fact that when he comes to his new country, he associates himself with the traditions and culture of that country, and with everything that country offers, I do not think it is illogical to expect him to prefer his new country even above the interests of the country of his birth. The new country to which he comes, offers him a new living and ensures his security. That is why, as I said, it is logical for him to be expected to fulfil his responsibility towards the country which is prepared to grant him protection. That is why it forms such a fine contrast, in this report in The Citizen, that the reaction of Mr. Kemsley, the manager of the 1820 Settlers Association, was so different to that of the hon. member for Sandton. Mr. Kemsley’s reaction was—

This is the difference in people’s reaction to this legislation.

In the meantime I also came across a very interesting piece of history concerning the circumstances which prevailed in the Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek. In the time of the Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek, persons who did commando duty against Malaboch and other Black chiefs also had the right to obtain citizenship. Those who participated in the expedition to Swaziland also received this right, as well as those who, in 1880 and 1881, declared themselves prepared by a show of hands, as if by oath, to join the Republican forces at Paardekraal, and those who participated in the First War of Liberation, in the campaign to suppress the Jameson Raid and in the Second War of Liberation. Looking at it from another point of view, precisely the same principles are being embodied in this legislation.

With these few words I, too, should like to give my support to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House very much for their support of the Third Reading of the Bill. We are making this legislation as fair as possible by not making it retrospective. Under the circumstances we cannot make it more fair.

I do just want to cross swords with the hon. member for Sandton a little. I do not think it was at all necessary during his Second Reading speech and now once again in his Third Reading speech, to bring up the position of the Blacks. As a lawyer and a person who specializes in internal affairs and immigration, he should know that we are dealing here with only those people who have obtained permanent residence in terms of section 4 of the Aliens Act. The Blacks are therefore not relevant here.

They know all about it.

I do not believe the hon. member for Pinelands knows much about this matter. There will be many opportunities to discuss this aspect in this House. This is the only discordant noise today, as far as I am concerned. I therefore thank hon. members for the support which this legislation received from all sides.

Before I resume my seat, I just want to mention a few figures. From 1 January 1977 to 31 December 1977, a total of 2 288 immigrants registered. 1 840, i.e. 81%, were not interested in RSA citizenship. Only 435 were, i.e. only 19%. I am referring to registration as required by the Department of Defence. It is clear from this figure that our people, South Africans, will not accept the situation in future. That is why we were forced to do something about the whole affair. While I am thanking all hon. members for their support of the legislation, I also want to ask them to help motivate all young immigrants and to encourage them to make themselves available for military service. I also want to ask hon. members to motivate young immigrants in such a way that they will not put anything in the way of their obtaining citizenship of South Africa. I believe that if we do this, we will be doing some fine nation building, irrespective of our political convictions and irrespective of the party which we represent here.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members will recall that when this Bill was presented to the House at Second Reading, it was practically on the day of notice. The hon. the Minister commented on the fact that hon. members were obliged to go through a rather long, difficult and intricate Patents Bill in order to discuss it at Second Reading. At that stage the hon. the Minister indicated that there were a number of clauses which needed clarification and that it might be better for us to discuss those during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Parktown, who unfortunately cannot be here today, and the hon. member for Yeoville, also raised certain points which the hon. the Minister was kind enough to reply to. I think he covered most of their points. However, there are one or two matters that are still outstanding. Nevertheless, with the time that has elapsed, our attitude still remains the same. We will welcome the Bill. The hon. the Minister has consulted with all the relevant authorities, including the Bar Council, the Associated Law Societies, the Institute of Patent Agents, etc. They welcome it. We have consulted with him as well, and we will give the hon. the Minister as much assistance as possible in respect of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the important principle of professionalizing the patent agent to become a patent attorney. Many of the patent agents have been in the profession for a number of years, but in terms of the clause a period of five years is laid down. It is perfectly true that such a period can be extended from time to time, but I think one must take into consideration—I hope the hon. the Minister will consider this—the people who have reached their later years of life and will therefore not find it so easy to study in order to attain the high technical qualifications which will be required. One must bear in mind that they nevertheless have acquired the practical experience in order to deal with the situation. They will now have to decide whether they will continue as they are and phase themselves out in the period of five years or take steps to pass the necessary examinations. For the benefit of those people who are advanced in years and who would like to continue as agents for the entire period allowed in the Bill, without having to write the examinations, I should like the hon. the Minister to consider the amendment which I shall move and which only seeks to substitute a period of 10 years for five years. I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, it will be recalled that during the Second Reading I indicated that I was contemplating the introduction of certain amendments to deal with the set of circumstances explained by the hon. member this afternoon. The amendment which I intend moving will have the effect the hon. member wants to achieve, but I do not believe that one should merely extend the period from five to 10 years. I think that an applicant who finds himself in the circumstances to which the hon. member has referred must at least produce evidence that he has made certain attempts to pass the examination. The amendment which I intend moving makes provision for a further period of five years, provided application is made for an extension before the expiration of the first five years. The extension will only be considered after we have consulted with the law societies concerned. I think the hon. member will appreciate that I am conceding the point which he has made, but on the other hand I must make sure that people will take steps to qualify. One cannot simply leave it for five years and then at the expiration of the five year period apply for another period of five years. I therefore move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 15, in line 50, after “period” to insert “not exceeding five years”;
2. (2) on page 15, in line 50, after “registrar” to insert:
   on application made to him in the prescribed manner within the first-mentioned period of five years

This will result in a position where such a person will in fact have 10 years. I have to reiterate, however, that before the expiration of the first five years he will have to produce evidence that he is attempting to pass the prescribed examinations. I think this will meet the case.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment the hon. the Minister has moved is eminently satisfactory. I did not see his amendment on the Order Paper and I therefore moved mine. I should like to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendment of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it will be recalled that during the Second Reading debate there were objections with regard to the translation of the English term “an inventive step” by the term “iets wat ’n nuwe uitvinding is, behels”. As a result of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Wonder-boom I decided to move two amendments to the Afrikaans text which should eliminate the objection of the hon. member. There is an amendment in connection with subsection (3) appearing in my name on the Order Paper as well. I therefore move the following three amendments—

1. (1) In the Afrikaans text, on page 18, in lines 54 and 55, to omit “iets wat ’n nuwe uitvinding is, behels” and to substitute:
   op ’n vindingryke handeling berus
2. (2) on page 21, in line 4, to omit all the words after “prevent” up to and including “such” in line 7 and to substitute:
   , only to the extent to which a patent or an application for a patent relates to that thing as such, anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act
3. (3) in the Afrikaans text, on page 20, in line 48, to omit “iets wat ’n nuwe uitvinding is, te behels” and to substitute:
   op ’n vindingryke handeling te berus

Mr. Chairman, we have looked at the hon. the Minister’s amendment on the Order Paper, but it hardly seems to add to the clarity of the position as it was before, because one finds here what is essentially an inversion of the words. The original words therefore remain, except in an inverted sense, and I am not sure that in this inverted form they add anything very much to the clarity of what is intended. We take it that what is intended is the following. In clause 25(2) it is stated that anything which consists of things like discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, etc., shall not be inventions for the purposes of the Act. Clause 25(3), however, goes on to say that the provisions of subsection (2), i.e. the exclusion of these discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, etc., from the definition of “invention” …

Are you referring to clause 25(3)?

Yes, I am. I am saying that the amendment he has proposed simply presents the original text in an inverted form …

That is so.

… and this inversion does not seem to us to add particularly to the clarity of what is intended. We are simply seeking clarity in this connection. If we read this as we think the hon. the Minister intends it to be read, we take it to mean that while clause 25(2) excludes certain things from the definition of an invention, i.e. discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, etc., clause 25(3) goes on to say that this exclusion from the definition of an invention shall only apply to the extent that one is dealing with a patent or an application for a patent. If that is the correct meaning, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not care to take the legislation back to his legal draftsman to see whether he cannot make his intent clearer. Although we are satisfied about his intention, it has taken some probing and considerable doubt to interpret it, and if we have doubts at this stage, there may be some difficulties with the interpretation of the legislation at a later stage unless the words are placed clearly beyond any doubt. I think that this clause is not unimportant, and it may be that the courts or other persons concerned may need a clear definition of what is meant. I am not sure, however, that clause 25(3) does meet the case.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment in clause 25(3) is specifically aimed at clarifying the matter. However, perhaps I should just refer back to clause 25(1). Basically, it deals with things which are patentable, and that which is patentable, is a new invention which is capable of being used in trade or industry or agriculture. In other words, it should be capable of practical application in terms of the Act itself. Clause 25(2) deals with those things that are excluded. Clause 25(3) further states that they are not being excluded for that reason only, but will also be excluded if they cannot be used in commerce or industry. That is what it is supposed to mean. Let me say at once that it is actually analogous to the relevant words in the British act. I realize that this is technical legislation and if the hon. member can think of a more practical method to make the wording clearer than it is here, before I deal with this legislation in the Other Place, I am quite prepared to talk about that and to consider it in the Other Place. This is not legislation which I approach dogmatically.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that we are dealing with the question of complete specifications in this particular clause. As regards subsection (6), the hon. member for Parktown said during the Second Reading that he quite frankly had difficulty in understanding the reference in this provision to microbiological processes. When we discussed clause 25(11), he made the point that he did not know how one could transport the products in question and what was in fact involved. In his reply to the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister advised the hon. member for Parktown that an invention concerning the human body was not marketable and therefore did not fall under this category at all. The hon. the Minister indicated that he too had difficulty in understanding the clause, but he was, I think, referring to clause 30(6). I think the hon. the Minister may have misheard the hon. member for Parktown, because the hon. member for Parktown was in fact referring to clause 32(6), and it was then that the hon. the Minister replied that he did not quite follow the clause either.

We are, therefore, still referring to microbiological processes or products thereof, as provided for in subsection (6). It is clear that if someone invents a cure for ulcers, that invention is not patentable although there may be several similar cures on the market. I am just taking an easy example now. In this case, however, it is difficult to understand and therefore I want to repeat the query the hon. member for Parktown raised when he asked what exactly we are getting at as regards the microbiological processes. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be good enough to explain this.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite correct that the hon. member for Parktown referred to subsection (6) of this particular clause during the Second Reading debate. It is also true that I indicated at that stage that I appreciated the fact that the provision concerned was difficult to understand and that I was having the same problem with it. Perhaps I should just explain for the sake of clarity. As the hon. member rightly said at the time, and as the hon. member for Hillbrow has now repeated, it is not a simple task to produce samples of micro-organisms. It is also very expensive. However, the micro-organisms must be made available when objections are lodged against the patent and its possible withdrawal is being considered. Our basic problem is concerned with making the micro-organisms available and storing them. At the moment we do not have any facilities in South Africa for storing these micro-organisms. Furthermore, a convention was negotiated recently which provides for one or two international laboratories in which all samples of this kind can be stored and to which all the member countries will have access. For this reason, the enactment of this subsection is being delayed until such time as finality has been reached on this matter. The hon. member will see that that enactment is being delayed in terms of clause 96, the last clause.

†I want to repeat for the record that the problem is that these micro-organisms must be made available and must be stored. We have no facilities at this stage for the storage of these organisms. There has been a convention according to which one or two international laboratories will be established to which all member countries will have access. Until such time as these laboratories have, in fact, been established, and these facilities are available, we propose that this provision will not come into operation. The provision will therefore only come into operation at a later stage. I hope the hon. member will accept that position.

Mr. Chairman, I have a slight difficulty; there is a point which I do not follow. I want to go back to clause 25(11) which provides that—

If we are dealing with a microbiological process, are we not, in fact, dealing with something which, in terms of clause 25(11), is not capable of being registered?

Mr. Chairman, it is not the same thing. Clause 25(11) deals with certain acts. An example of such an act is an operation which a surgeon may perform on a patient. That is an act or process which cannot be patented. In this case, however, we are dealing with something different. Perhaps I can put it this way: When a doctor operates on a patient, he uses certain instruments. Those instruments can be patented, but the handling of the instruments cannot be patented. There is therefore a difference between clause 25(11) and clause 32(6) which we are dealing with now.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This is a consequential amendment arising from the amendment we made a short while ago in respect of the English translation of “inventive step”.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a small point in regard to this clause. This matter was also raised by the hon. member for Parktown. In clause 56 periods are determined with regard to the abuse of a patent once it is registered. The periods mentioned are three years and four years. The hon. the Minister was asked whether these periods were determined after consultation with all the necessary authorities. We would like to hear his comments in regard to the periods of three years and four years and whether those concerned accept these periods as reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, the principles which apply here are the following: It is correct that the hon. member for Parktown mentioned the periods of three years and four years in clause 56(2)(a). This is the clause to which the hon. member is now referring. Am I right? These periods were laid down in the Convention of Paris, in which the right to grant compulsory licences by legislation was defined by agreement. In the second place, outsiders have objected to the subsection concerned. However, it is being included to prevent someone who has incurred the cost of production from being prejudiced by a patentee who sells the patented articles at lower prices. Hon. members can probably understand the method in this context. People make large investments in the production of patented articles, and if circumstances arise in which the patentee markets the articles at a lower price than the cost of manufacturing them, large capital investments may be lost. This is basically the reason for this.

Mr. Chairman, this is the last issue I would like to raise in regard to the Bill. Hon. members and the hon. the Minister will recall the fact that the question of a royalty was raised in this respect. Before that there was the question of determining the scope of an employment. I think hon. members will all concede that it is rather difficult to interpret what “within the course of employment” actually amounts to. I hope the hon. the Minister concedes that difficulty as well. Nevertheless, I cannot see any way out of including the words as they stand. What the hon. member for Yeoville was getting at in this regard, was to compensate an employee who, in the course of his duty, comes forward with a very profitable invention which is then patented and out of which millions or thousands of rand is made by the firm itself. An example was then given that, according to German patent law, royalty is then payable. The hon. the Minister paid some attention to the issue and dealt with it during his reply to the Second Reading debate. Perhaps he felt that this was not the sort of legislation or the place to deal with the matter. I do not have an amendment to the provision, because I could not think of a suitable amendment to fit in with the principle of the clause. I wonder whether we could not deal with the matter on the basis of the hon. the Minister, through his department, consulting the Institute of Patent Agents and looking into the feasibility of paying royalty to a person in these circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will recall that when we were discussing the clause concerned during the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Parktown made the point that employees are often forbidden by their employers to obtain a royalty from the firm concerned with regard to any invention which is patented. I explained at that stage that this particular clause, more specifically, subsection (2), had a protective effect with regard to the employee. If the hon. member looks at the provision, he will see that subsection (2) makes it illegal to write certain conditions into a contract of employment. The prohibition serves to protect the employee from the employer.

The protection is of a dual nature in the sense that, in the first place, no condition may be contained in a contract of employment which “requires an employee to assign to his employer an invention made by him otherwise than within the course and scope of his employment”. The second protective facet of the provision is found in subsection (2)(b) and reads: “restricts the right of an employee in an invention made by him more than one year after the termination of the contract of employment”. I concede at once that the whole question of whether an invention has been made within the scope of his period of employment is a debatable matter. I concede, too, that one could allege that the employee actually made the invention during his period of service and not during the year after the termination of his service. The hon. member will understand that I can only provide for the rules in the legislation itself and that I cannot lay down any rules with regard to evidence. I am quite prepared to repeat that if I can find a method for accommodating the standpoint of the hon. member, I shall do so, but up to now this has not been possible. One must also guard against getting caught up in definitions which have a more restrictive effect than one envisaged. I hope the hon. member will accept this situation.

Mr. Chairman, clause 67 provides that if a claim is made in respect of a particular invention which produces a product, then the product which is produced by that method will be presumed to be part of the invention and will be covered by the provision. The clause goes on to provide that if another man makes the same product he will be presumed to have used the same kind of method or invention to produce that product and the onus is on him to prove that the opposite is the case. Thirdly, the clause provides that in discharging that onus he need not disclose anything of a secret nature.

If one looks at it practically, it would seem that if the same product has been made by two separate persons the only way that inventor No. 2 can prove that he is using a different technique is, in fact, by disclosing the method he used. If he is excused from disclosing a secret process, I cannot see how he is going to discharge the onus. I wonder whether it would not in practice be the case that inventor No. 2 would be required to patent his method, being a different method from that of inventor No. 1, and that in patenting that second method he, in fact, would have to disclose the method he is proposing to use. It seems to me on the face of it that there is a contradiction, because I cannot conceive of any method by which two people who are making exactly the same product can, for the purpose of patent rights, show the difference between the two methods unless they actually disclose the difference in methods used.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member’s problem. Let me first discuss the first two subsections which concern the presumptions to which the hon. member referred. To summarize, it is quite correct that the presumption means nothing more than the existing presumption that someone who has manufactured a particular product identical to a product manufactured according to a registered patent, used the same process. I do not think anyone can quarrel with this standpoint.

No.

The hon. member asked whether we could not approach the problem in a different way to that adopted here and he suggested that the second manufacturer should patent his particular process so that one could know whether it was the same as the first process. Of course there is nothing in the Bill that prohibits this. On the contrary, should he be able to do this, he would also be able to prove that he did not use the other person’s patent. Therefore this brings us no further. Let me explain—I think this is the important part—that here we have another problem which we have to reconcile with the practice, i.e. that it is not always advisable or expedient that secret processes should be disclosed. This is the problem which I wish to deal with by way of subsection (3). However, this is not an absolute prohibition. Clause 67(3) reads—

I think the hon. member will agree that these provisions will prevent anyone being forced to disclose his processes.

I agree, but my problem remains unsolved.

I do not think so. However, I wonder whether we should not leave it like this until such time we have experienced such a situation in practice. If we experience problems, I shall bring this back to the House.

I have no objection to that.

This provision was introduced after consultation with all the other parties concerned. As I am not a technical person, I must admit that I really could not find a solution which they could not find.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should like by way of amplification of the explanatory memorandum on the proposed amendment to the Act, which I have already tabled, to refer hon. members briefly to the aims of this Act which was passed by Parliament in 1944.

In terms of the provisions of the 1944 Act, the control, administration and maintenance of waterworks constructed by the State on the farm Klipkopje, No. 49, for the storage of water for irrigation purposes was transferred to the White River Valley Conservation Board, together with the control over the water in the White River and its tributaries situated within the boundaries of the conservation district. This Conservation Board was also authorized to exercise control over the construction of waterworks on public streams within its area of jurisdiction, to measure the water abstracted and to regulate it in an orderly fashion.

The provisions of the Act did not of course abrogate the Minister’s powers to investigate malpractices in the control, administration and maintenance of the waterworks entrusted to the board.

It was deemed advisable to entrust the supply of water to local authorities within the township of White River from the waterworks to which I have referred, and which are described in section 8 of the Act, to the White River Estates Irrigation Board, which was established in 1927. Section 14(1) of the Act provides that the supply of water shall be controlled with the approval of the Minister by way of agreement, with a restriction on the quantity of water to be supplied daily from this source. In the circumstances prevailing at present, this restriction has had an inhibitive effect on the growth of the township, and also for the reasons mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, an amendment of the section is necessary to lift the restriction, as proposed in clause 1.

In order to have a clearer definition of the source of supply, it is also necessary to further amend the section, as proposed in clause 1 of the Bill, so as to refer to the waterworks contemplated in section 8 of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as the hon. the Minister has said, is really a technical Bill which allows the White River Estates Irrigation District Board to supply a greater quantity of water than 50 000 gallons per day to the local authority. We have no objection to this and we shall support this Bill in all its stages.

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

If there is no comment, I just want to thank hon. members. At the Second Reading there were only promises of support, and I want to thank hon. members for that. I suspect it has been a long time since legislation was last piloted so rapidly through this House. It just goes to show what can be achieved with cooperation if the right legislation is introduced. Once again I want to thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Wine and Spirit Control Act, 1970, provides that a winegrower or co-operative society may not sell wine spirit to any trader at a price which is less than the minimum price fixed for wine spirit for a specific year. However, the Act provides that in any case where a trader purchases crude spirit, i.e. spirit which has not yet been distilled to the required degree of purity, from a winegrower or co-operative society and the KWV is satisfied that—

1. (a) the Government Brandy Board has declined to approve such spirit for potable purposes; and
2. (b) the spirit will have to be distilled further,

the spirit may be sold at a price which is less than the minimum price which would apply to an equal quantity of potable spirit.

For the purposes of furnishing the KWV with proof that the Government Brandy Board declined to approve a specific quantity of crude spirit, it is necessary for the Government Brandy Board to make a physical analysis of samples of that crude spirit. This has been found to be a very cumbersome procedure.

The Department of Customs and Excise exercises strict control over the distillation of spirit and consequently has at its disposal particulars of any specific quantity of crude spirit that has to be distilled further. Documents which the Department of Customs and Excise are able to issue may therefore be used for the purpose of furnishing the KWV with proof. Such a procedure would be far simpler than the existing one.

The amendment which is being proposed in clause 1 of the Bill, therefore seeks to make the application of the simpler procedure possible and is acceptable to the KWV, the wine trade and the Department of Customs and Excise.

The legislation also provides that the KWV, with the approval of the Minister, may fix a minimum price for good wine. Such a price then applies in those cases where cooperative societies and winegrowers sell good wine to traders in wholesale quantities. Furthermore, the legislation provides that, in cases where co-operative societies and wine farmers sell good wine directly to consumers and holders of liquor licences in bottles, jars and other containers with a capacity of less than 4,5 litres, the KWV may determine an amount which may be added to the minimum good wine price in connection with sales.

In recent years the practice originated on the part of co-operative societies and winegrowers to sell good wine in containers with a capacity exceeding 4,5 litres. The amendment which is being proposed in clause 2 of the Bill, is therefore aimed at providing that, in the case of sales of good wine in larger containers, additions to the minimum good wine price may also be made. The proposed amendment has been requested by the liquor trade and has the support of the KWV.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have discussed the proposed statutory amendments with representatives of both the producers as well as the trade. In both cases it was evident that they are completely satisfied with the proposed amendments. Therefore we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has said, and the hon. member for Wynberg has also now confirmed, this Bill enjoys the support of all the parties concerned. I nevertheless want to point out a few possibilities. In clause 1, reference is made to the conditions which the Vereniging may determine. Those conditions may relate for example to the distance over which the raw spirits may be transported. Now, it has been happening to an increasing extent recently that wine and raw spirits are being produced in more and more parts of our country. Initially it was only in the Vredendal district. Later on it was also along the Orange River. Now there is even talk of producing it along the Fish River, in the Fish River valley, at Jacobsdal in the Free State, etc.

Now, it can happen so easily that a dealer gives an undertaking to a co-operative cellar to buy that cellar’s raw spirits on condition that the cellar will reduce its selling price to a certain extent in order to help cover the transport cost of the raw spirits. That is but one example of the transport conditions over which the KWV must exercise control in order to prevent irregularities.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, it is an old established practice that people up-country order their wine in wooden kegs. Those kegs are known as ankers. Such an anker contains five gallons. This is the container of 4,5 litres to which the hon. the Minister referred. In time it became customary to use larger containers than the ankers. I am referring for example to the half-aum, which can hold 16 gallons, or a half-leaguer, which can hold 63,5 gallons. These customs developed in the course of time and were detrimental to the trade. For that reason the trade has now requested that a difference in price should be fixed by the KWV on the larger quantities as well.

The trade has requested that and the KWV is satisfied. All concerned are satisfied, and I believe the House is also satisfied.

In all modesty, however, I want to predict that in the near future we shall again have to change the legislation, because the 4,5 litres referred to in the Bill, is the old gallon, and as we move away from the old imperial system, the 4,5 litre will no longer fit in with the new metric system. We shall shortly— perhaps in the new arrangement—have to change that measure of volume. I fully support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to state without wasting words that we in these benches support the Bill without reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Wynberg for his positive contribution. He comes from the place the name of which contains the word “wine”. The hon. member for Pitetermaritzburg South spoke briefly and to the point. I believe he farms with the wrong type of cattle. I have heard that he farms with Santa Gertrudis, but there are better breeds to farm with. [Interjections.] To the hon. member for Paarl I want to say that there is no point in talking about kegs, ankers and half-aums here, things which I do not know about. I am nevertheless very grateful that whenever we talk about wine, we reach agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Commission of Enquiry into Housing Matters, which was appointed in June 1975, instituted a thoroughgoing investigation into the bottlenecks which have a detrimental effect on the provision of accommodation and land for housing.

After this commission, which was composed of distinguished people from the private and public sectors, had received and considered literally hundreds of written and oral representations, its report was tabled in Parliament towards the end of the 1977 parliamentary session. The legislation I am going to deal with today is an outcome of that report and of the recommendations to which the Government gave its attention during the past parliamentary recess. Good progress has already been made with the implementation of important recommendations, such as the passing by Parliament of two Bills, viz. the Housing Amendment Bill and the Slums Amendment Bill.

My department has, moreover, liaised with Government and other bodies in regard to the implementation of those recommendations with which my department is not directly involved, but which are in the sphere of housing. Good progress has been made with this, and where practicable the necessary adjustment of regulations, laws and directives was considered as soon as was feasible by the bodies concerned with a view to effecting such adjustments.

In this regard I should like to mention that there is the most cordial co-operation between my department and those bodies. As an example I should like to refer to the National Building Research Institute which has, in consequence of the commission’s recommendations, of its own accord and in close cooperation with my department, already established a Housing Cost Research Steering Committee, as well as other committees, on which all interested parties will be represented. The long name of the one committee speaks for itself.

The commission found, inter alia, that in many spheres of housing, which include public and private interests, a need exists for an institution, inter alia, to co-ordinate certain aspects and ensure uniform action, and this Bill gives shape to the recommendations in this regard. The necessary machinery to deal with the low-cost housing that is provided with public funds already exists; and the Department of Community Development, under the direction of the Minister assisted by his statutory bodies—the National Housing Commission and the Community Development Board—has to accept full responsibility for matters of policy, advance planning, financing, uniform action, control, co-ordination, etc. The said department is further assisted in this process by the more than 600 local authorities throughout the country.

The aforesaid commission consequently stated in paragraph 148 of its report that “die nodige masjinerie om laekostebehuising … te hanteer, reeds bestaan.” However, it goes on to state, in the same paragraph of its report, that it feels that the lack of advance planning for the future housing requirements of the middle and higher-income groups in South Africa in particular, at present results in actions in certain spheres of housing being performed haphazardly, as is in fact demonstrated by numerous examples of thousands of undeveloped residential plots which await development, new township establishment which continues to take place in spite of that, lack of services, financing problems and dubious practices. Hundreds of South African citizens today find themselves in financial difficulties in regard to land transactions. The commission pointed out major differences, from one province to another and almost from one place to another in the broader housing sphere, in township establishment procedures, payment of endowments, standards of services, etc.

The commission found this lack of coordination to be time-wasting, but in particular it was also concerned about the financial implications and also about the resultant waste of land and other wastage. The commission therefore found it essential to recommend that these aspects be co-ordinated and regulated by an umbrella State body without any disregard of autonomous local or provincial authority, except in cases where the directives of the central Government were deliberately ignored, and it has consequently recommended that statutory provision be made for the co-ordination of all housing matters in South Africa, by which means it can be ensured that co-ordinated actions are performed over the entire broader sphere of housing, that available manpower and financial resources are utilized to the maximum and that uniformity of action is assured. The Government accepted this recommendation, and the legislation before this House gives shape to it. I discussed the proposed legislation with all four Administrators on two occasions, and although they initially had problems with it, I am now pleased to be able to say that they have expressed their unanimous consent to it, after certain explanations were given to them and certain adjustments were effected at their request.

The Bill provides that two statutory bodies be established, i.e. the Housing Policy Board—die Behuisingsbeleidsraad—and the Housing Matters Advisory Board—die Adviserende Komitee vir Behuisingsaangeleenthede.

The Housing Policy Council will consist of the Minister of Community Development as chairman and one member of the Executive Committee of each province. The member will be designated by the Administrator concerned. The Secretary for Community Development will act as secretary to the council.

The Housing Matters Advisory Committee will consist of the following members—

1. (a) The Secretary for Community Development as chairman;
2. (b) Three officials from the Department of Community Development with an equivalent or higher rank than Deputy Secretary, appointed by me.
3. (c) One official from the Department of Planning and the Environment with the same rank qualification as in (b);
4. (d) The Director of Local Authorities of each provincial administration;
5. (e) The Chairman of the National Housing Commission;
6. (f) Two persons appointed by me from nominations submitted by the United Municipal Executive; and
7. (g) Four other persons appointed by me: Three owing to their special knowledge of housing matters and one with the consent of the Minister of Finance.

Provision is being made for the appointment of alternative members.

As may be seen, all three levels of government are represented on the committee and I shall also be able to select and appoint experts from the private sector.

The functions of the Advisory Committee, which is required to meet at least four times in every year, is to investigate and to make recommendations to the Minister of Community Development as to—

1. (1) the formulation of a national housing policy;
2. (2) the co-ordination of township establishment procedures, the sizes of residential premises, the standards of housing and services, and any other housing matters, including those referred to the committee by the Minister or by an Administrator. A good example of matters which the committee will, inter alia, consider is the recommendations of the Housing Costs Research Steering Committee of the National Building Research Institute, to which I have already referred.

However, the committee—please note— will have no authority over housing matters in terms of the Housing Act or the Community Development Act. I have already furnished the reasons for this, viz. that these two bodies work with subeconomic housing or housing for the lower income groups. This is a special aspect of the problem, and cannot be included with the others.

In order to ensure liaison with the provinces, the Bill provides that recommendations of the committee shall be sent to every Administrator for his information and comment.

The Housing Policy Council, i.e. the council under the chairmanship of the Minister, will consider the recommendations made by the advisory committee to the Minister as well as any comment thereon received from an Administrator. After consideration of such recommendations by the Housing Policy Council and after consultation with the Administrators, the Minister arrives at a decision and this decision is made known and put into operation in a manner determined by the Minister.

However, it should be noted that if a recommendation has a bearing on a matter which affects physical planning, the Minister will then arrive at a decision with the consent of the Minister of Planning and the Environment. Such a decision shall be made known and put into operation in the manner determined by me with the consent of the Minister of Planning and the Environment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that there is no question whatsoever of the Bill affecting the powers or autonomy of the provinces or local authorities. As may be seen, provision is being made for consultation on all levels and at all times. The machinery established by this Bill will, for the reasons already mentioned, be applied to effect the vitally necessary co-ordination, to eliminate unnecessary expensive and time-consuming anomalies and to boost the overall housing provision effort so as to enable us to meet the tremendous demands which are going to be made on us in future in regard to the housing of our population.

I am convinced that this Bill creates a forum for which there has up to now been a great need, and that this co-ordinating effort will contribute to effecting major economies in the housing sphere, expediting the task of housing provision and reducing, and where possible, eliminating the indefensible differences in the standards of services, housing, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister. This Bill holds out the prospect of the co-ordination of housing matters on a national basis. This is something I have frequently asked for in the past. The hon. the Minister indicated quite a number of aspects which these bodies are going to cover. If we want to conduct a fruitful debate on this matter, we should perhaps devote a little thought to it and, in accordance with an agreement, I intend moving that the debate be adjourned. However, I just wish to bring it to attention of the hon. the Minister that the Afrikaans and English versions of clause 7 of the Bill do not agree because a word has been omitted. This is something which could lead to confusion.

I shall have a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, I now move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—