moved:

1. (1) That this House at its rising on Thursday, 27 March, adjourn until Monday, 7 April;
2. (2) that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No 18 the hours of sitting on Wednesdays on and after Wednesday, 9 April, shall be:
   14h15 to 18h45;
   20h00 to 22h30.

Agreed to.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 26 March 1986, as follows:

1. 1. In terms of Joint Rule 43 the Standing Committee on Finance deliberated on the Appropriation Bill on seven days and heard evidence on the general policy motivating the proposals made by the Minister of Finance in respect of proposed expenditure, revenue to be levied and loans to be raised, and in addition heard evidence from Heads and officials of the following State Departments in respect of their votes and the programmes thereunder: The Department of Finance, the South African Police, the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Commission for Administration, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Bureau for Information, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Manpower. The Committee records its thanks to the officials concerned for their contributions. The evidence given has been recorded, will be made available to the Committee in typed form, and will thereafter be printed and tabled. The Committee also wishes to express its thanks to the four Ministers who were present during the discussion of their Departments’ votes, namely the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Manpower and Trade and Industry.
2. 2. The Committee regards the procedure as advantageous to the budgetary process, and is grateful for the high level of discussion. Due to an apparent misunderstanding the Committee is, however, disappointed that Departments did not comply with the request made to them last year to make available, together with the printed Estimates of Expenditure, memorandums in which the reasons for changes to the programmes and expenditure were explained. Departments are again requested to make these memorandums available together with the main Budget.

Unfortunately there was insufficient time to hear evidence from all State Departments and in some cases the time available for evidence and questioning was insufficient. Because the Committee must finish its work within seven days after the Budget speech, the Own Affairs Budgets were presented during this period, certain members were concerned with legislation and motions during that period, and on one afternoon officials were committed elsewhere, the work of the Committee was hampered.

Certain departments which were not asked to give oral evidence before the Committee were supplied with written questions and requested to furnish answers before the Committee finished its deliberations on the Appropriation Bill. Unfortunately the response was poor, and departments are requested to comply with these requests.

1. 3. The Standing Committee received a number of written representations from organisations and from the public, which it has considered. The Committee also had the opportunity to hear oral evidence from certain organisations, namely the Jewellery Council of South Africa, the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, the Associated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa and the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of South Africa, within the period laid down by the Rules for the deliberations of the Committee.
2. 4. The Committee decided that it should not make recommendations which could be regarded as being of a party-political nature and which could be better aired in the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill.
3. 5. The Committee is once again of the opinion that it should report on certain matters which are of importance and which should either be reconsidered by the Minister of Finance or be considered by Parliament.

The comments made are not intended to be comprehensive and represent only some of the matters which are clearly established in evidence and in respect of which there was consensus on the Committee.

In the light of the aforegoing, your Committee wishes to place the following before the House for consideration:

1. 5.1 The Committee is of the opinion that inflation, together with unemployment, are the two biggest problems with which the Government has to cope.

The Committee expresses its concern at the high level of existing and projected future unemployment and it notes the measures being taken by the Government to alleviate the situation. Until the unemployment problem is more effectively dealt with, the ability to end the unrest will be severly handicapped.

The Committee is of the opinion that a growth rate of 3% in the GDP will not generate the necessary wealth creation, nor provide all the jobs required. It is necessary that there should be greater encouragement to savers and the creation of a climate which will promote investors’ confidence. The need to repay foreign loans in the absence of new foreign capital places severe strain on the economy and the requirements to service the shortage on the capital account of the balance of payments on the current account acts as a serious restraint on growth.

The Committee also expresses its concern at the high level of inflation, which despite the absence of consumer demand and current low levels of increase in the money supply continues and appears to be substantially due to cost pressures.

The Committee supports the introduction of a money supply target.

Proper control over the money supply can in future render an important contribution to the control of demand inflation.

1. 5.2 The Committee accepts the need for both capital and current expenditure by the Government and semi-Government sectors to be critically evaluated as a matter of priority. In this connection the Committee expresses its support for the group investigating State expenditure.
2. 5.3 Although the Committee realises the necessity for current public sector expenditure to be curtailed, it is concerned at the effect which the prescribed curtailment of 2% will have, especially on labour-intensive departments. The evidence of the Commissioner of Police that this could affect the strength of the Police Force by as many as 2 000 men, and the evidence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the effect on his Department, supports this view. In view of the demand for services, the need to determine priorities in the national interest is more urgent than ever. The Committee accordingly recommends that the position of each department be dealt with on merit.
3. 5.4 While there is agreement that privatisation of certain State activities should be considered, there is uncertainty about the whole issue, and in particular where such privatisation should occur.
4. 5.5 The Committee has taken note of the moderate strengthening of South Africa’s diplomatic missions in various countries, but remains concerned that sufficient funds for this purpose are not being made available.

The Committee notes the programme of the Department of Foreign Affairs for visitors from abroad, and recommends that this programme be extended and be made more selective.

1. 5.6 Evidence was given before the Committee that 25% of all State employees earn R3 599 per annum or less.

The Committee believes that greater use should be made of people of all population groups in the Public Service, especially in the higher posts, and trusts that more people with the necessary qualifications will come forward to strengthen the Public Service and that they will be accommodated in the Public Service.

1. 5.7 In view of the great need for progress in Black education, the Committee is aware of the necessity for the rapid expansion of the programmes of the Department of Education and Training, with specific reference to numbers, costs, quality and relevance.

The State President’s announced intention of equalising the level of social services appears, in so far as education for Black persons is concerned, to be capable of being attained within a reasonable period.

1. 5.8 The Committee has noted that the amount allocated to the Department of Manpower will in due course more than double with the Supplementary Estimates as a result of the announcements in the Budget speech.
2. 5.9 The Committee noted with dissatisfaction that certain of the aims of the Bureau for Information, as set out in the printed Estimates, are not correct.
3. 5.10 The Committee heard evidence of a disconcerting nature from the South African Jewellery Council, particularly as regards the effect of tax on local demand and on the need to generate local production and demand so that the economies of scale can allow for a more substantial export market to be created from South African produced gold, diamonds, precious and semiprecious stones, which should be beneficiated here instead of abroad.

It further appears that although the motor industry is not opposed to fringe benefit taxation on motor vehicles, the industry feels that there are a variety of inequities.

The Committee feels that the problems of these two industries justify further investigation.

1. 5.11 The Committee notes that the figure owing by Treasury to the Reserve Bank in respect of foreign exchange losses is likely to be a cumulative amount of approximately R2,5 billion as at 31 March 1986. No provision is made in the Estimates for the payment of this amount.
2. 5.12 The Committee notes that an investigation into the form of subsidisation for local film production is being conducted.
3. 5.13 The evidence given as to the number of local authorities and community councils in Black urban areas which are not functioning at all or functioning inadequately, is a matter for serious concern.
4. 5.14 The Committee recommends that attention be given to increasing the staff of the Auditor-General and the investigating staff of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue.
5. 5.15 The effect of the import surcharge on cost of materials used in local manufacture should be considered, and it might be of advantage to distinguish between consumption imports and the import of items used in local manufacture.
6. 5.16 There is general agreement that at existing growth rates and high levels of inflation, together with the levels of unrest and unemployment and the degree of existing and anticipated external pressure, action to restore confidence, not only in investors and consumers, but in the population as a whole, is required to put South Africa on the path to long-term solutions.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr Chairman, here at the beginning of this opportunity which I now have to reply to the Second Reading debate of the Budget of the Administration: House of Assembly, I should first of all like to thank all hon members, hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council, and all hon members on this side of the House sincerely for their constructive contributions to the debate. My hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council have already furnished relatively extensive replies on the functional parts of the debate in regard to their respective portfolios, and I think those parts of the debate may beneficially be continued when the separate Votes in regard to those particular disciplines come up for discussion.

The hon members on this side of the House reacted one by one, in succession, in a calm and rational way to the hysteria of both the PFP as well as the CP and the HNP. [Interjections.] From a firm basis of principle they stated the standpoints of the National Party on this fundamental constitutional question in a clear and lucid manner, and I want to thank them all sincerely for their contributions.

In my reaction I should firstly like to begin by replying to a few questions and statements of a more factual nature that were asked and made in regard to the Budget itself. From there I shall then move on to the political part of the debate, which actually dominated the debate throughout. From this side of the House only one question was put to me in regard to the Budget itself, and this was done by the hon member for Fauresmith. He brought the question of accountability and its effects on the transfer to funds into prominence, as well as the question of whether it would be possible in future to pay unexpended balances into a reserve fund for each department.

In regard to this entire question I want to point out that the position at present is that departmental heads do transfer moneys from their Votes within a specific programme, but that between programmes of a specific Vote the Treasury of the Administration: House of Assembly, in terms of section 6 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, has to authorise these transfers. This position will remain unchanged, and is the same as the position between accounting officers of the general departments and the Treasury of the Department of Finance.

In regard to the question of unexpended balances, one of the premises, as I have already indicated in my Budget Speech, will be that, with the exception of section 84C, unspent amounts and credit balances which the administrations have at their disposal at the end of the financial year must be fully transferable to a reserve fund. These negotiations have been conducted, and we have every reason to believe that this will become a reality. If this concession is now formalised the transfer to a single reserve fund for the Administration: House of Assembly will take place, from which it will be possible to finance the additional requirements of the departments. The establishment of a reserve fund for each department in the Administration: House of Assembly is not being envisaged.

†The hon member for Umbilo stated, inter alia, that Natal would receive less for education this year than in 1985-86.

Proportionately.

I would just like to furnish him with some information. When broken down the budget for Natal in 1986-87 with regard to education is as follows: The figure for current expenditure is R263,320 million; for capital works, R11,593 million; and for pension and PSMAA contributions, R34,644 million. The total is R309,557 million. The apparent decrease which he pointed out can be attributed to the provision of R11,593 million for capital works in the Local Government, Housing and Works Vote, while the R34,644 million for pensions and the PSMAA contributions has been provided for under the National Health and Population Development Vote. The latter arrangement applies to all State departments. The provision of R263,320 million is therefore directed purely at education. The total provision, however—this is the important fact—is R22,402 million more than Natal itself provided for in the 1985-86 financial year.

The hon member for Pinetown started by condemning the fire at Natal University in which the important research material of Prof Schlemmer was destroyed. I find myself in full agreement with his condemnation of this. I also condemn all acts of violence and arson through which the property of other people is destroyed. However, we on this side of the House find it strange that we have not heard throughout this whole session any real and material objection where the PFP took the initiative in standing up and objecting to what is taking place in the Black townships with regard to arson and with regard to violence. [Interjections.]

Rubbish!

No, Sir, when they talk about the violence and arson which is taking place in the Black townships they do it with an accusing finger at the Government and my hon colleagues on this side and they do not condemn it per se. [Interjections.] With a few exceptions they act as advocates for the arson and violence which is taking place in those areas. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member of this House to say that other hon members act as advocates for arson and violence in South Africa? Those actions are crimes and it means that one is advocating a crime. With great respect, I believe that is not permissible and I hope the hon the Minister will withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, it was not my intention to suggest that at all. What I am trying to get across is that the PFP …

Mr Chairman, I have raised a point of order. The hon the Minister must either withdraw it or not.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it and I will rephrase it as follows: The PFP acts as advocates for those who perpetrate those acts in the sense … [Interjections.] No, may I please complete my sentence. … in the sense that they regard those acts as justified because of actions of this Government. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is now worse. Now the hon the Minister says that there are hon members in this House who are not only advocates for these acts but who also say that it is justifiable to commit a crime. That statement is worse than the hon the Minister’s initial statement.

Order! I have considered the point of order and I think the remark is parliamentary because it could be interpreted as an expression of opinion. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask you to reconsider this? You are giving a ruling which can have very serious repercussions because it means that anybody can express the opinion that somebody else has committed a crime. One cannot allow the proceedings of this House to continue under those circumstances. It means then that I am entitled to say that in my opinion Mr X who sits on the other side of the House is guilty of a crime. Merely because I say it is my opinion it is permissible for that to be said. That is the whole essence of what parliamentary procedure is all about. I cannot say: “In my opinion, Mr So- and-so is a crook or is a thief or is an arsonist”. That is the whole basis of parliamentary debate. With great respect, therefore, Sir, I would ask you to reconsider your ruling and then order the hon the Minister to withdraw his remark. We cannot continue under these circumstances.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on a point of order?

The hon the Minister may address me.

Mr Chairman, that was not my intention at all, and if my phraseology implies that, I withdraw my words unconditionally. I meant that, when it comes to the discussion of arson and violence in the Black residential areas, the people committing these acts are not reproached by the hon members on that side of the House; on the contrary, a finger is pointed at this side of the House as though we were the cause of that violence. [Interjections.] By that I do not mean that they approve of it, but I am in fact saying that they condone it, and that they seek justification for it in the actions of the Government, instead of condemning it per se. [Interjections.]

Once again, Mr Chairman, may I reply? With respect, Sir, the hon the Minister is making things worse as he goes along. [Interjections.] The chorus of protest means nothing, Sir. It does not detract from the truth or the reality. If one is now entitled to say that somebody “praat iets goed” which is in reality against the law, it makes matters worse. Yes, that is even worse. One cannot say something like that. On top of that, the hon the Minister aggravates the matter every time he talks about it. There is a very simple principle that if an act is regarded as unlawful or as a crime under South African law, one may neither advocate such an act nor “goedpraat” it, and one may also not show that particular kind of sympathy for it because that would be unparliamentary. In all those respects, therefore, the hon the Minister is in fact accusing this side of the House of being advocates of violence, of being people who “goedpraat” violence and people …

It is true, Harry.

There we get it, Sir! “It is true, Harry,” they say on that side of the House. [Interjections.] Are you going to permit that, Mr Chairman? If you are going to, Sir, you will be reducing the proceedings in this House to a slanging match. In fact, Sir, you will be reducing the House to a place where there is no dignity at all. That is the whole point and it is no use their saying “it’s true”. The simple point is that one cannot conduct debate on that level in this House. That is why, with due respect, Sir, I ask that you request the hon the Minister to withdraw his statement unconditionally before continuing with his speech.

Order! I shall have to consider this matter. As the hon member for Yeoville has rightly pointed out, it is a serious matter. I shall deliberate upon it and give my ruling at a later stage.

With respect, Sir, that means that the words will stay as they are and you will be placing hon members on this side of the House in an impossible position. You can see that my colleagues are not prepared to put up with it and, if you want an Official Opposition in this House, I would ask you to consider it now.

Order! The hon member will also realise that I do my best to give the fairest possible ruling and, if hon members are satisfied with it, then that is their privilege. If they are dissatisfied, that is also their privilege. I intend to consider this matter as soon as possible and I shall give my ruling in a very short while.

Mr Chairman, I should like to facilitate your task. I withdraw the statements I made, because I want to talk to those hon members. I want them back in this House. I withdraw my words, but I substitute the following for what I said: During this session I have not, from that side of the House, heard them condemning violence and arson in the Black residential areas, without linking it to condemnation of this side of the House.

Order! I gave a ruling and I shall have to reconsider that ruling now in any event in the light of further statements and arguments. The hon the Minister may proceed.

As the hon the Minister has withdrawn it, I have asked the hon members of my party to come back. [Interjections.]

I am pleased to see there is one member of the PFP who has staying power. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pinetown …

It is like extracting a bad tooth.

The hon Chief Whip would do well to read what I substituted for it.

Order! The debate may now proceed without any interjections being made.

The hon member for Pinetown requested that the provision of funds for education in the respective provinces be furnished in detail during the discussion of the Vote. We should like to do so, but I want to point out that the provinces employ a different bookkeeping system to the Central Government, and that comprehensive comparative figures are difficult to furnish during this transitional phase. They have an item budgeting system, while the Budget of the Central Government is dealt with according to the programme budgeting system. Consequently we were not therefore able to incorporate their schedules into our printed Estimates. During the 1986-87 financial year an effort will be made to adapt their budgeting system to that of the Central Government.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens spoke about the underutilisation of … Oh, I see he is not here at the moment. Consequently I shall not reply to his speech now.

†The hon member for Yeoville raised quite a number of points to which I would like to respond. He argued firstly that I am now asking the House to approve the spending of more money than I have because of the 2% suspension on expenditure announced by the hon the Minister of Finance, that I am therefore misleading the House and that my skin is a little bit thicker than his …

I did not use the word “mislead”.

Well, that was my conclusion. The basis of the accusation was that I was misleading the House because I did not indicate in my speech that this Budget was also going to be cut by 2% by way of suspension by the Treasury. Following on these arguments, the hon member for Yeoville wanted to know where I intended saving the 2%.

The reasons why I did not deal with the 2% suspension announced by the hon the Minister of Finance are the following: Firstly, the hon the Minister of Finance had already announced the measures to be taken. Secondly, it was technically impossible to adapt the printed estimates. Thirdly, it is going to be dealt with by way of suspension by the Treasury in terms of section 8 of the Exchequer and Audit Act; and fourthly, technically, therefore, we have to debate the estimates as submitted because the suspension will take place administratively after the Budget has been approved.

So you admit the estimates are wrong?

I therefore regard it as quite superfluous to draw hon members’ attention once again to information which is common knowledge and which they already have. However, for the further information of the hon member, I would like to point out that the suspension of 2% does not apply to own revenue generated from own sources, welfare pensions or to the amount of R225,766 million for the improvement of service conditions in terms of section 84(c) of the Constitution Act. The suspension is only applicable to the money made available in terms of section 84(b) of the Constitution Act, and the various departments in the administration will now determine according to priorities where cutbacks can be made.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is able to give us any indication as to the Votes in which the 2% cuts will be effected and in respect of which subheadings?

We are presently working very hard on ascertaining exactly how this cutback is to be implemented. As it is a fairly substantial cutback, we might even be forced to reconsider some of our priorities. I am therefore not in a position to provide full details now.

Secondly, the hon member asked me how I got the money that we now ask to be allocated in relation to that of the other administrations; in other words, he wanted to know how this amount was fixed in relation to the amounts for the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. I would again like to refer the hon member to section 84 of the Constitution Act which deals with the financing of own affairs, as well as to the estimates submitted by the hon the Minister of Finance. In his estimates, the hon the Minister requested, under Votes 8 and 26, that the Administration: House of Assembly be allocated moneys from the State Revenue Fund in terms of section 84(b) and (c) of the Constitution Act. To refresh the hon member’s memory, I would like to point out that section 84(a) allocations are calculated in accordance with fixed formulae prescribed by a general law and which, as indicated in my Budget Speech, have not yet been finalised. Section 84(b) amounts are additional ad hoc grants for which we have to negotiate, like any other State department, with the hon the Minister of Finance. In this process actual needs and the continuation of existing services form the main basis of allocation. This is exactly how I have been able to obtain the amount of R4 498,009 million. Section 84(c), as he knows, deals with conditional grants.

He then asked how far we had progressed with the finalisation of the relevant formulae in terms of section 84(a) of the Constitution. The hon member asked quite a number of questions in respect of these formulae. These questions dealt, inter alia, with issues such as equality of service, the timespan in which equality will be reached and whether the economy can grow fast enough to generate the money needed. Once again I should like to refer to my speech. When I dealt with the relevant topic I indicated that certain basic approaches had been agreed to in the negotiations. One of them was that South Africa had a dualistic economy and that this had to be taken into account in the movement towards the creation of equal opportunities and in the rendering of services. I then went on to say that the level at which parity from the Treasury could be afforded, would have to be affordable for the economy as a whole. Further on I indicated that these formulae had to be based on realistic and affordable guaranteed minimum standards of service.

Now, that is fairly explicit. Until we have the formulae it gives the guidelines which will be applied. However, it is only when the formulae are announced that we shall be in a position to debate meaningfully whether they are adequate, whether the country can afford it and whether the economy will grow fast enough to afford it etcetera. [Interjections.]

I now want to turn to the more political facets of the debate. In this regard the hon member kicked off by trying to show that the division of matters into own and general affairs is really an absurdity. To a certain extent he attempted to sow confusion by indicating how difficult it is to differentiate or distinguish between own and general affairs. He used the Government’s programme for the creation of jobs to illustrate his point. In the process he became thoroughly confused.

Nonsense!

Oh yes, he did. He said, for example, that the own affairs administration is responsible for the provincial administration. Now, if ever anybody got himself confused, it was the hon member for Yeoville because, after some reflection, I am sure he will realise that the own affairs departments do not control the provincial administrations. [Interjections.] At this point in time they are being controlled by the department of my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. What is taking place, is that as a result of investigations some of the own affairs functions which they still control will be transferred to this administration for implementation in a proper way in terms of the Constitution. [Interjections.]

The hon member asked—and I think another hon member did the same—how it can be a White own affair to create jobs for Blacks. That was the essence of his argument.

I gave two reasons.

The hon member for Yeoville knows that in terms of the Constitution very important facets, especially such facets as those dealing with the farmer on the land, have been classified as own affairs. [Interjections.] And they are employers. In this process we acted as an agent by applying that money on behalf of the Department of Manpower which is in control of the programme as a whole. I think we did it admirably! However, there is a sound and logical reason why some of those funds have been channeled through the own affairs department. The reason is that, to a great extent, we control what can be called one of the most important employers in South Africa, namely agriculture. [Interjections.] That is the reason. We enjoyed doing so, and I want to compliment my hon colleague and, through him, the fanning community because they have done an admirable job and are rendering an important service in the country.

He then moved on to the subject of hospitals in Cape Town. He referred to the huge posters on which it is said that…

Free hospitalisation is out.

Yes, free hospitalisation is out. However, the hon member knows that, as far as that debate is concerned, he should convince those colleagues whom he has left in the Provincial Council of the Cape Administration that they should raise this matter because this administration has not taken over any hospital as yet. That is part of the investigation. We will take this over, but the hon member also failed to mention that he knows that a new programme is being accepted in the Cape. However, in the Transvaal, for instance, it has been applied for a very, very long time. He suggested that there would no longer be assistance for the poor in hospitalisation, which is simply not true, and I should therefore like to put the record straight in that regard.

He was handily supported in this by the hon member Prof Olivier.

*The complaint of the hon member Prof Olivier in regard to own affairs was that there were own affairs which were not directly related to identity. Firstly, the Constitution does not state that all own affairs deal with identity per se; other concepts besides identity are mentioned in section 14(1). Yet the hon member spoke only about identity as though this were the only criterion which the Constitution laid down.

I was referring to your speech.

The matters referred to are identity, the preservation and promotion of one’s way of life, of culture of traditions and of customs. That is not where it ends; there is also a section 14(2) which was passed by Parliament, and which states that matters coming within the classes of subjects described in Schedule 1 are, subject to the provisions of section 16, own affairs in relation to each population group.

You are simply reading section 16, because that is not the point.

What is referred to in Schedule 1 is own affairs because the legislature says it is own affairs.

I am not saying that Belgium is an absolute comparison, because their affairs are organised differently, and I know they have free association. Belgium is a multi-cultural country, but they have not conferred only that which deals with the identity of the Flemings and the French-speaking Belgians upon own administrations. Hon members should go and have a look at all the matters that have been conferred upon the own administrations—health, which was ridiculed by the hon member for Parktown, is included in this. I have proof of this available. Even tourism has been allocated to those ministers’ councils and not to the central government. For that reason the hon member’s argument falls flat. The fact remains that in every multi-cultural country, in every multi-national country where things are going well or relatively well…

May I please ask a question?

Yes, certainly.

Is the hon the Minister seriously suggesting that, for example, French-speaking patients may not be admitted to a Flemish hospital?

You see, Sir, this is my problem. I have just said that I immediately qualify what I say about Belgium. They do have freedom of association. [Interjections.] No, no, I said that. I want to put it to the hon member: Did I or did I not say it? [Interjections.] The hon the Chief Whip was not listening and he is now trying to score a small debating point. I said it immediately. However, the point I want to make is that in multi-cultural countries where things are going well, there is accommodation for and recognition of differences among and between the various groups … [Interjections.] … and they are offered own decision-making. [Interjections.] I shall come back to the question of freedom of association.

The hon member for Hillbrow continued harping on the same theme. He said it was stupid to have resorts declared as an own affair. What are the facts? Provincial resorts which do not form part of nature reserves as in the case of Natal, for instance, have been administered as own facilities for each population group by the provincial administrations throughout their whole period of administration.

What about the Blyde River Canyon?

That is the reality. In terms of item 3 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution resorts are defined as an own affair for each population group. Libraries and museums mostly relate to particular local authorities and are thus, once again in terms of the Constitution, an own affair. Both libraries and museums which the hon member tried to make a joke about are of cultural importance to a particular population group.

Libraries are open to all races and the hon the Minister wants to make them an own affair! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

The hon member should just listen to my reply and he will get answers to all his questions.

Many libraries, many museums and many other cultural institutions have already been identified as general affairs. In my Department of National Education I control the two national libraries of South Africa, the National Museum and many other museums. The test is laid down in the Constitution.

*Let me quote this. Item 3 of Schedule 1 reads:

Is the hon member within the framework of the Constitution? He need not agree with it, but after all, that is the basis on which we are governing this country. Is the hon member seriously convinced that he can argue that the Voortrekker Monument should not be an own affair?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister, if it is true and a fact that all races may presently use a library or a museum, how can it be an own affair?

The criterion is not to whom something is accessible; the criterion is the control over institutions. The institution itself is analysed, and not who may use it. We have not been blindfolded, nor are we wearing blinkers. Of course we are also prepared to make our cultural goods available to other people. What is at issue, therefore, is the control of institutions and not per se the accessibility of institutions. That is why the Constitution does not have an absolute regulation in this connection, but uses the word “mainly” in item 3 to read:

That is the answer to the hon member’s stories.

Basically there have been two main themes during this debate. The one came from the CP and the HNP, and this I shall summarise as being more or less the following: Own affairs cannot prevent total integration; own affairs cannot make a contribution to ensure that there will not be domination of one group by another, and self-determination implies sovereignty and cannot come into its own in any other way. I notice that they are of the opinion that this is a correct summary. [Interjections.]

From the PFP we had another theme, which was that own affairs and the group protection which this affords, is in essence discriminatory and must therefore be rejected. They say that group recognition can only be accepted on the basis of free association, and that to make the population group concerned the basis of group recognition is totally unacceptable to them. I think that that is also a fair summary of their standpoint.

No, it is not!

The hon member for Yeoville will have an opportunity just now to set me straight because I am going to put a few questions to him.

I should like to deal with these two themes. First of all, though, I just want to discuss an incidental point with the hon member for Rissik. His theme was briefly that the National Party no longer had any credibility because it was constantly changing its standpoint.

That is correct, yes!

Very well, I do not want to conduct once again the old, hackneyed argument we have in this regard.

But were my facts not correct?

I do, however, wish to test the hon member for Rissik’s argument against a specific point. Firstly, I want to tell him that it is in fact the case, and is of course the case in regard to how Blacks must achieve political maturity and how the political rights of Blacks must develop. On this aspect there has been a material development and change in the policy of the National Party since 1981.

Basically since 1982.

Very well, since the National Party’s programme of action was published. We are not denying that.

Since we left!

And since the CP left, yes.

Since you made that speech at Tukkies! [Interjections.]

There was a material change because we sat down and gave thought to the matter and said we must accept the challenges of South Africa. That is what we have already done. We realised that what is stated here in point 3 of the programme of action we would not simply be able to realise fully. I hope hon members of the CP have grasped this now. We are not explaining it away. We are not ashamed of it.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

No, I am not prepared to do so, thank you! [Interjections.] I now want to know from those hon members whether the CP did not also change its standpoint.

Yes, but we are not the governing party!

Did hon members of the CP not also change their standpoints materially? Come on, they may as well admit it!

In principle, no! [Interjections.]

Very well. Let us put it to the test.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said international borders and partition were the only real answer that could work. Surely the hon the Leader of the CP adopted a completely different standpoint on two material matters when the CP was established. As far as Black affairs are concerned, he still supported three of the NP’s twelve-point plan, which read inter alia:

Surely these are not international borders. Surely this is accommodation in some way or other in respect of the political rights of people from another country who are living in our country. [Interjections.]

There is a better example. He also said that because the Whites, Coloureds and Indians had historically shared the same geographical territory, the concept of independent own states for each of them was not practicable. I now want to ask the hon member for Waterberg whether their present policy is that own independent states for the Coloureds and Indians are possible.

Do you think they will never become possible?

I am asking whether it is their standpoint that they are possible.

Yes.

There is an admission now as well, and I do not think the hon member for Waterberg will flinch from admitting that he has materially, as regards a crucial point, changed his standpoint since 1981. If not, he did not mean to sign this document when he signed it. [Interjections.] It is no use our scoring points off one another. The hon member has moved so far to the right that he is lying in the arms of Jaap Marais! That is how far he has moved away from his old standpoints.

Rather in his arms than in the arms of Helen Suzman! [Interjections.]

We have also moved, but the only difference is that we have not moved to the left, but forward. [Interjections.]

I come back to the hon member for Waterberg. He asked what we understood self-determination to mean, and he accused the NP of having eroded and watered down the concept. In the first place the hon member relied on a dictionary definition for his reference, namely the one in Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English. Why did the hon member not simply go to the Oxford Dictionary, which is the one we Afrikaans-speaking people are familiar with. I think the reason is that the Oxford Dictionary definition did not suit his argument. [Interjections.]

Mine, on the other hand, does not suit you!

The hon member’s argument falters as a result of the definition which he himself quoted from Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English. It reads as follows:

This House must listen carefully. What is stated there is “the people of a place” and not “the people of a country”. [Interjections.] Secondly the definition states: “whether or not to be independent”. This definition states that “the people of a place” who say they do not want to be “independent”, also exercise self-determination. That is what this definition states.

I consequently say to the hon member that the Coloureds and the Indians have said, in a way expressing self-determination, that they do not want independence. Does the hon member accept that self-determining decision according to his own definition?

Let us look at the more standard definition to see whether the hon member’s argument is correct. As I have said, we Afrikaners look up the standard definition in the Oxford Dictionary. In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary under “self-determination” one finds:

FW, I will pin you down.

Listen carefully.

Now you are going too far!

Under “self-determining” it is stated: “determining one’s own acts.” The dictionary also gives an explanation of the word “polity”. The dictionary states that “polity” is “civil order”. It is also “administration of a state”. Furthermore the dictionary states that it is “civil government”; “a particular form of political organisation”; “an organised society”; and “a state”. [Interjections.]

Your dictionary has let you down.

The concept of self-determination manifests itself on various levels. The juncture at which all the inhabitants of that country have self-determination as citizens of that country is when that country is independent and when there are democratic processes in which they are able to participate. Then that country has a self-determination.

There are various forms of self-determination within a country. The hon member for Randfontein, in his reference to Dooyeweerd and the Legal Concept, elucidated this matter for the hon member. Unfortunately the hon member was not here, but I know he is well aware of it. He knows that in respect of specific scientific disciplines there is sovereignty in their circle. In this way it is not unattainable for the Calvinist to say that overriding self-determining circles and situations can exist simultaneously in a country like South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are skating on thin ice now.

I am certain the hon member has frequently developed this theme with great effect from the pulpit. [Interjections.]

I wish to mention another reference to the hon member, because it seems to me he does not like my argument so far. I want to return to the 1981 NP manifesto. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the CP did in fact sign that manifesto. There he has his signature under a interpretation …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: For the second time since the other day the hon member for Vryheid has drawn the outline of a closet (kas) in the air with his finger and indicated that I should get inside. [Interjections.] I now appeal for your protection in view of Mr Speaker’s ruling. No other meaning can be attached to it but that I should get back into my cage, and Mr Speaker expressly forbade that. I am not prepared to sit in this House if I am not protected, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe may rest assured that I am fully conversant with Mr Speaker’s ruling. What did the hon member for Vryheid mean by it when he made such a sign?

Mr Chairman, I indicated to the hon member that if he did not want to stop his nonsense, he would be leaving by that door. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I respectfully request that you take it under consideration that it is a mockery of the Chair to give such an explanation in respect of a very clear indication. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may resume his seat. The fact of the matter is that the word of an hon member is always accepted in this House. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Waterberg is not satisfied that my argument so far has convinced him. Therefore I want to quote to him what he himself said in regard to this argument on self-determination, because when he signed this manifesto, he adopted the following standpoint. He said inter alia:

This, therefore, means that the hon member gave the lie to his own argument of yesterday, ie that one could not speak of self-determination if it was not linked to independence, when he said that a group could have self-determination over own affairs, while there could be joint responsibility in respect of matters of common interest in the same country.

We argued about that long ago.

Yes, Sir, we argued about that long ago, but now the hon member is arguing against it. He is now saying it is impossible, he is quoting from dictionaries and involving us in a game of words implying that anyone who says one can have self-determination on a group basis is proclaiming an absurdity. I do not think he has ever accused himself of absurdity, although he admits that he has changed his standpoint. [Interjections.] In speeches such as the one made by the hon member for Waterberg we are playing with words. [Interjections.] The question with which we should really concern ourselves in this House is … [Interjections.] If we look at the arguments of the CP, and we strip the hon members of the CP of their clamour …

Order! There are too many interjections on my left hand side now. They must be curtailed. The hon the Minister may proceed.

If we face up to the reality of South Africa and we try to debate the CP’s standpoint earnestly, we see that they are brought to a halt by one major reality, which is that whatever happens they cannot make every people or every population group independent in its country in a completely watertight compartment. The hon member for Waterberg has already conceded to me in a debate that there will always be large numbers of Coloureds and Blacks living outside their own countries and in the hon member’s country, even under their policy, if it were to succeed, or to succeed partly. New generations of Coloureds and Blacks will be born here, and some of them will remain here for generations. That is why the hon member for Waterberg finds himself in this moral dilemma: Unless he is able to bring about total partition, which he knows is not attainable, there will always be a situation in which a minority, namely the Whites, has full self-determination and the majority of the people living here do not have self-determination and do not have meaningful political rights. On that ground we say that their policy will inevitably lead to continual and permanent and prolonged domination in the Republic of South Africa.

I am in complete agreement with them that, if their policy were to succeed, the problem and moral dilemma would be resolved in so far as the people in those other countries are concerned. In respect of those who will remain in this country—the hon member does not deny that millions will in fact remain here—he cannot with his policy escape the moral dilemma that he will dominate them. It is to that vexatious question that the NP is trying to find an answer. It is in that respect that we said we shall have to make specific and material changes to our policy. Consequently we are saying that we want to negotiate on those vexatious questions. I shall deal in a moment with the condition which we set, but we say we are receptive to a dispensation which will ensure that we escape that moral dilemma.

Do you have that policy yet? Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? [Interjections.]

No, not now. The hon member may ask his question when I discuss this matter in a moment.

The NP says self-determination for everyone is its objective. Firstly there must be self-determination, within one’s own power base, over own affairs and secondly also self-determination within joint structures on common interests in a way in which no group can or will dominate another. [Interjections.]

Let us get back to the PFP. They reject own affairs on a group basis.

On a racial basis!

What they propose is own affairs on a geographical basis. Their fundamental objection to the NP policy is that to recognise a group on a population group basis is discrimination per se. They say there must be free association. I want to put a few fair questions to them.

May we reply?

These are straightforward, not trick questions, so hon members may simply reply from their benches.

They say they stand for minority rights and the effective protection of such rights. I want to ask, firstly, whether race or population group will play a part in their definition of minorities.

Yes, it will be one of the factors, but there are others as well.

That is a concession. I should like to ask the hon member for Berea whether he agrees with the statement, because that is not what their previous leader said during the no-confidence debate. [Interjections.] No, he said race, group or population group played no part in their policy.

Not on a statutory basis.

But on a voluntary basis? [Interjections.] It will therefore be linked to race as a factor, but on a voluntary basis. You are White on a voluntary basis, or you are White on a non-voluntary basis. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon the Minister whether he requires a law to tell him he is White, or does he know he is White?

I am very pleased about that question, because of course I know I am White. The fact that I am White, the fact that all of us in this House are White, and the fact that we as Whites have developed a specific culture since 1910, has significance. [Interjections.] We want to give substance to the realities of the group diversity in South Africa. That is why I now want to come to voluntary association, and again ask a simple question. According to their view, does voluntary association include the right to disassociation?

Yes. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville says their definition of voluntary association is that one is also entitled to disassociation. In what other way can a group, within a climate of voluntary association, express an opinion as to whether it wishes to associate or disassociate with others than through the democracy?

He can do so as an individual.

No, there are numerous opportunities now in South Africa for the hon member, as individual, to associate with whomever he wishes. He can marry whomever he wishes, and he can enrol anyone as a member of his party. There is a great deal of leeway for voluntary association. [Interjections.] But when it comes to how one exercises one’s political rights, the majority of this group represented here expressed a clear and unequivocal opinion that in respect of political rights they want disassociation and their own power base. On that basis we are in the majority. The hon members in that party, however, do not wish to accept the expressed opinion of the majority of the White voters. The majority said they wished to disassociate.

That is domination.

No, it is not domination, because we wanted to give each other group a power base. We said we were prepared to share power on matters of common interest.

Mr Chairman, can I ask the hon the Minister what would happen if the majority of South Africans of all colours decided that they would impose their majority will on him to associate with whom the majority had decided he should associate? This is what has been done by the Whites in this House in respect of the minorities. Would he not object?

Sir, the argument inherent in the question, as well as the argument, of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, can be answered by means of a quotation which the hon member for Pietermaritzburg himself read out to me, and which reads:

†They are not in favour of an open society. [Interjections.] No, no! The hon member quoted it. They are not in favour of an open society … [Interjections.]

Those are your own words!

It is another form of ethnicity. [Interjections.]

Oh, please!

When we look at realities, may I ask why, in America …

If you are right, it is still freedom of association.

In America there is full freedom of association—even enforced integration. May I ask then why there is a Black caucus in America? Why do they have a Black caucus?

Because they caucus freedom of association. [Interjections.]

Thank you. Those hon members are helping me all the way. The net result of the interjections and replies that I get from the PFP is: “Do not worry. In the final analysis the Whites will still stand together, and so forth.” That is the basis of their argument. [Interjections.]

No, that is nonsense! That is what you say.

Order! I hear the voice of the hon member for Greytown very frequently. The hon member must make fewer interjections.

If there is such an urgent need, could the hon member for Yeoville tell me how many non-White members they have during the past nine months enrolled in the PFP?

We do not keep those statistics. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, they embark on a drive to use this right of freedom of political association in order to get the support of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, but they are not making headway because of the realities of group existence and the reality that groups realise that the solution for this country’s future lies in groups finding each other as groups.

You do not know what you are talking about! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Would the hon the Minister tell us whether he thinks the present Constitution is an exercise in the escape from domination?

The Constitution is a bona fide attempt to give minority groups full participation in all decision-making without group domination. As the Constitution stands at present, there is full participation in all decisions which are taken by all participants in this constitutional dispensation. I put it to the hon members of the PFP that their policy of one man, one vote in a geographic federation, with absolutely free association, with mixed voters’ lists in regard to each power base—surely that is their policy—with mixed voters’ lists for every city council, with mixed voters’ lists for every federal state, with mixed voters’ lists for the federal parliament… [Interjections.]

Yes, but without domination!

According to each individual’s free choice!

It is therefore correct as I am summarising it here, not so? But it must inevitably lead to group domination unless they incorporate effective protection for minority groups into the system. Their own argument has just led me to believe that the groups will continue to exist and that race will be an element thereof. [Interjections.] That is why I say that their policy cannot eliminate group domination. Group domination can only be prevented when power and protection is given to the groups which enjoy recognition in a way which eliminates domination. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to end on a positive note. Basically I want to repeat what I said at the opening of the Transvaal Congress of the National Party. [Interjections.] I am doing so because I want to get to what the National Party really said. Where are we actually going with reform and change?

Does your “we” include Pik Botha as well?

Yes, Sir, it includes the entire National Party.

Fine! Now we know!

In a nutshell it amounts to the following. [Interjections.] The National Party …

Order! The hon member for Parktown’s voice is also being heard far too frequently. From now on hon members will make fewer interjections in this debate. The hon the Minister has probably had his full quota of interjections by now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, perhaps the hon the Minister of National Health can do something about the hon member for Parktown’s voice. [Interjections.]

Where are we actually going with reform and with change? In a nutshell it amounts to the following: The NP wishes to bring about an understanding among all peoples and groups in South Africa. It must be an understanding which can gain the support of a reasonable majority of all groups. It is impossible to obtain complete unanimity. Until we have a reasonable majority from each people or group subscribing to a scheme, however, we have not yet made a real breakthrough. A breakthrough must be our object.

†This can only be attained through reform. Without fundamental adjustments and without imaginative developments the existing political and other infrastructure is incapable of gaining majority support among all population groups. There must therefore be change and that change must be meaningful. The NP has accepted the challenge to develop a ground plan which can retain the majority support of Whites on the one hand and which can gain the majority support of all other groups.

*It is the NP’s conviction that such a ground plan must comply with specific requirements. I want to mention six such requirements, although one could meaningfully add more.

Firstly—and we have argued about this during the whole debate—self-determination on a group basis must be the point of departure. That is why—so we say—every group or people must have their own political power bases and know for certain that their security, their existence and their character can be effectively protected in the long term. We are not, with all kinds of fancy footwork, going to persuade any minority groups to accept a dispensation by offering security and safety for a year or two only, while that dispensation does not in the long term offer him the certainty of sufficient built-in guarantees so that he can take a chance on power-sharing and accept the risks attached to it. In particular it will never be possible to persuade the majority of the White voters to co-operate if they do not have long-term built-in guarantees. [Interjections.] That is the reality of South African politics and whether the hon member for Berea likes it or not—he does not like it; that is why he is in the minority party—that is the reality.

Secondly, as far as matters of common interest are concerned, there must be a form of joint responsibility. A practical implementable formula must be built in to ensure that no group can dominate another. We have had a lot to say about this, too. To exchange one form of domination for another, is no solution for South Africa.

†Thirdly, in order to gain acceptance any ground plan will have to provide veritable and full participation for all those who are engaged in it. Any system aimed at keeping some of its participants in a subordinate position through clever or devious means is doomed to failure. It must be visibly and honestly just and equitable towards everybody.

Fourthly, a ground plan will only gain wide acceptance if all participants can be convinced that they will benefit from it in the economic, social and educational fields.

To put it even more clearly: The Whites will have to be satisfied that there is no threat to their own community life and existing standards. That is their minimum requirement. All other groups and peoples must feel convinced that they will make progress and that their quality of life will improve substantially within a reasonable period. Everybody wants the assurance of a reasonable share in the resources available to our country.

Do you have such a plan?

That is the question.

Fifthly, discrimination as a concept distinct from differentiation must be eliminated. While it is necessary—as I have argued and as we often argue—to differentiate on a group basis, all measures with a humiliating or degrading effect on the individual or group should be repealed. To put it differently: A proper balance should be struck between group rights and group protection on the one hand, and the freedom and rights of the individual on the other hand.

Sixthly and lastly, the entire question—it will be discussed during this session—of South African citizenship and the rights of Blacks to share in it is fundamental to majority support by all of them for a ground plan.

*To this I would be able to add others. I want to say that it is a tragedy that in a time in which our country finds itself in very difficult circumstances an hon member of the CP, the hon member for Jeppe, has again seen fit in this debate to attribute the circumstances prevailing today—the violence, the murders and deaths in the Black residential areas—to, among other factors, the existence of the concept of own affairs. We have arrived at a crucial moment in time in South Africa. We have reached a crossroads which, regardless of whatever happened in 1982, cannot be avoided. We have arrived at a crucial moment in time, and we must now find answers to the problems we are struggling with.

There is no doubt in my mind—and those who have an earnest concern for South Africa also testify to this—that among the vast majority of all people in South Africa—and this includes every Black community—there is a desire for a peaceful solution to be found. [Interjections.] Peaceful solutions can only be brought about—that is the message of this debate—if assurances are given to every group. [Interjections.] To the have-nots the assurance must be given that opportunities will really be created for them. To the haves the assurance must be given that the rug is not going to be pulled out from under their feet and that they are not going to find themselves on a slippery slope with the prospect of everything for which all their generations before them had lived for disappearing in a flash, as has happened frequently before in the rest of Africa.

That is why any insinuation that any member of this party and everything for which this party stands wishes to expose the vested interests of the people who put us here to unacceptable risks, is completely false. Any such insinuation is untrue, and we on this side of the House rejects it with contempt. [Interjections.] Similarly we say clearly and plainly, and I said this during my introductory speech, that the welfare … [Interjections.] …

Order! The hon the Minister has unlimited time in which to make his reply. The voice of the hon member for Kuruman is also being heard very frequently. The hon member for Kuruman can make fewer interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Similarly we say that the welfare of no group—not of the Whites either—can be built on backwardness, or at the expense of any other group. That is why we are truly in earnest about reaching out the hand of friendship in a peaceful and orderly way and helping to create the opportunities for every other individual and for every other ethnic and population group in South Africa.

While we can differ about precisely how this should be done, it has become time that the debate on these matters in this House should be raised to a higher level. It has truly become time—in view of the gravity of burning houses and of people dying, and here at least in view of the responsibility with which we have been vested and of which we are reminded every day in the opening prayer—to stop turning the major problems of South Africa into petty political issues. Petty politicking is enjoyable. I like it myself. However, there is a time for everything, and my plea is that our debates on the present situation in South Africa should be characterised by a new dignity and a new urgency and a new earnestness.

Order! Before I put the Question, and quite probably dispose of a division, I just want to deal with the point of order raised by the hon member for Yeoville.

†To say that someone advocates something is obviously not per se unparliamentary. If that were so, I would be in deep trouble with some very honoured members of the legal profession.

However, to aver that a party or a person acts as a mouthpiece of those who wish to subvert law and order is unparliamentary, and it was so ruled in 1972. The word “advocates” as used by the hon the Minister can in the circumstances be interpreted to have been used in the sense of being a mouthpiece, and therefore is really akin to saying that somebody is acting a mouthpiece for the subversion of law and order. Obviously that is not parliamentary. Therefore, the point of order taken by the hon member for Yeoville was well taken, and the hon the Minister of the Budget correctly withdrew his remark of his own accord.

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

Mr Chairman, I move:

I crave the indulgence of the House in that this is a highly technical matter that cannot be constructed in normal language, but I will do my best.

When the repealed Patents Act, 1952 was revised, it was decided to repeat the provisions in respect of the application for the protection of an invention which is equivalent to an application in a convention country in the present Patents Act. In this process, the words “equivalent to” were omitted and the proposed amendment to section 31(4)(a) will rectify this omission.

If claim is laid to an invention in the complete specification which specification is in accordance with the Patents Act, No 57 of 1978, and such invention consists of a microbiological process or a product thereof and furthermore consists of samples of micro-organisms which are not available to the public on the date of lodging of the application, then prior to the acceptance of the application, the samples should be dealt with in the prescribed manner.

Regulation 28bis published in Government Notice R2470 in Government Gazette no 6247 of 15 December 1978, as amended by Notice R1110, published in Government Gazette No 9242 of 30 May 1984, provides that if in a complete specification claim is laid to a micro-biological process as an invention, and no examples of the micro-organism concerned are available to the public, then such invention can only be considered as being fully described if, among other things, a cultivation of the micro-organism is deposited in a culture collection recognised by the European Patent Office.

In order to keep pace with developments overseas, it is intended, with the proposed amendment of section 32(6) to afford an applicant of this type of invention an alternative choice. It will henceforth not be necessary for such an applicant to deposit a cultivation if the complete process in respect thereof is fully described in his specification, to such an extent that any person, after the expiration of the protection period, could duplicate the process.

Where an amendment of a complete specification is not allowable because the effect of the amendment would be to introduce new matter or matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before amendment, but it describes matter which may fairly be associated with the matter described in the specification as framed, the new matter may, in terms of section 51(8) of the current Patents Act No 57 of 1978, be introduced by way of a supplementary disclosure attached to the specification and dated with the date on which the application for amendment was made. The provisions are subject to two restrictions which require review: (a) The new matter must be such that it cannot form the subject matter of a patent of edition; and (b) at the date of the application for amendment the patent application must not be open to public inspection.

Insofar as (a) is concerned it is in practice often exceptionally difficult for a practitioner to make a sound judgement as to whether or not a court would hold the new matter to be such that it cannot form the subject matter of a patent of edition. This limitation is also considered an unnecessary requirement. The proposed amendment is intended to make the provisions less restrictive.

Insofar as (b) is concerned, regard must be had for the fact that the acceptance of an application may become open to public inspection in terms of section 43(1) after publication in terms of section 42. As the applicant is responsible for the publication, and as letters patent are issued as from the date of publication, it is obvious that no supplementary disclosures can be made after that date. In terms of section 43(3), however, if an acceptance of an application which claims priority in terms of section 31(1)(c) is not published in terms of section 42 within 18 months from the earliest priority date claimed for the relevant application in a convention country, the application shall be open to public inspection as provided in section 43(1). In the latter instance no letters patent will be issued and it is obvious that it is only in the first instance, that is where letters patent will be issued, that no new matters may be introduced by way of a supplementary disclosure after publication. The proposed amendment is intended to remedy this defect.

As far as the proposed amendments to subsection (9) of section 51 are concerned, it should be pointed out that these amendments are for the greater part of a purely textual or grammatical nature. A further proposed amendment was necessitated because Mr Justice McEwan in Dresser Industries Incorporated v South African Inventions Development Corporation, 1982, BP417, had difficulty in giving any meaningful interpretation to the alternative provision in section 51(9) of the current Patents Act, 1978. He said, inter alia, on page 323, and I quote:

Clearly it must, however, be remitted back to the Registrar of Patents. Furthermore, the reference in subsection (9), to subsections (2) to (8), is also not quite correct, as only subsections (2) to (4) are apposite. The intention of the proposed amendment is to rectify this position.

During 1982 section 20 of the Supreme Court Act, 1959 (Act 59 of 1959), was amended and it became doubtful whether a litigant still had an automatic right of appeal against a judgement of a Commissioner of Patents. Taking into account the fact that the approval of a court is not necessary, if an appeal is lodged from the full bench of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal [see section 76(3)], it does not make sense that the approval of a commissioner should be obtained before an appeal can be lodged against a decision of the commissioner to the full bench and the proposed amendment intends to eliminate any doubt which may exist in this regard.

Mr Chairman, this Bill was considered carefully when it came before the standing committee, but I cannot really believe that any of my hon colleagues on that committee thought that any contribution we could make was going to make this either a good or a bad Bill. Patent legislation is very complex and is probably a source of great profit to the legal fraternity. They benefit from its drafting and interpretation, as well as from subsequent legal battles. When the Patents Act of 1952 was repealed and substituted by the 1978 Act, the words “equivalent to” were not re-enacted in subsection (4) of section 31, and this omission is rectified in the Bill.

It makes special provision for micro-biological processes. Previously samples of micro-organisms had to be lodged with a culture collection bank in terms of section 91(5), but such a culture collection bank does not exist in South Africa. There is consequently an amendment to subsection (6) of section 32 to provide, when it is possible to describe a micro-organism to such a degree that it would be possible to manufacture such an organism from the description, that the manufacturing process and the description of the organism will be sufficient for the patenting process.

The Bill deals with new matter which is developed during the time when a patent is pending, and makes provision that such new matter need not represent a totally new application. Provision is also made to grant an application for amendment to the patent application. When an application for a patent is pending before a court the amendments to subsection (9) of section 51 impose on the court the duty imposed upon the registrar by regulation 53. This gives effect to the remarks made by Mr Justice McEwan in his capacity as Commissioner of Patents.

Finally, the Bill deals with a technical matter in respect of appeals against the decision of the Commissioner of Patents. Section 76 of the Patents Act deals with the rights of appeal to a provincial division. Special leave to appeal to such a division shall not be necessary, and subsection (2) of section 76 is hereby amended. This removes any doubt about the legislative intentions.

This side of the House will be supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, as the hon member for Walmer has explained, this statutory amendment has to do with patent rights on micro-organisms and also amendments to the principal Act. Because hon members, like myself and many other politicians, probably know little about micro-organisms, I think one can compare this to Parliament and the micro-organisms—if one may use that term—serving in Parliament. One is put in mind of the smallest micro-organism present in this Parliament—the HNP most likely—and one wonders if it has any value in terms of patents. On the other hand, the PFP’s value, as far as patents are concerned, is petering out, because the party’s policy has no market value! I see the CP as an organism consisting of many smaller micro-organisms such as the Kappiekommando, the AWB, the Volkswag and so on. [Interjections.] Be that as it may, I think we should rather confine ourselves to what the Act has to say.

We on this side of the House agree with the hon the Minister that it is unnecessary for those applying for patent rights necessarily to have to make a sample of the invention available for safekeeping. I do not think the hon member for Walmer touched upon that aspect of the legislation. If such a micro-organism could be clearly defined, we agree that this would be preferable to having that micro-organism held in safekeeping for a certain period of time. When the cultivation of micro-organisms is involved, it is senseless having such a micro-organism in safekeeping for the period of validity. We therefore agree that a clear specification is preferable. We also endorse the provision in the legislation to the effect that if such an organism can be improved, the process according to which this can be done should preferably be recorded as an additional item, too, if it is not necessary to preserve it. We think that by way of this amendment the hon the Minister could succeed in making the provisions of the Act less restrictive. I studied the legislation for hours in an attempt to unravel the technicalities from the legal aspects, but when all is said and done it is always quite clear what the intention of the Act is. We believe that this amending Bill considerably improves the principal Act and we therefore gladly support the legislation as it stands.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Boksburg began with a definition of his view of the parliamentary setup. He explained what kind of organisms, in his view, the HNP and CP were. Let me tell him that I would like to compare the NP to a sour-milk or Kubus culture. That is an organism that has generated internal fermentation, the fermentation having been so pronounced that it separated from the product from which it originated. Members within the NP are in the process of separation, and eventually there will be a complete separation between the curds and the whey. That is how I would describe it!

Only the rancid element will remain!

Yes, only the rancid element will remain!

I think the whole Kubus affair probably has a great deal to do with the amendments being brought about to the principal Act. This has necessitated an examination of patents, because the law of patents was such that a patent had to be so defined that when the period of validity lapsed, anyone wanting to use it could, on the strength of that definition, make the necessary adaptions with a view to making this possible. So if the patent was a can-opener or a corkscrew, the description had to be such that some other knowledgeable person could make an identical product.

When it comes to something like the Kubus industry, the product would be difficult to patent, and one could ask whether it had any value. In this amending Bill mention is made of the samples one would have to have. I should like to quote a portion from the explanatory memorandum on the amending Bill. Then hon members will be able to see for themselves how complicated the matter is. With reference to the existing legal position, the following is said about clause 2, which is to amend section 32(6) of the Act:

One’s problem in describing a micro-organism is that the addition of just a small quantity of any other liquid could have a totally different effect. I am concerned about the fact that if one depended merely on a description, one could end up with a product quite different from what we foresee at present.

I think the Kubus culture perhaps gave us a jolt. If any laboratory were to carry out research on 10 or 15 of the different packages which were dried out in various areas, and on the product that was sometimes stored in glasses, I do not think the same end product would be obtained if everything were mixed together.

We again realise what a difficult task the legislator has, but we nevertheless want to say that these amendments will not be sufficient to curtail the development of these new micro-cultures. I foresee frequent discussions about this matter in the House and about the precise changes to legislation. Perhaps we shall then gain a completely new insight into how this matter should be defined in the Statute Book. We nevertheless support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to what the hon member for Langlaagte has said with great interest. However, I believe we are very fortunate in this country at the moment to have an incredibly courageous young man visiting us—a gentlemen by the name of Robert Swann, who has followed in the footsteps of Scott across Antarctica. I think that Scott’s deeds will be remembered forever as deed of great courage.

Every year one will find some attorney who will be even more courageous in taking on the Patents Act. To me that is a man who really deserves all the accolade that one can get, because I think that the Patents Act is something that leaves us mere mortals absolutely stone-cold. Even legal men have to specialise before they can get anywhere close to it. I would not for one minute attempt to try to convince this House that I pretend to know anything about it. However, I was assured by my hon colleague, the hon member for Umbilo, who was one of the very few people this afternoon fortunate enough to get a booking on an aircraft, that he would have regaled this House at some length on his expertise, but in his absence I can do no more than say that we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank all the hon members who have participated in this debate for their support. This Bill does constitute a major improvement and the refinement of the existing legislation and it does bring us into line with developments abroad. I also thank the members of the standing committee who gave their attention and support to this matter.

I have to take issue with the hon member for Langlaagte, unfortunately. This Bill has absolutely nothing in common with the Kubus industry at all; it was not inspired by the Kubus industry, it does not follow upon what happened in the Kubus industry, it does not try to regulate what happened to the Kubus industry. Through what convoluted logic the hon member got there, I will never know.

I do think, however, it was an interesting disgression from the debate. The fact is that the hon member was actually talking about clause 2 of the Bill, which amends section 32 of the principal Act. The effect of this amendment will be as follows. In order to patent a micro-biological process the inventor has—in Europe and in South Africa as the law presently stands—to file a sample of the product of his micro-biological process in a micro-biological repository. In South Africa at the moment we do not have such facilities available. Alternatively, therefore, we make it possible for an inventor to describe his particular by way of drawings, descriptions and specifications, which can serve then as proof of the patenting of that particular process. All this amendment does is bring us into line with the convention, also as it applies in Europe. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the cubus industry.

Mr Chairman, all that remains for me to do now is to thank hon members for their support. I do not believe it is necessary to hold up the proceedings of the House any longer. I am sure the legislation has been well explained. It will also make things somewhat cheaper for everybody concerned.

There is one clause, however, to which nobody referred during the debate—a clause which also brings about a great improvement. That is of course clause 1. If someone registers a patent in South Africa at the moment, and we happen to be a convention country, then, if within twelve months he wants to register that same patent abroad in a convention country this new measure will make it possible for him to have his application in the convention country backdated to the time the patent was originally registered in South Africa, provided of course that the patent is equivalent to the original patent. This will obviously save a lot of time, and is therefore an improvement.

I thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The proposals contained in the Bill entail amendments to two Acts, namely the Marriage Act of 1961 and the Birth, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act of 1963. The provisions with regard to Blacks in those two Acts have been administered by the Department of Home Affairs since 1 November 1984. In order to bring about uniformity the repeal or deletion of all the provisions in the two Acts applicable to Blacks only is proposed in the Bill. The remaining provisions of the Bill are of a general nature.

Provision is made for regional representatives and commissioners to be ex officio registrars of births and deaths for their service area and this provision will promote efficiency and facilitate the reporting of births and deaths by the public. The service areas of regional representatives and commissioners comprise a number of magisterial districts whereas registrars are presently only appointed for a particular magisterial district or part thereof.

The Bill also contains a further proposal to facilitate the reporting of births. Provision is made for parents to exercise the option to register births at the registrar in whose are the birth took place or at the registrar in whose area they reside. At present births must be reported to the registrar of the area where the birth took place.

Another proposal in the Bill deals with the position of illegitimate children. An illegitimate child must presently be registered under the surname of the mother. The Department, however, receives a large number of applications for the registration of such birth under the father’s surname. It is now proposed to allow registrations of this nature. A prerequisite for such a registration is for the father to acknowledge his paternity in writing and for the mother to consent to the registration of the child under the surname of the father.

It is also proposed that in cases where the birth of an illegitimate child is registered under the surname of the mother an application for the alteration of the surname of the father may be made if the father acknowledges his paternity and the mother consents to such an alteration. This proposed procedure will only be possible in cases where the child is under the age of 21.

It often happens that the initials of a person are used as his first name. For purposes of the registration of a person’s birth, the Act provides for a name to be assigned to the person. Although, “name” is not defined in the Act, registration of births with first names comprising letters not signifying a word or words, is administratively refused. To place the position beyond doubt, a definition of “name”, excluding registration of initials, is proposed.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to have the support of hon members of my own and other parties in the House who have wished me well today in making this major policy speech on behalf of many hon members in the House. [Interjections.]

Sir, this Bill is of an administrative nature, and provides for a certain uniformity in the Department of Home Affairs. It has come about because since 1 November 1984 the Department of Home Affairs is responsible for the registration of the births, marriages and deaths of Blacks—that function having been taken over from the Department of Co-operation and Development. It is aimed at bringing about uniformity in the registration of the births, marriages and deaths of those people. [Interjections.] It also seems to amend certain provisions of the Population Registration Act and the Marriages Act, as well as certain sections of the Marriages, Births and Deaths Act which apply only to Blacks. Those will either be repealed or deleted. Therefore, as I say, it is an interesting little Bill, and it is of an administrative nature.

We welcome those provisions of the Bill because they will provide for efficiency and will also facilitate the recording of the births concerned.

The Bill also provides that regional representatives of the Department of Home Affairs and the commissioners will be ex officio registrars of births and deaths in respect of the areas in which they operate. That, too, is a welcome provision because they previously operated while they were reporting to the Department of Co-operation and Development. They will now fall under the control of the Department of Home Affairs. This is provided for in clause 4(a) and (b) and in clause 5.

Clause 14 provides that births which take place outside the district where the parents reside may, if the parents wish, be reported to the registrar of the district where the parents reside or to the regional representative for the area. As this will facilitate the registration of births and will be of assistance to the parents, we also welcome this provision, this part of the Bill. It is going to make it easier for people who have to register and are away from their normal place of residence, and therefore we think it is an improvement.

Clauses 8 and 10 provide that an illegitimate child may be registered under the surname of the father if the father has acknowledged paternity and the mother has given her consent. At present the position is that the birth of an illegitimate child is registered under the surname of the mother. A further provision is made that if the birth has already been registered in the name of the mother, application may be made for the surname to be altered to that of the father. As this allows a degree of flexibility and provides for the liberalisation of the situation we welcome those particular aspects. [Interjections.] I might say that some of my hon senior colleagues might have problems with this particular clause … [Interjections.] … but nevertheless they will support the principle. I am sure that goes for the hon the Chief Whip of my party as well.

There have been problems in the past because there has been no definition of the word “name” in the Marriages, Births and Deaths Act.

What about JR?

JR has left. He was in the bay there a minute ago.

Section 9 of the original Act provides that the birth of a child shall not be registered unless a name has been assigned to the child. Previously there have been problems when the department has refused to register a birth because a proper name had not been given to the child. It has been the practice in the past to do that when people have only provided initials or figures. Now a name will have to be given and it is a welcome measure that a definition of what a name is, is provided in the Bill because that has been lacking in the past.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

If one uses the name “Rose” it will be quite acceptable. However, if for instance, the hon the Chief Whip of my party were to go along and register a child of his—be it legitimate or illegitimate—[Interjections.] he would have to provide a name and he would not simply be able just to give the initial “R”. If he wanted to call the child “Rose”, he would have to provide the name “Rose” and would not just be able to give the initial “R”.

He would have to say: “Son of Bert, not SOB!” [Interjections.]

As long as the initials are not used it would be in order.

Finally, there has been a degree of overlapping in the application of certain sections of the South African Citizenship Act and the Marriages, Births and Deaths Act as far as the registration of births of South African citizens taking place abroad is concerned. This is now being clarified in clause 13 of the Bill and so this too is a welcome measure.

Are they allowed to be born overseas?

Yes, children born overseas can now be registered. As long as the full name is registered and no initials or numbers are given as names to the child, it will be acceptable.

This measure was considered in Pretoria during the recess on a day on which we had a fair amount of evidence given to us on the Publications Amendment Bill, a measure which we will consider and deal with in this House in the next few weeks. It turned out to be a welcome relief to be able to consider this measure after all that evidence and all that debate that we had had on the Publications Amendment Bill. It was a relief, there was a fair amount of unanimity and it was a pleasure to be able to consider this Bill. We support it and we hope it will facilitate the registration of births in the future.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Johannesburg North for his support, on behalf of his party, for this measure. I, too, merely rise to record the support of this side of the House. We on this side of the House have not objection to the measure; on the contrary, we think it is good and essential legislation.

If I had to sum the legislation up in a single sentence, I would say it is chiefly an administrative measure aimed at bringing about uniformity, promoting the efficiency of the Act and facilitating the legislation of marriages, births and deaths.

A very important aspect of the legislation—the hon member for Johannesburg North also referred to this—is the fact that all provisions in the Marriage Act, 1961, and the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, 1963, relating only to Blacks, are being repealed or deleted so as to create uniformity. The Bill also deals with a large number of provisions of a general nature, and it is really not necessary for me to go into the details.

In the standing committee, too, there was overall consensus about the desirability of the legislation. I gladly support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this legislation again focuses our attention on the Department of Home Affairs. It is a department that normally does not get the appreciation it deserves. That is because people frequently fail to see what the department is doing, because this department, for example, does not build large dams. The department’s work is nevertheless of the utmost importance, particularly when problems start cropping up. A Bill such as that which is now before us could very easily pass one by, but there are very interesting comments to make about it.

In modern-day society marriages, births and deaths are no longer as important as in primitive communities. In primitive societies these stages in the lives of individuals and a society were of the utmost importance. One therefore finds marriages, births and deaths in primitive societies being accompanied by specific ceremonies. The ceremony accompanying the solemnising of a marriage could, for example, last quite a few days, because for the stability of social organisation this is a very important event.

You power-sharing individuals must look to lobola!

The hon member has just referred to lobola. This is frequently ignored in modern-day society, but in traditional marriage ties the furnishing of lobola or bogadi is of very great importance.

Marriages, births and deaths are transitional events in the fife of an individual. He moves from the non-marital state to the marital state, which is a very specific alliance. There is also birth and everything that entails, and eventually there is the whole question of death. As I have said, modern-day society tends to regard these events as being of lesser importance than they were thought to be in the primitive tribal context. In modern-day society marriages, births and deaths are actually events affecting the smaller family unit. In many cases these events bring people together who have not met or perhaps seen each other for years.

The recording of marriages, births and deaths is nevertheless a very important act even in modern-day society. With the exception of marriages, births and deaths in the British Royal House, the world knows very little about these events. [Interjections.] Was that an intelligent remark?

When are you and Louis getting married?

Well, the “going steady” side of it is perfectly in order.

Louis just wants to be with you, but he does not want to get married. [Interjections.]

The “going steady” side of things is quite in order.

Order! We are now speaking about lawful marriages.

When are you and Helen getting married?

Yes, that is the other interesting question. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, at the end of the first half of this session there is such a restful atmosphere here.

The importance attached to these matters, as far as the British Royal House is concerned—we saw it recently when Charles and Di were married and we are seeing it once more in the case of prince Andrew and his lovely “Fergie”—emphasises once more, in our modern-day society, the importance of engagements, marriages and so on.

In our modern-day society there are also people who strongly emphasise the freedom of the individual. In our modern State there is, in fact, a trend of thought so strongly emphasising the freedom of the individual— particularly now that we have computers and similar modern techniques at our disposal— that people are afraid that the meticulous State records of births, marriages and deaths could be exploited. In America, for example, one finds people reacting fairly strongly to that possibility and not wanting to furnish the State with too many personal particulars because they are afraid of the misuse of that information.

The contrary is also true, of course. With its complexity the modern state mechanism cannot run very smoothly if the State departments—they are the machinery of State—are not placed in a position not only to carry out a careful analysis, but also to have such precise information available that the State can know where every individual has settled, whether a marriage has taken place and whether or not there have been any births or deaths. Therefore, in spite of the attitude that one’s individual freedom is being encroached upon, in my view it is very important for this work to be done by the departments concerned. As I said initially, problems inevitably crop up when marriages, births and deaths are not meticulously recorded. The data always remains important, not only for historic-cultural purposes, but also because of legal issues involved and for medical research.

Genealogy—the study of family history and so on—is my hobby, and here I want to say a word for our forefathers—even those dating back a few hundred years—who in their churches, and at the time even in Government circles, kept very meticulous records of marriages, births—in most cases these were also recorded at christening ceremonies—and deaths. It is very interesting, for example, to examine the death notices of earlier years. There is a tremendous amount of data one gets from those notices.

A further comment I want to make relates to clause 9. I quote the clause:

It is amazing—one does not know whether it can be ascribed merely to paternal pride, or merely to the fact that there was not enough visible evidence—that parents sometimes go along to record their childrens’ names without knowing what the child’s name is. Then the child is simply given an initial for a name. I found it interesting to see how the legal fraternity described this. I think it would be a very interesting study to ascertain from officials what interesting things happen when fathers go along to record the names of their children.

One often finds fathers and mothers disagreeing about an infant’s name, with the father often giving a name the mother or the grandmother or the grandfather does not like. So the amendments we are dealing with here are extremely good ones.

As far as clause 10 is concerned, I want to focus on the following provision:

In this connection I just want to remark that in doing research on something like this, it sometimes appears to one almost as if our society wants to attach a stigma to a child born out of wedlock. I think that by means of this specific amendment we really should try to give that child—of course without its knowledge at that stage—an opportunity to avoid simply being born nameless. I think that amendment is a very good one, and I think that in our own society we should perhaps have greater sympathy for the child who was not responsible for having come into the world.

I also want to say that in modern-day society there are a few interesting things attaching to childbirth and the naming of children. Modern techniques in childbirth also give rise to new questions of ethics. In Die Vaderland of 26 March the following brief and interesting report appeared. The head-line stated: “Spermbanke het ’n glips gekry.” It apparently happened in London. The article reads as follows:

I do not think that, with the introduction of this specific Bill, there has been any thought given to the possibilities that existing modern-day techniques offer a woman when it comes to giving birth to a child in this specific way. Nor has the possible registration of such a birth, and so on, been considered. That is just an interesting remark I want to make about that.

In spite of very good aspects contained in the Bill, aspects which we agree with, let me say that we in the CP nevertheless do have problems with clause 1 and a few of the other clauses. The Government does not like us to bring politics into our debates, but I do want to tell Government members that we are concerned about the fact that everything is now, as it were, going to be brought down to a uniform level. Let me tell the hon the Minister that his department’s report causes us some concern, bearing in mind the tremendously large number of changes in the identity of our people. There are, for example, so many hundreds of Coloureds who are now simply being declared White. We are very greatly concerned about the Government’s intention of also dealing with Black people via this one department. With a view to the political projections and conclusions we make about where the Government intends taking South Africa, we are very sceptical about these specific clauses.

In clause 1, section 1 of the principal Act is amended by the deletion of the reference to a Black and that to the Population Registration Act. I want to bring it to the hon the Minister’s attention that those amendments to the Act do not meet with our approval. When we lodge our objections to the legislation, it will be because of this specific clause.

I am aware of the fact that the Population Registration Act is going to be substituted by another Act. We are concerned about the way in which the Government, in an attempt to get away from connotations of race and colour, could now, even in the identification of individuals, create a situation in which the registration bearing on the configuration of the population could be negated. On that basis let me tell the hon the Minister that the proposed method for the registration of births amongst the Black people does not meet with our approval. As in the old days, we still regard South Africa as a multi-ethnic country. We want to lead the respective peoples to independence, to a situation in which all these peoples would, through their own State administrations, be responsible for recording their own marriages, births and deaths. We are quite prepared to do some of these registrations on behalf of the respective Black States when we are in power. [Interjections.]

I am afraid that we are very sceptical about the course the Government wants to set for us, and we shall therefore not be voting in favour of this legislation.

Daan, the course we set will lead you to safety.

Whilst we are debating this legislation, let me just, in passing, tell the hon the Minister something I heard the other day.

Order! Has it anything to do with births?

Sir, it has to do with deaths. There is a story about a farmer taking some slaughter-oxen to the abattoirs.

Was his surname Heunis?

I shall be telling the hon member in a moment.

Things were in a bit of a shambles, because it was a poor road and the truck was jolting a great deal. One of the oxen on its way to the abattoirs said to another ox: “Gosh, I wonder if the driver will get us to the abattoirs in one piece.” The other one replied: “No need to worry about that—his name is Chris Heunis.” [Interjections.]

You are now comparing the Blacks to oxen.

No, let me tell the hon the Minister that in South Africa many Whites feel that they are being driven to the abattoirs by Mr Chris Heunis. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you have given me fairly ample time to make my speech. There are many good measures contained in the amending Bill, but in consequence of the specific matters I mentioned to the hon the Minister, we shall be opposing the legislation.

Mr Chairman, here in the hon member for Rissik we have seen what the Americans call a “filibuster”. [Interjections.] At all costs, hon members of the CP want to prevent the next item on the Order Paper from coming up for discussion this afternoon. If I may make a prediction, the reason for that is that that party wants to get the maximum amount of racial hatred out of the next item. They know very well that they cannot engender much racial hatred on Good Friday. That is why they are trying, at all costs, to prevent us from progressing any further than this item on the Order Paper this afternoon. After the Easter recess they want to come along with their big story about Asiatics in the Free State and in Northern Natal. [Interjections.] The result is that the hon member for Rissik got his tongue into gear and for the past half-hour put his foot down flat, without actually thinking about what he was saying. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House must simply give them a chance to illustrate to the country that their principles cannot really be judged to be superior to their tactics either.

As the hon member Mr Kritzinger has said, we are fully in favour of this amending Bill. We agree with it in every respect. I just want to emphasise the two clauses dealing with the naming of children born out of wedlock.

With these new measures we have reached a stage, in South Africa, in which we no longer visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children.

I think that great and exceptional strides are being made in South Africa with the acceptance of the provisions in terms of clauses 8 and 10. Each year the hon the Minister comes across special applications that have to be granted. We read in the newspapers each day of such unfortunate cases. These two clauses do not condone births out of wedlock, but it is no use our denying their existence. We specifically want to express our thanks for those clauses. We on this side of the House are very glad to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to take issue with the hon member for Umlazi, but there is one thing I would like to say to him. He may believe that the hon member for Rissik was filibustering but, when it comes to genealogy and genealogical tables, I do not think any other hon member can match the hon member for Rissik. I know this about him because I had the pleasure—it was indeed a pleasure—of travelling around the German-speaking countries with the hon member in 1978. During the many hours we had talking to each other, he would often regale me with the depth of his knowledge of South African families and their origins. He was able to trace the histories of very many Afrikaner, French, Huguenot, German or Dutch families—call them what you will—in South Africa. If ever one wants to know anything about one’s family tree, one should talk to that hon gentleman. His knowledge of this particular subject is amazing. I do not agree with his political thinking. I do not, in fact, agree with many of the things he said this afternoon. In fairness, however, I felt I had to make that comment.

There are three important principles in the Bill. The first is that regional representatives of the department may now register births and deaths. Secondly, the birth of an illegitimate child may now be registered under the name of either the father or the mother subject to certain conditions. We find the conditions most acceptable. I suppose that the third principle is quite amusing, in this modern TV age. This concerns the problem of people wanting to register only initials as names. One immediately thinks of lovable characters like good old JR. I am talking about the JR on TV, not the other one who apparently stalks certain Government corridors. [Interjections.] I am glad that observation drew some laughter even from the ministerial benches.

As the hon member for Johannesburg North said, it is a measure which came as a great relief to us on the standing committee one day when we had heard an enormous amount of evidence. According to my notation concerning the Bill, on 6 November 1985 the members of the standing committee agreed on this measure, believe it or not—I address this to the hon the Minister—unanimously and without any debate whatsoever. In that light, we are happy to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we would like to lodge an earnest objection to this amending Bill. [Interjections.] Clauses 2 and 8 open the door to the possibility of even more coloured blood being introduced into the White population group. [Interjections.] In view of the fact that sexual relations across the colour line are now being permitted by the Government, it is also possible that these amendments contain serious implications not only for the South African population, but for the Government as well. The question arises, for example, as to what the position would be if a White man were to father an illegitimate child by a coloured mother. In terms of the proposed amendment before us today, such an illegitimate child could be registered under its father’s surname. A door is therefore being opened in the sense that such an illegitimate child may request up to 20 years later that his name be changed to that of his father. This naturally gives rise to further confusion in respect of the colour line. The proposed amendment therefore has this serious retrospective effect.

We must point out that it is also of grave significance to the governing party since the Government’s definition of a group is still based on a racial dividing line. The hon the Minister of the Budget elaborated on the subject of these groups in a very interesting manner this afternoon, but the group on which the NP bases its current dispensation, is the White group. As a result of the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, and also as a result of the amendment of this measure, the NP is creating a third factor which might gradually cause the colour line to become blurred. They are making it more and more difficult for themselves to be able to specify what and whom constitutes the group on whose behalf the hon the Minister of the Budget took up the cudgels to such an extent this afternoon that he waxed quite lyrical at the end.

It creates serious problems. During the by-elections—and on occasions in this House as well—we made repeated reference to the problems being experienced today in respect of mixed marriages. When a child is born out of such a marriage, the question that arises is what school he should attend. Another question that arises—the Government has not yet replied to this—is on what voters’ roll such a child should be registered when he is able to vote one day. Should he be registered on his mother’s or his father’s voters’ roll? [Interjections.] Mixed marriages are also creating serious problems for the Government as far as housing is concerned. In which group area do those people belong? We saw, for example, that the White community of Villiersdorp were up in arms at the Ackerman case, in which a White man married a Coloured girl.

Only a few people!

In Sasolburg, too, people were up in arms because they did not want to accept a mixed couple into their community. [Interjections.] In short, this means that the Government is now creating problems for itself in a third area, and especially for those who are of mixed descent, being born out of mixed marriages or extramarital affairs. A permanent uncertainty is being created, one which may increase with time as more and more of these cases arise.

I should like to refer to yet another matter in this regard. Whenever the PFP—and at times, the NP as well—are not able to easily refute the HNP standpoint, then they say: “You are moving back into the past”. They say that only that which is valid today, is valid at all and that whatever was valid in the past, no longer holds true. Malan, Strydom and Verwoerd are wrong now, and may even have been wrong in the past. [Interjections.] It is, of course, a very shallow, and actually a silly thing to do, to tell a man that he is wrong because he has referred to a matter which enjoyed great validity in the past but which applies to a lesser extent today. It is not, however, a refutation of the standpoint. [Interjections.] One should take note of what happened a short while ago. After the appearance of Dr Heese’s book Groep Sonder Grense, an entire campaign developed. [Interjections.] People went digging into the past…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

I shall answer questions, but I should like to complete my argument first. [Interjections.]

Pursuant to the appearance of Dr Heese’s book Groep Sonder Grense, an entirely new campaign came into existence in South Africa, led by the Sunday Times. An onslaught was launched on the Whites, that group for which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also has a specific place in his constitutional dispensation. The onslaught was aimed at proving that the White people was also in fact a racially mixed people. With regard to miscegenation, the effort revolved entirely around raising the percentage which, according to Kolenbrander was 1%, and which according to Dr Heese’s father was slightly higher— 5% or 6%, if I remember correctly—even further. Dr Heese, who was even more of a leftist than his father, raised that percentage even further. We know from experience that if there is a possibility that the leftists, the liberalists and the anti-White element can succeed in raising that percentage, they will delve into the archives in order to extract as much information as possible on the subject, and that they will distort the results of that investigation.

As far as future historical research is concerned, the Government is now opening the door to even greater confusion. Here we have a wonderful example of it! The dust has only settled for the time being. Certain members of the HNP have appointed attorneys in order to take legal steps, and I can tell this House that the matter is not over yet. A while ago the Sunday Times asked a question, to which we replied. The matter is not over yet!

In accordance with the laws of modern genetics, the possibility exists—I say “possibility”, because we have not yet been apprised of the final scientific findings in this regard, although we shall be—that one may indicate, as elsewhere in nature, that when the blood of a people has been mixed with non-White blood, as was the case particularly in the early days at the Cape, that blood becomes winnowed out, as it were, as time goes by and as future generations marry Whites only. [Interjections.]

Even if the Government does not agree with us constitutionally, racial segregation and identification still remain as important to them as ever. I should like to ask hon members in what other sphere people delve so deeply and so painstakingly into their past as they do in respect of their descent. [Interjections.] I do not know where hon members sitting here descend from, but I make bold to say that if they were to ascertain that their pure White racial origins went back as far as six, seven, eight or ten generations, they would be very pleased about it. It would give them great satisfaction and gratification because—I spoke about this the other day as well—whether we like or not, race determines identity. [Interjections.] A person is born in one racial context or another: One is born a Black or a White person, or one belongs to the Yellow race, and that irrevocably determines one’s identity. [Interjections.] One’s religion, language and national affiliation also determine one’s identity. [Interjections.] One may change one’s nationality, and in one lifetime, for example, go over from the Afrikaner people to the English people. In the same way, one may change one’s religion by going over from a Protestant church, for example to the Roman Catholic Church or to another faith. One may even choose not to adhere to any new religion. One may change one’s home language; this is something we see happening. No one on earth, however, can change his racial origins. [Interjections.] That is the one unalterable factor, the one factor which man, modern science and time cannot change. That is why it is so important that this legislation should not be passed. The HNP says it would be a great mistake and a breach of the established order in South Africa for this legislation to be passed. It contributes to the ever growing accumulation of opportunities for confusion and uncertainty among people, and on the part of the State structure—even in the ranks of the NP.

We would like to draw attention to another point, however. My Whip said I could speak for as long as I liked.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that he is making a very wide detour to get to the Bill. The rules of this House concerning an amending Bill specify that hon members must confine themselves in their speeches to the proposed amendments.

Mr Chairman, the amendments to the principal Act entail inter alia the opening of a door to further mixing of the races. Those are the implications. I have already pointed that out; it cannot be disputed. My intention is to point out the importance of this amendment. That is what I am talking about. I am not trying to waste the time of the House. [Interjections.] It really is important because this afternoon the hon the Minister of National Education made a speech in respect of which I should like to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that it was a more effective speech from the NP benches than any we have yet heard from him during the current session. The hon the Minister of National Education delivered an impassioned plea this afternoon—across party lines—and appealed to us as Whites to stand together in the crisis which our country is currently experiencing. I should like to come back for a moment to the extent of this crisis.

The hon the Minister appealed to us as Whites to stand together and to elevate the standard of debate to a higher plane. When the hon the Minister referred to a crisis, he was referring primarily to the crisis involving the White group, as he called it, but which I call the White people. Why could the hon the Minister of National Education make that appeal this afternoon? It was because he knew that his words evoked a response in the hearts of all the hon members in this House, with the possible exception of the Progs, who are very nearly—not quite, but very nearly—devoid of racial feelings. The hon the Minister was therefore able to make his appeal across party lines because race is a binding factor across party lines.

I totally reject the politics of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning but I must say that I would rather be classified in a group with him than with someone else—I say this without any ill intentions—who is not of the same race, because I can identify myself with him—to use an Anglicism—because I know that the two of us are of the same racial descent. I hope so, in any event. [Interjections.]

Hon members are talking too loudly. The hon member may proceed.

With reference to the legislation that is being amended here, I should like to raise one important matter by means of which I, too, hope to be able to speak across party lines this afternoon, directly to the hearts of other hon members of this House. I am both opposed to and concerned about this amendment. Even though it is merely an amendment to a Bill, I am just as concerned as the hon the Minister of National Education was concerned and worried in another context this afternoon. I am concerned about the fact that the onslaught on this people and on the group about whose identity we are concerned, originates primarily from America today. The Americans themselves are saying in relation to the onslaught—and it is important that we should know what the Americans are talking about when they make specific references—that it is directed against the Whites. It is important that everyone in South Africa should know whether the onslaught is directed primarily at him and not at others. If the onslaught is being directed primarily at him—at him as the White man; as a member of the White group or people—then everyone should also know how extensive and grave that onslaught is.

Mr Chairman, seven American experts paid a visit to South Africa last year. The leader of the group of seven was a certain Dr Legvold. In an address which he delivered to Hilton College in Natal in January 1985, he said inter alia the following, and I quote:

The hon the Minister will agree with me when I say that one of the strongest pillars of the South Africa state remains what he calls the White group. Dr Legvold went on to say:

What Dr Legvold was saying—and it was more than a year ago—is that the onslaught is being aimed specifically at the Afrikaners. Besides, Mr Chairman, the Afrikaners form the majority, the nucleus of the White group.

This morning Anthony Heard, editor of the Cape Times, has written a special article on precisely the same subject, after a visit to America. He makes his point even more incisively and more directly. He says, inter alia, the following:

In a nutshell, Mr Chairman, the editor of the Cape Times is saying even more directly than Dr Legvold that the onslaught is being aimed at the Whites. The Whites must be fully aware as to who is launching the onslaught. We are therefore now quite simply in a position in which it is of paramount importance that the White group, around which civilisation in Southern Africa has always revolved, and which forms an important component of the thinking and the planning of this hon Minister in the evolution of what he labels the constitutional development process in South Africa, as well as all the other people in the country, should be able to identify each other clearly in the time of crisis we are about to enter. That is why we must not pass any measures in this House which may in any way cause dividing lines to become blurred. For that reason, then, I shall vote against this Bill.

Mr Chairman, what I find so interesting about the speeches the hon member for Sasolburg makes, and the Government’s criticism of him, is that the Government never responds to his arguments in a scientific manner. The response is always just vaguely dismissive of what he says. There are always accusations about his harking back to the past, etc. Speaking about harking back to the past, I have to point out that the provisions of this Bill prove to us that the National Party is going back so far into the past that in the process—its process of bringing things down to the same level—it has even attempted to go as far back as the Tower of Babel in an effort to create one nation. [Interjections.]

What amazes me, Mr Chairman, is that when the hon member for Sasolburg refers to what he characterises as a revolt in the Villiersdorp area about a mixed couple, the hon member for Springs alleges that it is not true. A few hon members have said that there are only a few such cases. I therefore want to know from those hon members whether they have no objections to a mixed couple living in a White neighbourhood. [Interjections.] No, they have no objections. So of what value is the Group Areas Act? Not the paper it is printed on.

When the hon member for Sasolburg spoke about racial purity, I gained the impression that there are hon members here who are ashamed of their Afrikaner blood, their White blood.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he objects to a mixed couple living in a Coloured residential area?

Mr Chairman, I object in principle to mixed marriages taking place.

But that is not the question.

I shall be answering that question, and the hon member for Umhlatuzana need not be so stupid as to try to forestall me. The point is that I do not object to what other people do in their own areas. In the White area in which I live, however—that is the CP’s policy for when we have a White fatherland one day— we want to live in accordance with our own norms and standards. Such couples will not be permitted to live there.

Mention was also made of a marriage between the CP and HNP. Speaking of marriages, let me tell hon members that we are much more inclined to enter into a marriage agreement with the HNP—that at least would be a pure-blooded alliance—than to enter into a marriage agreement with the NP. That is so because some of the hon members of the NP want to allow their Black brothers to become part of the dispensation and would be prepared to accept a Black president.

The first effect of this Bill will be, as set out in the memorandum, to bring about uniformity. This means the realisation of the idea of unity—one nation, one country, one language. It is a policy aimed at phasing out separation and introducing integration. We are opposed to that in principle. This Bill facilitates uniformity by removing all references to Blacks, thus fully giving substance to the fact that the own structures of Blacks will be replaced by those of Whites. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are speaking too loudly. They must speak more softly.

We object to that process of unification. In this regard let me ask the hon the Minister of Home Affairs whether a Black could become Director General: Home Affairs.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Does the question put by the hon member for Jeppe and the debate being conducted by him have anything to do with the Bill under discussion? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, that is precisely what I am doing. I know the hon the Minister is worried about Port Natal, and things there are bothering him, but he should just try calming down a bit. [Interjections.] I just want to tell him that we are still going to lay a criminal charge against him. [Interjections.]

The point I want to make is that the Director General: Home Affairs is entrusted with this legislation. If the hon the Minister would just open his eyes and read the Bill, he would see that in clause 4 it is stated that the Director General: Home Affairs is going to obtain the right to decide about everything and that the Director General: Co-operation and Development is now being excluded. The question I posed is therefore relevant, and the fact that the hon the Minister jumped to his feet so nervously means that he has no answer to the question.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Does the hon member have the right to threaten the hon the Minister? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member did say that it was the intention to lay a criminal charge …

Mr Chairman, I was not threatening anyone. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member did say so, and I gained the impression that his words were possibly meant as a threat, but since he has now, by way of clarification, stated that he was not threatening anyone, the hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umhlatuzana is obviously very easily threatened. He is a nervous little fellow. [Interjections.]

I now want to come back to the point I made. A Director-General…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether, if he is going to press criminal charges, he will be giving evidence in such a case? I am asking that question in view of the fact that the courts found him to be an unreliable witness.

Mr Chairman, I do not know what the hon member Dr Vilonel is referring to, but let me ask him to repeat that question outside the House so that I may sue him. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon Minister whether a Black could be Director-General…

Order! This debate is rapidly deteriorating now. The only way to rectify the situation is to adhere to the rules of the House. So let the hon member reply by telling me to what clause of the Bill he is speaking. We cannot digress too widely from the subject matter of the clauses.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect: I am still speaking to clause 4. I have not as yet digressed from the Bill. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether, in terms of clause 4 of the Bill, a Black person could become Director-General of Home Affairs. The hon Minister sits there as if turned to stone, because he knows that is the truth. If the Director-General were to be a Black man, all matters contained in the Bill would fall under him.

I have little time left. Clause 9 of the Bill refers to the question of “name”.

You have a great deal of time; you can speak for another 20 minutes!

I would talk to that hon member if I wanted an injection, but not about anything else.

Section 9 of the principal Act is being amended by the addition of the following subsection:

Let me ask the hon the Minister whether we cannot devise a better description. I do not think the present definition is quite good enough, because this could, for example, include nicknames. My name is Jacobus Hercules, but people call me Koos, and I also have quite a few other nicknames. [Interjections.] Yes, I have various names. I think that the “name” defined in the legislation should tally with what is recorded on one’s identity document.

As far as the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is concerned, they could perhaps call him: “Chris, the head boy Heunis.” [Interjections.] We do not know what names would be fitting in this context.

I think one needs a better definition, but our major objection is to the process of equalisation in the legislation and the removal of the definition of Black people. Hon members will see that when Black people are brought into the new dispensation, there are going to be renewed problems with own affairs. How are Black own affairs going to be administered?

A great many problems are being created with this legislation, and unfortunately we cannot support it.

Mr Chairman, hon speakers who preceded the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon member for Jeppe did, at least, still speak about this Bill, but after the hon members for Sasolburg and Jeppe had spoken, I completely lost track what the Bill was all about.

I should like to thank hon members who served on the standing committee and those who took part in this debate. They did such a good job of dealing with the relevant amending Bill that it is not really necessary for me to say anything more about it. Hon members really dealt with it thoroughly.

†At one stage the hon member for Johannesburg North was treading water to such an extent that I was worried he would run out of time. He will know what I have in mind.

*The hon member for Rissik has again proved that he is pre-eminently a philosopher. I think that up to a certain point he delivered the best speech he has yet delivered this session, because then he was speaking about things he knew something about. Unfortunately the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning then entered the House, and thereafter the hon member for Rissik completely lost his head. I do, however, thank the hon member for Rissik for the valuable contribution he made concerning this Bill.

Likewise I want to thank hon members who participated in this debate for their support for the Bill.

The hon member for Sasolburg objected vehemently to mixed marriages. What that has to do with this amending Bill I do not know. I think the hon member was referring to the next Bill on the Order Paper. I know he is going to say very much the same sort of thing in the discussion of that Bill, and I am ready for him. I think the hon member was looking at the wrong Order of the Day and was referring to the Matters Concerning Admission to and Residence in the Republic Amendment Bill.

He makes the same speech for each Bill!

The hon member objected vehemently to mixed marriages, but surely the hon member would not hold it against me if I said that he was here because of mixed marriages. [Interjections.] If he had not exploited that aspect, he would not have been here. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I just want to put this question to the hon the Minister …

Mr Chairman, I am not going to answer the hon member’s questions. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister does not want to answer questions. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member really did refer here to matters which he has, on other occasions, referred to from various platforms. He cannot, however, be referring to them in any seriousness in this debate. He said, for example, that race is irrevocable. He makes such broad generalisations. He should, at times, consider the consequences of what he is saying. If race is so irrevocable—I agree with the hon member in principle; I am merely questioning the context in which he said it—why is he so concerned about its protection? He adopted so many illogical standpoints that other hon members on this side of the House and I cannot take him seriously. Really, Sir, the hon member takes every opportunity to tell the same old story. We are therefore forced to note the fact that the hon member is repeating himself. In fact, he makes use of each and every debate to do so. This afternoon he did not, however, have any justification for conducting his debate here in that fashion. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I have no one who can raise a point of order on my behalf, but may this hon Minister say that I purposely went beyond the bounds of order in my speech this afternoon, while in fact the Chairman very well knows whether a member is doing so or not? Is that not a reflection on the Chair? [Interjections.]

Order! I have listened to the hon the Minister, and I do not think his remark was a reflection on the Chair. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Jeppe does not serve on the standing committee. His party is well represented there by the hon member for Rissik. In fact, the hon member for Rissik quite rightly said that he had one objection to the Bill. He therefore made his point. The points made by the hon member for Jeppe, however, were so far-fetched that I really do not consider it my job to reply to him. Perhaps he should settle that matter with the hon member for Rissik. [Interjections.] It is a very simple matter. If the hon member had read the Bill, he would have discovered the answer for himself. [Interjections.]

I thank hon members for their participation. This Bill serves an important function, that of ensuring efficiency in our body politic. It is, in fact, the duty of each one of us to do that. The fantasies conjured up by the hon members to whom I referred, are too far-fetched for me to regard them seriously.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party and Herstigte Nasionale Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The hon the Leader of the House has moved that the House do now adjourn. I doubt whether there will be any dissenting vote. I should therefore like to wish all hon members a very pleasant Easter recess and express the hope that they will return sound in limb and all set to get going again.

Question agreed to.