laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 4 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour?

Sir, this debate has of course been delayed. I suppose it is a case of that which serves us best should be served least. We can quite honestly say: Thank God for mining in South Africa! Were it not for its mining industry, 1985 would have been even more disastrous for South Africa, economically, than it was. While the rest of the economy was stagnating, the mining sector was booming.

We need just look at the figures. Mineral sales in 1985 were up by 36% over 1984 and amounted to R25,9 billion. Exports increased by 40% to R22,5 billion. I am sure the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry wishes that other sectors of South Africa could increase their exports at that rate.

Hon members know that we have had problems with the servicing and repayment of foreign debt. Imagine, then, what our position would have been like had we not earned that R22,5 billion from the export of minerals! What I find particularly encouraging is that non-gold exports last year actually increased by no less than 61% to R7,25 billion. This remarkable improvement in our export performance can, I think, be attributed to a number of factors. Firstly, there is the actual increase in the volume of exports. Secondly, there was an increase in the international price of certain commodities. Thirdly—this played a very significant role—the value of the rand was depreciating against that of other currencies. I say this played a significant role because the prices of many of the commodities we export are determined in dollars.

The impact of this can be very dramatic. Let us look for example at chrome, just one of our major exports. A 27% increase in the volume of sales resulted in an eventual increase of 133% in rand receipts because of price and currency exchange factors.

As I have already said the benefit of mineral exports to our balance of payments goes without saying. If it was not for these exports we would have been in a catastrophic position. It is quite interesting to realise just how dependent we are on the mining industry. When one looks at exports from 1980 to 1984 one sees that 80% consisted of mining products, base metal and metal products.

That is not the only contribution that the mining sector has made to South Africa. We know how important it is to create jobs in the South African economy. When one looks at some of our important sectors, for example the manufacturing sector one sees that between 1975 and 1985 there was in fact no increase in the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector. Moreover, in the construction sector there was in fact a decline. How did the mining industry perform over that period of time? In contrast with the other sectors between 1975 and 1985 the number of people employed by the gold mining industry increased by 150 000 and the number of people employed in the non-gold mining sector increased by 115 000. That was a total increase of 265 000 jobs.

In the context of South Africa that is of critical importance. When one thinks that there are most probably about five people who benefit from each job or each person in employment one can say that there are about 1,3 million people whose livelihood is directly affected by the mining industry. I am not even talking about those industries that do nothing else but supply the mining industry. One just needs to think of tax receipts. The mining industry contributed R3i billion to the last Budget. If we did not have that R3i billion we would be paying an additional 3% or 4% in GST or we would be paying additional personal tax. Once again, therefore, I want to say: “Thank God for mining!” Indeed, today we are more reliant on the mining sector than we were in the 1950s. In the early 1950s, for example, gold provided 20% of our foreign exchange earnings while it now provides approximately 50%.

In view of this remarkable performance the next comment that I am going to make might seem a little churlish. Yet I cannot but help ask myself whether the good has not become the enemy of the best. I ask myself whether we could not be doing even more with the mineral resources that we have in South Africa. The hon the Minister will recall the New Testament parable of the people with the talents. I wonder whether we are making the maximum use of our talents. Have we derived the maximum benefit from our mineral resources? I think not, and I am in good company when I make this point.

Mr Aidan Edwards, the president of Mintek, is reported in a newspaper article as having estimated that South Africa could double its foreign exchange earnings within ten years by stepping up the production of secondary products from raw materials. If that is true—I believe it is—it is a very significant point indeed and deserves to be debated in depth, both in this House and outside this House. Its significance becomes apparent when one thinks of the present state of our economy. We believe that the manufacturing sector should be the mainspring for economic growth in South Africa. However, over the past 10 years the manufacturing sector has grown by 1,7% per annum and it did not provide any new jobs in 1985 compared to 1975.

We need to find a new motor for our economy. I would suggest that this motor must satisfy three essential requirements. Firstly, whether we like it or not, our economic future will be determined to some extent by our ability to earn foreign exchange earnings. Any future economic growth must therefore be export oriented. This is the only way in which we will be able to service our foreign debts and eventually repay it. If we do not increase our ability to earn from exports we will find that the South African economy will stagnate even more in the future than it has in the past 10 years.

We cannot afford that. A growth rate of 1,8% per annum is not good enough. In a Western country a growth rate of 1,8% per annum is satisfactory because their population is not growing. In South Africa, however, if the growth rate is 1,8% and the population growth is 2,5% then the standard of living will decline and we will have more social, economic and political unrest.

That is the first requirement. The second requirement is that any future economic growth should be employment oriented—it should try to create jobs. From what I said earlier the record of the mining industry in this area has been a good one.

Thirdly, it must have a low import intensity. By that I mean that if one wants to get additional economic growth in South Africa one should not have to import a lot of goods to achieve that growth. It is interesting to look at metal and fabricated metal products. They have a very low import intensity of about 11% while non-metallic mineral products have an import intensity of about 8,2%.

I believe that we could do incredible things for this economy and for this country if we could only learn to use our resources better. Let me give a few examples.

As the hon the Minister will know South Africa is the world’s leading supplier of chrome and ferrochrome. Ferrochrome is the basic feedstock of stainless steel. A ton of stainless steel is worth approximately 40 times more than a ton of chrome. Although we are the world’s leading supplier of ferrochrome, and despite the fact that we have three quarters of the world’s known chrome reserves, we provide only 1% of the world’s stainless steel. If we could convert just half of our ferrochrome into stainless steel we could earn quite literally billions of rand for this country. One estimate that I read in the paper—I do not know if it is correct—said that we could actually earn an additional R6 billion per annum.

I want to quote to the House a statement by Mr Hall who is the chairman of Middelburg Steel and Alloys. It appeared in last week’s Business Times. I feel that the House should listen to this carefully because this is the challenge that I believe faces us in South Africa. He says:

That is what I mean when I speak of adding value.

Let us stay with chrome a little longer. Despite being the world’s major source of chrome we satisfy only 2 per cent of the world’s chrome chemical needs. A kilogram of chromium trioxide is worth 40 times more than a kilogram of pure chrome.

It is well known that we are one of the world’s leading suppliers of manganese. We do export ferromanganese but perhaps we could export even more. From a ton of ferromanganese one can earn about five times more than from a ton of manganese. If one converts that manganese into chemicals one can earn 13 times more.

We are the world’s third largest producer of titanium, yet we produce less than 1% of the world’s titanium pigments. It is estimated that from this source alone we could earn an additional R300 million a year.

I come now to an issue that I have raised before, and I am very glad that the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry is here. I believe it also affects his department.

I think that every child in South Africa knows that we are the world’s leading producer of gold and, together with South West Africa, the world’s leading miner of diamonds. Each year we earn billions of rand from these two sources but we also lose billions of rand each year because we do not utilise these resources effectively.

Allow me to give an example. In 1984 South Africa exported 680 tons of gold. We used 1,1 tons in this country for the manufacture of gold jewellery, the value of which was R40 million. It has since gone up! I see that we used 1,23 tons in 1985. It is pointed out in the Consolidated Gold Fields report on the gold industry that 900 tons of gold was used in the jewellery industry last year, of which South Africa’s share was 1,23 tons. In other words, we use one-tenth of the gold used in the jewellery industry.

In 1984 Italy used 205 tons of gold in the manufacture of jewellery. The value of that gold was R7,5 billion, and we earned only R40 million.

In that year Spain earned 124 times as much as we did from the manufacture of gold jewellery. Indeed, we are one of the smallest users of gold for jewellery in the Western World.

Each year South Africa produces approximately 10 million carats of diamonds. According to figures presented to the Standing Committee on Finance we used 104 000 carats in the manufacture of jewellery in 1984. According to evidence given to the standing committee in 1984 Israel earned R4,1 billion and Belgium R5,4 billion from the export of polished diamonds, while South Africa earned R155 million. We earned l/26th of what Israel earned and l/35th of what Belgium earned and, to the best of my knowledge, those countries do not even mine diamonds.

According to the evidence laid before the standing committee—this is unbelievable!—the vast majority of diamonds utilised in jewellery in South Africa are imported. I am told that Hong Kong, which has neither gold not diamond mines, earns R7 billion per year through jewellery exports. South Africa has 250 jewellery manufacturers. Taiwan has 1 000 and Hong Kong 738.

We are told that there are today approximately 1 200 people employed in the manufacturing side—I stress, the manufacturing side—of the South African diamond industry. In India there are 500 000 registered diamond polishers as well as an estimated additional 600 000 unregistered polishers working in cottage industries. Just think what it would do for South Africa to provide employment for an additional 1 million people over the next 10 years! What would our economy look like? What would the future of this country look like?

We cannot continue not to use our resources to the maximum benefit of South Africa. We must debate why this situation has arisen and what we can do to change it, because our record when it comes to adding value to our mineral resources is disappointing. There have been relatively few major developments and, let us be honest, most of them have been initiated by the State. In 1928 there was Iscor and in 1942 Amcor. Then there were the three Sasol plants and, in 1972, Alusaf. This is not an exhaustive list—I admit that—but even if one did draw up an exhaustive list, the record would still be disappointing.

I think we have to ask ourselves why we have not made use of our resources. I think it actually stems from an attitude of mind because we have never outgrown our mining camp mentality. Traditionally we saw ourselves as the suppliers of un beneficiated minerals to the world’s industrialised nations. Recently we have taken tentative steps towards the greater beneficiation of our mineral resources. However, we have still not outgrown that mining syndrome. Mr Aidan Edwards, the president of Mintek, pointed out something very interesting in the article to which I referred earlier. He said that the major mining houses spend R1 million a year on added value research but that they spend R50 million a year on exploration. One can see where the emphasis is. The emphasis is on finding the resources rather than on deriving the maximum benefit from them.

The result is that we are very good when it comes to matters like exploration and mining techniques. Indeed, we are among the best, if not the best in the world. However, when it comes to the utilisation of those resources, we are poor. The lack of expenditure on research and development shows this. Mr Chairman, just think of what Mr Hall said. He said $35 worth of chrome can eventually become $4 000 to $5 000 worth of stainless steel pots, pans, knives and forks.

Talking about the need for research and development, a particularly interesting case is the platinum industry. One would expect that South Africa which is dominant in the platinum market would be in the forefront of research and development in the new platinum-based fuel cell technology. However, we are not. The pace is being set by the USA and Japan. They already have two pilot plants producing 4,5 megawatts of electricity. This complete energy supply system could be of tremendous importance, not only to South Africa but to the world. However, what will happen? If it is developed, we will sell more platinum, but it will actually be the manufacturers who will make the financial killing.

I believe what we have to do is to get closer to the market. This is where the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry comes in. We have to change from being product-oriented to being market-oriented. Instead of saying: This is my product, come and get it and use it if and how you can, we should say to our customers: How do you use our product, why do you use it and how can we help you to do it better? This means that we will have to improve our marketing and technical skills. I find it disturbing that in 1981 there were 416 first-year metallurgical and chemical engineering students registered at universities in South Africa, whereas in 1985, there were only 235. We cannot continue like that.

If we want a modern, dynamic mining industry I believe we must also involve other people. I think the time when mining experts alone could sit on mining committees is in fact coming to an end. What we have to do in the South African context is to bring in people with financial and marketing skills.

We have to develop extremely close co-operation between this department and the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry’s department as well as the hon the Minister of Finance’s department. The mineral industry in South Africa is so important that I believe it actually needs a multi-disciplined approach to derive the maximum benefit from it. One thing we are going to have to change is our labour practices. It is not my intention to deal in detail with the scheduled person classification, but I believe it is an anachronism whose time has passed. It needs to be buried, and it needs to be buried quickly, and I hope that the hon the Minister will do so.

I appreciate the difficulties the hon the Minister has particularly when it comes to negotiating with the mining trade unions, and perhaps even with the mining houses. However, there is a time when one has to come to the conclusion that one cannot reach consensus with them, and one then has to take a decision. As far as labour is concerned, I would like to ask the hon the Minister to discuss with his colleagues the present housing policy for mineworkers. It seems to me that there is a rough formula that a conventional mine can house 3% of its Black staff permanently. Highly mechanised and open cast mines may house a larger percentage of their staff.

This is no longer appropriate. More Blacks are moving into skilled positions. Mining is becoming more mechanised and skilled. If one teaches people skills, one wants to keep them there on a permanent basis, and then those people want to live there with their wives and children. Therefore one must provide them with permanent accommodation. This is difficult under the present system and therefore it must go. We cannot enter the 21st century with the labour practices of the 19th century.

I believe we have to take urgent action. We need those resources and the earnings they bring us. In some areas—and I am thinking particularly of coal—it is going to become more difficult for us to earn income from exports. Unfortunately there is a trend overseas to try to ban South African coal imports.

The energy side of this portfolio will be handled by my colleagues but I think I should say something about the Chernobyl accident. The accident at Chernobyl is not the first accident to occur at a nuclear plant, and I am sure that it will not be the last. I say that regrettably. There was the accident at Three Mile Island, and in 1981 an accident occurred at a nuclear plant north of Osaka in Japan. It seems to me that the Chernobyl nuclear plant was of an inferior design but, having made that point, I believe that we must realise that the Chernobyl incident teaches us that nuclear energy is dangerous and that one must therefore be careful when using it and that we must take every safety precaution. There is one country that can speak with authority about the damage that can be caused by nuclear fission, and that is Japan. I find it interesting that they have either completed or are in the process of completing 32 nuclear plants. However, their safety records and safety precautions are extremely stringent.

I think we in South Africa have to debate in a rational way the role of nuclear energy. There is a tendency to concentrate on the dangers of nuclear energy and to forget about the dangers of coal energy. There was a report in the British House of Commons on the question of the pollution of the environment. This report pointed out that coal-fired power stations were largely responsible in Britain for the emission of sulphur dioxide and nitric dioxide into the environment. The damage that that causes can be quite considerable. It has now been estimated that a third of the trees in the Black Forest, for example, have died because of acid rain. It has also been pointed out that in countries like Norway, Sweden and the United States, there are lakes that are devoid of fish now. In 1952 it was the airborne sulphur which caused the death of 6 000 people in London in the United Kingdom in the episode of the so-called “killer smog”.

In South Africa it has been estimated that the potential fall-out of sulphur dioxide in the Eastern Transvaal could be as high as 221 tons per square kilometre annually. One can compare that with the 260 tons per square kilometre in the Ruhr Valley. I mention these figures because I think we know that nuclear energy is dangerous and that what can happen is catastrophic. I think we must also realise, however, that coal-fired power stations are not blameless and that there are problems in that regard as well.

I think we can learn from overseas experience and I believe the hon the Minister could do much to foster a rational debate by learning from the Japanese experience. In Japan the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, which aggressively promotes nuclear energy, minimises opposition to it by placing reactors in thinly populated areas. I would appeal to the hon the Minister, if we do build another nuclear power station in South Africa, to place it far away from any built-up area. I think if he does that he will find it easier to allay people’s fears about nuclear energy.

Mr Chairman, as far as I am concerned the hon member for Edenvale—I think I can say this without much contradiction—is one of the most responsible Opposition members in this House.

Hear, hear!

This morning he again delivered a speech here for which I wish to thank him and congratulate him on it. He justifiably emphasised what mining means to us in this country and he also explained it clearly. In addition, he repeated his submissions of last year in his speech with further illustration regarding refinement and the benefits we may gain from this.

†The hon member really set a very high standard in this debate and we want to thank him for that.

*He also mentioned two important points concerning the Chernobyl disaster which should be taken into account when debating these matters. He said: “It was an inferior design” and that is quite right. He also put the following point: “Let us debate in a rational way” and he certainly did this. To my mind the example he set can be held up to anyone in this country who wishes to discuss these matters.

I wish to proceed by expressing a few words of thanks and start with the hon the Minister. He is a man we have come to know as someone well versed in his work, someone whose door is open to anyone who wishes to see him. He is also a man who has expanded the image of this department very well within the context of parliamentary study groups too. My hearty thanks go to his personal staff as well who always receive us very amicably.

I now get to the officials here in Cape Town as well as those from Pretoria who are present here and do their work in Pretoria under the guidance of the Director-General, Dr Alberts. I wish to thank them too for all the work they do and for their hearty reception of us as well as for all the work they have put in on the various annual reports, etc which are submitted to us.

In the absence of the hon members of the other houses, I further wish to thank the members of the standing committee and the parliamentary staff who assisted us during sittings of the standing committee for their co-operation.

I should like to single out a few people. I am thinking of Mr Burger who holds the post of Deputy Director and has been transferred to Australia as our mineralogist. We want to congratulate him on that promotion and wish him and his family everything of the best and express the hope that they will have a happy time there.

Mr Coetzee is our new mineralogist. We want to congratulate him on his appointment and welcome him here.

The new expert on energy is Miss Burger. She is not here today as I understand she is unwell. [Interjections.] Oh no, she is sitting over there. [Interjections.] In any case, Miss Burger made such an impression that the hon member for Vryheid asked our executive if he could also have a turn to speak on the Energy Vote! Nevertheless we decided not to give him a turn; he had better use his energy on the bowling green!

We should also like to congratulate Mr Jasper Nieuwoudt heartily who, if I am not mistaken, is to hold the post of Director of Administration in future. We are pleased to have him here today with us as well.

I should like to point out that the sphere of influence of the department and everything with which it is involved is so comprehensive and impressive that there is hardly any field of interest in our national economy which it does not affect. If we examine only two industries, those of mining and electricity, it is clear that we cannot afford to have mining activities hampered by strikes, boycotts, injudicious planning or red tape, for example. As the hon member for Edenvale so clearly stated, our economy simply cannot afford this.

The same applies to the electricity industry. If the electricity in the Chamber is interrupted for a few moments, for instance, matters grind to a halt. It is the same throughout the country. I think hon members have no idea what ensues when there is a large-scale power interruption in a mine, for example, which brings the work at a processing plant to a halt.

If we examine the responsibilities of this department and the wide field covered by its activities, it is no wonder that the department features regularly in the news. Recently it has been like a lighthouse—flashes of fight followed by darkness; there has been good news followed by bad. If it did not deal with Escom matters, there were reports about fuel prices, the project at Mossel Bay, the import of crude oil, the supply of fuel to neighbouring states, etc. News coverage was certainly good. I do not know whether it was always in accordance with facts and whether it was always altogether current; that is a debatable point. I think certain newspapers were often guilty of raking up old bones to offer something noteworthy to readers.

I now wish to spend a few moments on Escom and its activities. There were problems regarding Escom; we all know the story. At the same time I wish to say that those problems were examined and paid the necessary attention; they are still receiving attention.

The contents of the De Villiers Report on the Supply of Electricity in thé Republic of South Africa is general knowledge by this time to those who are interested in it. It is a workmanlike document, one that gave us adequate cause to go into the matter and take certain steps. We have made good progress, this year as well, in giving substance by means of amending legislation to the recommendations the Government accepted in its White Paper. We are satisfied that matters are taking the right course.

We are not only grateful to Mr John Maree, the new Chairman of the Electricity Council, and his new management team; they also have all our necessary good wishes. I think that with these corrective measures and the decisive steps taken by the new management team a very sturdy foundation has been laid for a sound electricity industry. Now I think it is the task and duty of all hon members in this House to continue building the Escom image. I actually think the reconstruction of Escom, if I may call it that, is an exciting success story.

The channel of communication is open now; there were many problems in communication and not only with consumers at regional level but also up to top management. I am very pleased to learn from top management that that channel is open now and consumers may also put it to good use in a regional context.

I am convinced that Escom fulfils one important requirement, which is thorough and scientifically based advance planning because it is necessary for the growth of electricity always to outstrip the economic growth of a country. We cannot afford a person’s not having a supply of power on pressing a switch in the case of an economic revival.

I am also referring in particular to the attendant problem of being able to determine by way of future projection how to set about it. We need only imagine how the use of electricity by Black people will dramatically increase the demand for it in future.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, we take pleasure in affording the hon member an opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon Whip for the gesture.

We should like to tell Escom to feel free to pursue its plans in this way.

I wish to touch upon a further question and heartily thank the Government and the hon the Minister for certain decisions taken recently. My thanks come on behalf of the farmers of the country and especially those in designated areas—the priority areas in the North-Western Transvaal. Today I am concerned specifically with decisions taken on the supply of electricity.

We are grateful that Escom is proceeding according to plan in its envisaged electricity supply schemes in those areas. I am referring to the Government subsidisation plan for extension moneys which amounted to over R37 million from April 1984 to December 1985. There is also great appreciation for the substantial capital contribution the Government provides to decrease the capital levy for the supply of electricity. This has also become partially possible in consequence of Escom’s new equalised tariff structure.

The policy of pooling and rationalising tariffs nationwide will result in 94% of farm consumers of Escom power not needing to pay extension fees any longer. I should like to enlarge on this but refer only to the hon the Minister’s statement and his announcement on the occasion of the Rustenburg show last Friday. I can tell the hon the Minister that the farmers of those priority areas in the North-Western Transvaal took note of this with great gratitude.

This could result in potential consumers who previously did not wish to link up to the electricity network because of the high extension fees and attendant costs now deciding to do so. I wish to request farmers on behalf of Escom to be patient in the case of delays in connections or the supplying of new points.

I wish to raise the question of reform in the rest of the time at my disposal and relate it to this Vote. I want to refer in particular to the mining industry and the role it can play. Reform is often erroneously referred to as meaning only political reform although this is a very important facet of it. By definition I believe reform is a programme of action striving for equal treatment as its goal.

To me it therefore does not revolve only around the drawing of a cross to affirm the franchise. Neither does it involve only the creation of an opportunity for people to sit around a table and reflect, deliberate and take decisions on matters of common concern and see that they are carried out. Reform involves more than this. To me it also means the creation of a favourable milieu in which that process of reform may take place.

Furthermore—I almost want to say much more important—it deals with preparing the people whose interests are involved for reform. That—that is the creation of a favourable milieu and the preparation of people whose interests are involved in the reform—cannot take place if there is unrest in the country; it cannot happen if there is no peace; it cannot take place if there are large socioeconomic backlogs; it cannot occur if a high percentage of people in this country are unemployed or do not have the benefit of training.

This is the point at which I want to link the reform action to the debate we are now conducting. The mining industry can contribute specifically in further expansion of the creation of a favourable milieu and the preparation for reform of people whose interests are involved. The mining industry has always been and remains, as the hon member for Edenvale told us very clearly, a stabilising factor. I do not actually wish to pursue this any further except to make the point that 700 000 people and more are employed on the mines and the millions of their dependants rely on them and are socioeconomically dependent on what they earn there as their daily bread. Consequently this mining industry plays a fundamental role in the socioeconomic upliftment of people—the very condition I set for the preparation of people for reform.

Then the wheels must turn. Then the lifts must be able to go up and down; then there must be no strikes; then there must be no red tape from the side of the Government hampering mining houses in taking action; then everything possible must be done to stimulate this mining industry in all respects.

We can tread the road to reform carefully, step by step—I actually think care is required—but if it involves the creation of a favourable milieu or how to prepare people for reform, as I attempted to illustrate, we should work at it aggressively and very hard. I also believe that, if mining houses work very actively at the refinement programme, they can cause the attendant job creation—the hon member for Edenvale also made this point—to form a very important part of this action for which I am appealing. They should not be afraid to come into competition with their traditional clients to whom they have always supplied minerals.

In conclusion, I wish to say the serious intention of the Government is to see an electric light burning in every house in this country as part of its objective. I hope we shall also have a guiding light on our way and not be deprived of the opportunity of developing and utilising our country in full measure and applying the manpower at our disposal in the interests of all the people of this land.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to follow the hon member for Rustenburg. There are certain aspects of his speech to which I shall refer during the course of my own.

I want to congratulate the hon member for Edenvale on the extremely good speech he made here today. It was a very positive speech, and I think some of the points he raised must be noted as they provide guidelines as to what action can be taken in certain fields.

One aspect of the hon member’s speech that I should like to refer to, was the point he made to both the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry and the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs concerning the need for more effective utilisation of our natural resources in the manufacturing process in this country. I think the point the hon member made, regarding the manner in which total earnings from some of our minerals could be increased confirms how important greater beneficiation of our own natural resources can be to the economy of the country.

Those of us who live in South Africa have always felt that one of the most important roles that South Africa plays in the world is the strategic importance that it holds geographically for the Western World. As the hon member for Edenvale has already pointed out, an equally important factor is the vast mineral wealth it possesses and the country’s ability to provide strategic commodities to markets of the Western World, which are not as freely available from other sources. There is little doubt that during the past year mineral exports have been responsible for propping up the economy as never before. In fact, one can state without fear of contradiction that mineral earnings have outshone, in more ways than one, all other sectors during the past year.

It is obvious that reliability of supply has been the key in protecting many of our overseas export markets and it has also contributed to our ability to expand into other foreign markets. There is also little doubt that infrastructures have been developed in this country which lend themselves ideally to the efficient handling of the many mineral products that pass through our ports. One has only to look at the coal-handling facilities that have been established at Richards Bay to see exactly what the position is. There we have a perfect example of efficient handling of the product at its best. Anyone visiting the Richards Bay coal terminal cannot fail but be impressed at the farsighted planning that has been responsible for the development of this port. It is therefore not surprising that coal is now the second largest earner of foreign exchange. The record total export of 44 million tons through Richards Bay last year bears testimony to the fact that the efficient and regular delivery of products such as coal will always play a major role in this country’s ability to retain many of its existing markets.

But I must point out that there is a danger that political pressures against South Africa will increase which could have a detrimental effect on future exports of coal. It is essential therefore that we continue to look to quality standards and reliability of supply as a means of encouraging our overseas customers to continue to do business with us. The world coal market is becoming highly competitive and one also cannot lose sight of the fact that the political factors to which I referred earlier are being used by other exporting countries for the sole purpose of protecting local markets.

Before leaving the subject of coal I would like to comment briefly on references in the annual report to discard coal. It is obvious that this is a factor that is going to have to be looked at very closely and that it will have to be fully researched in order to control increasing problem.

The annual report, on which I wish to compliment the department, clearly sets out the factors relating to mineral export earnings for 1985. We should not draw any longterm consolation though from the fact that 1986 export earnings will in all likelihood eclipse those of 1985. While sales in rand terms appear to present an optimistic picture for the time being, we must not lose sight of the long-term effect that the weak rand will have on the mining industry. It goes without saying that the high cost of imported equipment will have serious financial implications for the mining industry in both the short and the long term.

One has only to look at the high cost of replacement parts for existing machinery which will tend to escalate each year as equipment becomes older. Furthermore, replacement and installation of new machinery will add materially to mining costs in the future. A further disturbing factor is that overseas funds for the development of mines are not filtering through sufficiently to this country at the present time.

The effect of inflation on the mining industry is as significant as it is in agriculture with the result that the profitability of some of the smaller mines could be placed in jeopardy. Another aspect of the mining industry to which I would like to refer and which has been raised by the hon member for Edenvale is the role of gold in the South African economy. This has been highlighted repeatedly in the past and it is not my intention to do so again on this occasion beyond pointing out that this metal is justifiably precious in the eyes of all South Africans.

Predictions vary regarding the intrinsic value of gold and its future demand. However, trends in the jewellery industry and the uncertainty in many of the world’s money markets indicate that gold will continue to be a stabilising factor in the world economy.

The buoyant economies of the USA, European countries the Middle East and the Far East have played a major role in increasing the utilisation of gold in the jewellery industry. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that gold will continue to enjoy its present prestigious position.

It is also significant that the void left by the withdrawal of the Krugerrand from a number of overseas markets has not been filled by gold coins of other gold producing countries, and here I refer specifically to the Canadian Maple Leaf. Consequently the coin sector of the industry has recorded significant reductions in consumption. It is quite apparent from this that the marketing techniques that the gold industry in this country applied to the sale of Krugerrands overseas were highly effective.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to give the hon member the opportunity to conclude his speech.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon Whip for the courtesy.

From a South African point of view the 12% decline in the dollar price of gold on the London market in 1985 had little effect on the local gold-mining industry in that this was more than offset by the lower value of the rand with the result that the increased rand value received for the metal reflected an overall increase of some 30% over the previous year.

I wish now to deal briefly with certain strategic metals, and in doing so I want to refer particularly to the platinum and chrome industries. South Africa is particularly fortunate to hold 65% of the world’s known platinum reserves as well as 75% of the world’s known chrome reserves, supplying at present one third of the world’s chrome ore requirements and more than half of the world’s platinum requirements. This means that South Africa is in a particularly favourable position to capitalise on and exploit overseas markets for these metals.

The use of platinum in the jewellery industry is gaining popularity, and its catalytic qualities in the elimination of toxic gases in the motor industry is without fear. One can, therefore, predict fairly confidently that South Africa’s share of the world’s platinum market will be sustained for some years to come, but we must brace ourselves in this country for greater competition in the world market as a result of the development of platinum mines in Montana by American companies.

At this point I would like to add a word of warning to the Government, and that is not to flaunt our strategic mineral resources as a counter-threat against the possible imposition of sanctions against this country. Such a strategy would send overseas industrialists scuttling in search of alternatives which could have the effect of damaging permanently any market that we enjoy today.

It is interesting to note—and here I refer to an article in the London Financial Times of 2 April—that retaliatory threats made some months ago to withhold certain of our strategic minerals were received with the utmost calmness on the international metal market. It is equally interesting to note that greater attention was paid to unrest and subsequent work stoppage that took place at one of our platinum mines.

We should also not blind ourselves to the technical advances taking place in Europe to reduce dependence on platinum, in spite of the fact that the total demand on Western markets increased by some 5,6 tons last year to a total of 87 tons.

Having had the pleasure of visiting several mines during the past recess, one could not help but be impressed with the efforts that are being made by mining companies to improve the living conditions of their employees. The upgrading of catering, accommodation and recreational facilities bear testimony to the fact that there is a sincere desire on the part of employers to improve the living standards of the 700 000 workers employed in the industry.

One is hesitant to comment on the delicate negotiations that are taking place at the present time between the National Union of Mineworkers and the mining industry. This is a sensitive issue, and one trusts that negotiations will be conducted in a responsible manner, because a danger exists that excessive wage demands could have a backlash effect resulting in a outback in manpower and a move within the industry towards greater mechanisation.

In the few minutes left to me I wish to turn briefly to energy affairs. I believe that there are two factors that dominate the scene at the present time. They are the slump in crude oil prices and the effect of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster.

Considerable benefit has accrued to this country as a result of the fall in the price of crude oil, and we must not allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of false security by assuming that this trend will continue. The recent fall in the value of the rand may turn out to be very much to our detriment. What we must bear in mind at all times is the fact that South Africa is in an abnormal position in regard to obtaining its crude oil supplies.

It is interesting to note that overseas oil prices have tended to strengthen slightly in recent weeks. If this continues we can find that the present reprieve that we are enjoying with regard to lower fuel prices will be short-lived. It is also significant to note that whenever there has been a rise in the price of fuel in this country—there have been several during the past few years—an immediate consumer price increase in respect of many commodities follows. This, we were told at the time, was a direct result of the increased price of fuel. Now that fuel prices have been reduced, there is a deafening silence, with no evidence of the benefit from a reduced price of fuel being passed on in any way to the consumer.

The tragic lesson which has to be learned from Chernobyl can in the long term have certain benefits in that this disaster has created a greater awareness of the need to ensure adequate safety measures at all nuclear plants throughout the world. The public has welcomed the assurances that have been given by the department and by the hon the Minister in regard to safety measures at the Koeberg nuclear plant. These have left us with a sense of relief in that steps are being taken to ensure that we are not threatened with a similar disaster to the one that took place in Russia. One must realise that the world is too heavily committed to nuclear power now to turn its back on this form of energy.

In conclusion I wish to express my appreciation to the officials of the department for the co-operative manner in which I have been able to work with them during the past year. Their friendliness and courtesy have been much appreciated.

Finally I would like to express my appreciation to the hon member for Rustenburg for the very efficient manner in which he has handled his responsibilities as the chairman of the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow up on what the hon member for Mooi River has said. I want to link up with what he said by stating that our standing committee functions very well. There is a very positive spirit prevalent amongst our members, a spirit which was probably extensively promoted by the fact that during the recess we were able to embark on two tours arranged by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, firstly to Namaqualand and then to coalmines and goldmines in the Transvaal.

The hon member for Edenvale explained here that we do not have a very good history when it comes to the refining of minerals in this country, and I wish to agree with him. I am under the impression, however, that we do have a very good history when it comes to the thoroughness and far-sightedness of our energy planning. To judge by the draft of the White Paper circulated amongst us during the recess, we have now reached a further milestone along that path. The draft White Paper sets forth the objectives for an energy policy and also provides guidelines for their implementation.

Since we are living in a rapidly changing world, according to the White Paper the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is going to table an extensive energy plan in Parliament every two years. This energy plan will consist of 12 sub-plans or subordinate plans.

I should like to mention the individual plans here: Plan 1 involves energy conservation; Plan 2 involves coal; Plan 3 involves uranium; Plan 4 involves indigenous crude oil and natural gas; Plan 5 involves renewable energy; Plan 6 involves energy technology; Plan 7 involves electricity; Plan 8 involves petroleum products; Plan 9 involves synthetic fuels; Plan 10 involves the energy survival and contingency plan, a confidential plan and is not available for publication; Plan 11 embodies the energy research and development programme and Plan 12 involves inter-State co-operation in the field of energy.

What is more, this draft White Paper proposes the establishment of an energy policy committee to advise the department on all policy matters.

Another important point is that the White Paper also emphasises the important role of the private sector in the formulation of the energy policy and its implementation. The private sector in our country is the largest consumer of energy and is also the largest supplier of energy in its primary form.

The Government’s object is to adopt a goal-directed programme to rationalise all legislation involving energy. The guidelines laid down for us are those of an economically sound energy industry within the framework of a market-orientated system, constantly bearing in mind the interests of our country and its security.

A further important point is that the Government plans to pool certain funds in the Central Energy Fund. This includes funds such as those from levies on coal and petroleum products, interest and capital repayments from the Sasol projects. This Central Energy Fund will be used to finance various energy projects. It will also specifically be used to finance goal-directed research and development projects.

I want to broach a few ideas in connection with goal-directed research and development projects. My first request is that the aim, available funds and timespan of each research and development project financed by the SEF be clearly defined. Secondly, each research and development project must produce a definite result. One cannot simply do research; one must reach a conclusion and achieve a result, for example in the form of a report, a computer programme, some apparatus or patent or process.

Thirdly, all institutions in the country, which are able to do research in this field, should be able to compete on an equal footing for research and development contracts. I have in mind, for example, university departments and Government institutes. I should like them to compete on an equal footing.

Fourthly, in cases where industry votes money for research and development, for example by way of a coal levy, I should like that industry to play a decisive role in drawing up the research programme and in the allocation of the research and development contracts.

According to the draft White Paper, nuclear energy research and related research is still the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Corporation. I want to quote further what is said about the strategy to ensure the optimal utilisation of uranium in the future. I quote from the draft White Paper:

A further point relates to:

We know that nuclear power is the only familiar long-term source of electrical energy and therefore the only alternative to energy from coal in the future.

The events at Three Mile Island, to which hon members referred this morning, have initiated a tremendous international dispute about the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy, particularly as regards health and possible loss of lives. In the USA this has led to very strict security measures. Stricter security measures, in turn, have lead to more cumbersome licensing procedures, and this means that the construction period is extended, which in turn means a greater capital investment. One should just bear that in mind.

The Chernobyl accident in Russia has once again emphasised the necessity for strict safety measures to which two hon members referred, and our country will, as the hon Minister has said, learn the necessary lessons from this. Three weeks after the disaster, however, the Russian Prime Minister issued a Press statement in which he said that this would have no effect on the Russia’s nuclear energy programme. They still plan on doubling their nuclear energy capability within five years.

I also want to refer to France which is, in a certain sense, the foremost nuclear power in the world. It already generates 65% of all its own electricity by the way of nuclear power. It is also very far advanced in the field of reactors. It has developed a next generation reactor—the super-phoenix breeder reactor—which is already in service. It was slotted into the network as far back as January of this year and will begin to furnish power on a commercial basis in July of this year.

What has led to France playing such a leading role? I think it is owing to standardisation in France, the simple licensing procedures and the reduced construction time. They can complete nuclear power stations within five-and-a-half years and they have a vital nuclear energy industry that has built up its own momentum and is pushing ahead. It is interesting to see what the results are. At the moment, by way of an undersea linkup across the English channel, France is furnishing power to Britain 25% more cheaply than Britain’s Central Electricity Generating Board can do so.

I want to refer to the collapse of the Arab oil cartel. In the ’seventies I carried out energy studies, and what struck me was that people, particularly the Americans, frequently try to estimate in advance what will happen in the field of crude oil. As far back as the ’seventies they were already predicting that the crude-oil cartel would collapse in 1986, as has indeed happened.

Today there are other predictions—we are again looking ahead—and the common denominator in all these predictions is that by the year 2000 we are going to have the real oil boycott. By that date there will not be enough oil outside the Arab States, and people who have supplies of Arab oil at that stage will be able to dictate oil prices. With this knowledge at their disposal various States are now proceeding with plans for their nuclear energy programmes.

Countries in the Far East are at the moment planning to obtain one third of their power from nuclear energy by the year 2000. Against this background one could indeed ask—and here I link up with what the hon member for Edenvale said—what we in South Africa should do in the field of future nuclear power stations. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to request the privilege of the second half-hour. [Interjections.]

Before dealing directly with the Vote, on behalf of the CP I should just like to place a certain matter on record in Hansard. A week ago—it was last Wednesday—the hon member for Stilfontein made a speech in the House in which he blatantly insulted hon members of the CP on the grounds of a distorted relationship …

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon member for Koedoespoort to discuss that matter again. The hon member must confine himself to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In his preamble the hon member is merely furnishing an explanation in regard to an internal arrangement that has existed for years now, but which the hon NP Whips have discarded. I think it is only right, with all due respect, that he should address that aspect. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but I cannot allow a discussion to take place on a matter of procedure which was previously discussed in this House. The hon member for Koedoespoort must confine himself to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, I shall confine myself to the Vote. The CP will then be compelled to take this matter up with the Speaker. [Interjections.]

The Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs is a tremendously all-embracing department. So many matters fall within the ambit of this department that it is impossible, in a limited time, to do justice to the majority of them, even if a person wanted to.

Firstly I want to congratulate and also thank the department for a very comprehensive and informative annual report that we have received from them. I immediately want to turn to page 1 of the annual report where there is a review of mineral production and sales. Here one reads something of great importance:

It is also stated:

I should like to quote a third statement:

Those are very impressive figures furnished to us in regard to mining. They emphasise the important role of mining in the Republic of South Africa. I do not want to repeat what the hon member for Edenvale said about this in a very good speech; I just want to emphasise that the role of mining in this country is of the utmost importance to South Africa, and this is not merely the case at the present moment, but has been the case for decades now. That is why it is essential, when the functions of this department and the question of mining as a whole are involved, for one to look to having sound relations.

In this connection I want to refer to a matter which has been a focal issue for sometime now, so much so that there has, to a certain extent, been dissension and unpleasantness in this connection. I am referring here to the question of the granting of blasting certificates to Blacks, something the Government has decided to do. It has not merely developed into an argument between the Government or the hon the Minister and his department on the one hand and the White Mineworker’s Union on the other, but has actually, as we see things, by now developed into a point of dispute.

What is involved is the fact that in terms of its labour policy, in which colour is not taken into consideration, the Government now wants to change the designation of “scheduled person”, which at present is “a White or Coloured” to “a competent person”, thereby to accommodate Blacks. This is obviously not acceptable to the White Mineworker’s Union. [Interjections.] The Government—including the hon the Minister—know this. It has been put to them in clear, unequivocal terms. The Government need have no illusions about that. This matter is unacceptable to the White Mineworkers’ Union.

The union has already rejected the first draft Bill which wanted to leave the decision in the hands of a selection board. Subsequently they were approached with the idea of leaving the decision in the hands of the Minister. That, too, was rejected by them. The expectation is now that discussions will shortly be held between the Mineworkers’ Union and the Government on this matter. Action will probably be taken by the hon the Minister himself.

This matter ought to be solved as soon as possible, because it cannot drag on like this without the Mineworkers’ Union obtaining any certainty about what the Government intends to do about this.

The question is why—apart from the Government’s integrated labour policy—it wants to proceed with this at all costs, against thewill of the Mineworkers’ Union. It is a fact that 85% of Black mineworkers are foreigners who are permitted to work on the Republic of South Africa’s mines as migrant labourers. The pertinent question now is what the Government of this country owes migrant labourers when it comes to granting them blasting certificates.

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

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I do not have the time to answer questions.

There is only about 15% of our own Black population interested in working on the mines. It appears further that it is not so much a question of these people being involved, because if they were to be involved, there would in any event have to be discrimination between the various Black mineworkers, something which would probably not be acceptable either.

Up to the present things have gone well with our mining industry, without this change having been necessary. Why must the policy now be changed, why must one disturb the order and get the White Mineworkers’ Union up in arms, thereby creating a dispute between the Government and the Mineworkers’ Union?

The time has really come for the Government to relinquish this idea and settle this dispute by maintaining the status quo and continuing to do so. After all, if the Government persists in pushing this through willynilly, it is going to create endless problems with the White Mineworkers’ Union.

I think it is essential that sound relations between the Mineworkers’ Union and the Government be maintained, and in particular between the Mineworkers’ Union and the department, because such close co-operation is essential. That is why we wish to lodge a plea with the hon the Minister to give this matter priority attention and persuade the Government not to insist on this statutory amendment, thus prolonging the dispute which will, in any event, not be settled because the Mineworkers’ Union will not accede to this change that has to be brought about. In this connection it is important for us to protect the Whites and Coloureds of our own country, too, particularly against the large number of Blacks working as migrant labourers on the mines.

A second matter I should like to touch upon is that of the tremendous mineral and gemstone riches of this country of ours. As a result of these tremendous resources, South Africa plays a leading role as far as this is concerned. There are few countries in the world that can compete with South Africa or can be compared with South Africa when it comes to minerals or gemstones. These sources are of fundamental importance to us.

I spoke about these sources last year, as I again wish to do today—the hon member for Edenvale also referred to this. There are countries such as Israel and Belgium, for example, which do not themselves have these diamonds and other gemstones. I am open to correction, but I think Israel’s major source of foreign exchange is the processing and refining of minerals and gemstones exported to that country.

South Africa is surely in an ideal position to focus its full attention on this matter and to ensure that we in South Africa extend our diamond-cutting and refining industry—for other gemstones too—so that we do not need to export the unprocessed products and then import them again. Besides exporting necessary amounts of unprocessed material, we must be in a position to export increased quantities of processed products so as to ensure greater foreign exchange earnings from the wealth at our disposal.

It is not fair to our country and our people to give other countries and their people an opportunity to benefit from our wealth of minerals and precious stones from which we ourselves can benefit. It is essential for our country itself to obtain that benefit as soon as possible. That is why I make a very serious plea to the hon the Minister to ensure that his department gives the necessary attention to this matter.

It is not merely a question of our earning foreign exchange from the processing, refining and exporting of these minerals and precious stones, but once we get those processing operations off the ground, we shall be able to provide work for thousands of people in the RSA. This is particularly necessary, in these days of uncertainty about how long we are still going to have this increasing unemployment, to create job opportunities for thousands of people in this way. This could perhaps be a means of combating the major problem of unemployment. In this way we can give our people a livelihood and assure them of a decent living.

It is specifically the other countries who make use of this opportunity to create job opportunities for their people, thus attempting to combat the problem of unemployment in their countries. We must not allow other countries to make use of our products, whilst we ourselves do not do so, thus creating job opportunities for their people. I think this is an ideal opportunity to alleviate our unemployment situation to a large extent.

In conclusion I very briefly want to touch upon another matter. During the past week we read in the newspapers statements by someone who, in my opinion, occupies a reasonably senior position. The statements involved the whole question of the Koeberg nuclear power station. Nuclear energy is of fundamental importance to us in the RSA. So much has already been written and said about this project, creating so much uncertainty and so many problems in the minds of members of the public that they no longer know whether the nuclear power station is safe or not, particularly in the light of what has happened in Russia. Such statements that people simply issue left, right and centre are detrimental to this extremely important project we are engaged on.

Let me therefore ask whether the Government cannot take steps to silence these people who simply issue statements left, right and centre, because they create the impression that the Koeberg nuclear power station is unsafe and therefore a danger to us. Can the Government not ensure that these people act with greater responsibility when they come to the fore with such statements? I wonder whether the time has not come to take steps to make it necessary for these people first to approach the department and work through the department when such statements are to be made.

Mr Chairman, since the latter half of the previous century South Africa has been world-renowned for its gold and diamonds. No wonder, therefore that when people speak of South Africa’s mineral wealth, they initially think only of gold and diamonds. Few people realise that South Africa has much more than merely gold and diamonds. In fact, more than 60 minerals are mined here.

Apart from gold, South Africa is the major producer of the platinum metal group, vanadium, chrome-ore and managanese. Approximately 90% of the Western world’s vanadium reserves, 89% of the platinum metal group reserves, 84% of the chromeore reserves and 93% of the managanese reserves are found in South Africa.

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, it is no wonder that informed observers predict that by the end of this century the Republic, as a supplier of key minerals or strategic minerals to Western countries will be playing the same role that Saudi Arabia plays today as a supplier of oil to the West.

The question is now: What does the Republic do with its minerals? How does the RSA utilise these tremendous riches? Let me quote from paragraph 5.2 on page 15 of the Department of Trade and Industry’s annual report:

I quote further:

Let me also quote from page 1 of the annual report of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs:

What a wonderful achievement! What gives cause for concern, however, is the fact that R22 540 million of this revenue from these sales or 87,1% of the revenue from all mineral sales comes from the exporting of unprocessed minerals. The major portion of our country’s mineral wealth is therefore still exported in the form of unprocessed raw materials and repurchased, at very great cost, as manufactured products. It is unfortunately not possible to determine at what price the processed products are repurchased by importing them.

It was a characteristic of the colonial period that the colony was the supplier of the unprocessed or basic raw materials to the mother country. It still remains a generally accepted fact that the underdeveloped countries provide the basic raw materials for the industries of the developed industrial countries. In the light of the above-mentioned statements, in the economic sphere the Republic finds itself in a strangely ambiguous position.

Bankruptcy.

Yes, bankruptcy as far as brain-power is concerned.

On the one hand there are fields in which South Africa is a highly sophisticated industrial country. On the other, in the field of its mineral wealth, South Africa still finds itself in the position of being a colony or an underdeveloped country in the sense that the major portion of our most important mineral yield is exported in the raw material or unprocessed form. I am advocating a top-level, in-depth investigation into local processing or semi-processing possibilities for all of our unprocessed minerals that are exported.

Every industry thus established for the processing of our minerals will provide greater employment. This utilisation of labour will not merely take place at the mining, despatch or shipping points, but there will also be a greater utilisation of labour at the ultimate or penultimate processing points.

What is more, the export of processed or semi-processed products ought necessarily—and will too—ensure greater foreign exchange revenue than the exporting of unprocessed raw materials. The processing industries will create additional markets for the provision of power and other services. In the times in which we are living, with the threats of sanctions and boycotts, South Africa can, by the processing and semi-processing of its raw materials, ensure itself of greater economic independence.

To illustrate the benefits attaching to the process of refining minerals, let me simply mention two examples. In the 1984-85 financial year Iscor’s total revenue from the sale of processed products was R2 899 million. R1 793 million of this came from sales on the local market and R1 106 million from export sales. In the processing of the basic raw materials, in order to obtain this revenue from the sale of processed products, Iscor spent R1 510 million on the purchase of raw materials, materials and services on the domestic front and R689 million as compensation to employees. The latter amounts would not have been spent if the ore had been exported in the unprocessed form.

In 1985 the production of unpolished natural diamonds totalled 10 203 000 carats. In the same year only 656 153 carats of natural unpolished diamonds were sold to local diamond-cutters. So only 6,4% of the total production was sold to local diamond-cutters. South Africa’s polished diamond exports totalled an amount of R389,8 million in 1985, according to figures furnished by the Diamond Cutting Industry Board. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon member for Kimberley North. It is clear that his was a well-prepared speech and we listened to him attentively.

Today I want to leave the hon the Minister with a few thoughts about the Government’s fuel-price policy. In discussing this subject, it normally very soon becomes clear that it is one of the most sensitive present-day topics of conversation.

In 1973 there were people who predicted that the price of fuel would exceed the R1 per gallon mark. Listening to the previous hon member speaking about the colonial period, I could not help thinking of the good old days when fuel cost a shilling and a tickey per gallon.

Ninepence.

It was perhaps ninepence in the hon the Minister’s young days, but not in mine! [Interjections.] Little did we know, at the time, that a bare 12 years after 1973 fuel prices would not only pass the R1 per gallon mark, but would come very close to reaching the R4,50 per gallon mark. In 1972 98-octane fuel cost approximately nine cents per litre at the coast. By 1985 it had increased to 98 cents per litre.

One can only, with a vague degree of accuracy, predict possible future fuel-price trends; in many respects one can only surmise. The history of fuel prices has shown what is indeed possible, and one cannot conceive of the ramifications of what can possibly happen until it hits one.

We in South Africa actually pay in three ways for any fuel price increase. The one is the higher fuel price at the pumps, the second is the inflation that results from fuel price increases and the third is the decrease in growth and all that that entails.

In South Africa’s case there are more factors influencing fuel prices than in most other countries. In the present economic climate the truth of the matter is that any price increase has a very unpleasant shock effect on the consumer. If we analyse the actual effect on the economy, we find that it takes longer for the ripple effect of such a price increase to work its way through the economy than most people think. The economists say that the timespan between an initial price increase and the dying moments of its ripple effect is approximately 24 months. It therefore takes 24 months before the actual ripple effect of a price increase has moved right through the economy. The economists also tell us that a price increase must siphon down through the economy approximately eight times before its effect is finally absorbed.

Because fuel is a raw material, price increases have two important consequences that one must comprehend. The one is the so-called ripple effect. If one drops a stone into a pool of water, this gives rise to out-ward-moving ripples. Those ripples do not return to the point where the stone entered the water. I shall be coming to that again in a moment.

There is also the acceleration or escalation effect. This means that if one begins with a small percentage increase on a litre of fuel, for example, that increase has an increasing impact the further one moves away from the original point in the economy.

We could argue at length about whether the benefits of a downward adjustment in prices reaches the consumer as quickly as do price increases. The consumer happens to feel the shock-effect of a price increase immediately, whilst a price reduction is only discernable at the fuel pump. For the rest, the consumer does not immediately derive any tangible benefits, and this causes him a certain amount of dissatisfaction.

In the long term, however, it is true that price reductions in the economy are absorbed to the consumer’s benefit. This can best be illustrated, for example, by saying that in given circumstances the inflation rate would have been higher if there had been no reduction in prices. So there is no directly discernable benefit, but in the long term there is a discernable benefit in the economy.

In the commercial and production sectors, it is true, there are those who use price reductions to benefit themselves and to the detriment of the consumer. In those sectors it is also true, however, that the benefits achieved by price reductions are offset against other price increases so that the consumer eventually does obtain the benefit of a price reduction.

The fact remains, too, that a stable price over a long period is more beneficial than short-term price increases and reductions on the same basic price.

As I have said, there are people who exploit the situation. Price increases and reductions every now and then have more detrimental effects or after-effects than would have been the case if price increases and reductions had been phased in or out over a longer period. That is why I think we can perhaps, with a small adjustment in policy, use the situation to the greater benefit of the country. This would also enable us to make better use of what I want to call a “Joseph policy”. My request is therefore the following: If we again have price reductions in future, even though this is a scant possibility, we should perhaps employ the resulting benefits to increase our strategic oil stock-pile.

We can expect the present relatively low crude-oil prices to continue into the ’eighties. The hon member for Pretoria East also referred to the production of the Eastern bloc countries. At the present stage there is excess capacity in virtually every sector of the energy industry. There is excess capacity in regard to derricks, tankers, refineries and even retail markets. As a result, since its peak in 1980, the oil price has decreased by 33% in real terms. I am now talking of crude oil at the source. The growth in consumption is approximately 17% per annum. In 1977 Opec production was 31 million barrels per day, but in 1984 it was only 17 million barrels per day. That is approximately 62% of their capacity.

If one examines all these aspects, one can understand why Americans can so accurately firedict crude-oil prices for the next decade. Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for False Bay gave some interesting information about overcapacity in the energy field, and this is one of the factors why I believe that it is time for a thorough review of our nuclear energy programme and of Koeberg in particular.

To my mind the latest information which has emerged about the Chernobyl disaster on the one hand, and the latest estimates for the costs of South Africa’s nuclear energy programme on the other hand, must cause us to initiate a major rethink on South Africa’s present scale of commitment to nuclear energy. While it is accepted that Koeberg is built to safer and more sophisticated standards than Chernobyl, it is also clear that once a reactor core runs out of control, extra protection measures such as containments can have little more than a marginal protection value. The key question remains whether or not the Koeberg reactors could possibly run out of control; what the statistical possibilities of such a disaster occurring would be; and what effective measures could be taken to counteract such a disaster. The Chernobyl disaster was supposed to be virtually a statistical impossibility, according to nuclear experts, and the fact that it occurred must reopen the whole question of nuclear risk assessment.

Most of the rest of the world is reported to have placed their nuclear expansion programmes on ice as a direct result of Chernobyl. Indeed, no new nuclear plants have been approved in the USA since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. However, this Government seems to have reacted as though no particularly noteworthy steps need to be taken here in South Africa. I do not think this is good enough, particularly since we have the added problem here in South Africa that Koeberg could be a potential target for terrorist sabotage. We must not forget that there have already been a number of incidents at Koeberg, including minor accidents and a sabotage attack.

As far as I am concerned, I would like to see an independent commission appointed to investigate and assess the risk of a nuclear accident at Koeberg as objectively and as independently as possible. This would be one way to allay public fears in this regard.

The main focus of what I want to say this morning and my other pressing concern about our nuclear energy programme, however, relates to cost and straightforward value for taxpayers’ money. This is a matter I would be raising at this time irrespective of the accident at Chernobyl, although Chernobyl has added urgency and gravity to the matter.

To put it bluntly, I seriously question whether our present expenditure on nuclear energy is justified in our circumstances. Let us consider some figures. In the 1981-82 financial year the expenditure on the Atomic Energy Board, the Research Fund and various items including particularly a major provision for the uranium enrichment programme amounted to some R250 million. That was five years ago, and that amount was 65% of the total mineral and energy budget for that year. For the current year we are budgeting R775.504 million for the Atomic Energy Corporation, and that is now 89% of the total mineral and energy budget. It is treble what we were spending five years ago and is quite out of line with the growth in the national budget and with the growth in the budget of any other department of State. The increase under this subdivision alone since last year is 47,5%, which is almost a quarter of a billion rand over last year’s estimate of R525,875 million. We have to ask ourselves why we need to spend this enormous amount of money—for what purpose and for what beneficial result? This is many times the amount which is spent on Black housing, for example. It is more than double the amount spent on the entire housing estimate for the year, including the allocation out of the Special Relief Fund.

We know, in answer to a question I tabled in this House on 25 March of this year, that the cost of generating power at Koeberg is very much higher than the cost of generating power at Escom’s coal-fired power stations. In the 1984 financial year, the cost was 5,2 cents per kw/hour, whereas the average cost of Escom’s coal-fired power stations is only 1,89 cents per kw/hour—about a third of the cost at Koeberg. Moreover, the figure of 5,2 cents per kw/hour is the figure applicable to the 1984 financial year, and I wonder why the figure for the 1985 financial year was not given. I would like the hon Minister to give us the figure for the 1985 financial year which must be available by now.

Purely on the basis of the cost expressed in cents per kw/hour, one must raise a question mark over the viability of Koeberg and of possible future nuclear power installations on the question of cost. I would like to know from the hon the Minister how Koeberg is doing as a profit centre and what the generating costs of a new Koeberg would be compared to the costs of alternatives. In this connection it is interesting to note that Britain has recently been making headway with a concept of decentralised mini-power-stations, of which about 200 are already in operation. They can be installed at a capital cost of about one third of the cost of a nuclear power station, measured in costs per kilowatt of output. These mini-powerstations consist of an industrial gas engine coupled to a generator, and are so small they can be fitted inside large buildings or connected to housing estates to supplement power drawn from the grid. Efficiency, low cost, safety and security are the advantages of this kind of decentralisation, and we should be looking at it.

However, there is an even deeper question that needs to be considered at this time, and that is the question of obtaining fuel and back-up service for Koeberg in the future. Hon members in this House know very well that we had great difficulty some three or four years ago obtaining the necessary fuel for Koeberg, and the question I now raise, in the fight of the deterioration in South Africa’s political situation in the world and in the value of the rand, is what the future cost of refuelling Koeberg and keeping it safe is going to be. Is it going to be possible to keep supply lines open and, if so, what are the pariah premiums going to be? Our deteriorating international position must have an effecton our ability to fuel Koeberg, to keep it safe and to run it at a cost which is reasonable.

After some 30 years of collaboration between South Africa and its major allies in this field, namely the United States, Britain, West Germany and France, we are moving into a state of freeze which has virtually terminated former relationships in this field. Last October Pres Reagan’s executive order on relations with South Africa banned US goods and technology exports used in the nuclear field. Also last year, the United Nations General Assembly urged members to adopt a range of sanctions against South Africa, including the prohibition of all new contracts in the nuclear field. For example, I believe that all American technicians at Koeberg have already been withdrawn in terms of that order, and I would like the hon the Minister to say whether that is true. I presume we will have no access to the safety technology which will be developed in the United States in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster. What is going to happen now? Are we going to try to go it alone in the nuclear field? Will it be worth the cost and risks?

In considering the background to this issue, it is worth remembering that on 20 July 1970 the then Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, announced in this House that scientists of the Atomic Energy Board had succeeded in developing a new process for uranium enrichment, as well as the extensive associated technology, and that they were then engaged in the building of a pilot plant for the enrichment of uranium based on this process. He went on to say that the achievement he was announcing on that day was unequalled in the history of our country. Let us ask ourselves what has happened in that regard.

What has happened, is that since 1970 this country has invested billions of rand in uranium enrichment. Well over half a billion rand is earmarked this year alone for a material which, if we were an accepted member of the international community, we could buy at a reasonably cheap price. What do we have to show for all these billions? Has the much heralded new breakthrough announced in 1970 been successful? Are we not sitting on an obsolete process which has little or no commercial value? The public requires an answer to that question; and furthermore, we must ask whether it is remotely justified for us to have spent such a large amount of money for the alleged purpose of developing enriched uranium in order to keep one expensive nuclear power station going. Is this the price we are having to pay for having a toe in the nuclear energy field? It somehow does not add up.

At a time when the demand for capital has never been higher in this country for all kinds of important peaceful priorities, I believe we need an independent inquiry into the entire subject of South Africa’s nuclear energy programme. It is my assessment on the basis of available evidence that it can be argued that South Africa would be best advised to suspend its nuclear energy programme until such time as we are able fully to re-enter the world community and emerge from our present pariah status among nations. The cost of continuing in the present circumstances simply does not seem to make sense.

Mr Chairman, when I listen to the hon member for Constantia, I begin to think about the Greens in Germany. I detect in him a somewhat similar mentality when it comes to fears as regards technological developments.

When we take into account what a previous speaker mentioned, namely the important part which nuclear energy plays in France today—it provides England with cheap power—and when we think about all the by-products and the proliferating effect which the development of Koeberg has had and is still having on the South African economy, we should be grateful for the initiatives which were taken by Escom in this field.

Today I wish to concentrate on the whole question of energy conservation, especially electricity. In March 1984 our hon Minister, who was at the time still the Deputy Minister of Finance, approved one of the first energy awareness programmes. We must congratulate him on subsequently taking over this portfolio. Under him, and also with the help of Escom, everyone has become very much aware of the value of saving electricity. It is a kind of reserve which one has which one does not always use.

The man in the street thinks of course that electricity is like water and air. He thinks he can use as much of it as he likes, but he does not want to pay for it. I can remember cases where companies built large, new factories without ever really consulting Escom about that development. In one specific case it would have used more electricity than the whole city of Port Elizabeth.

Many of our people think that one merely has to throw a switch and the fridge or stove works. They do not think about the electricity; they only think about the convenience of having a stove, a fridge and an air-conditioning system.

If one wishes to define electricity conservation one must look at ways of making all consumers aware of it as well as helping them to change their demand for electricity to suit the supply, without having to lower their quality of life or causing a negative impact on it. That is quite a difficult task, because, as I said the consumer does not adapt easily.

Why are we so aware of energy or electricity conservation today? I think the reason for this can be attributed to the fact that a few years ago electricity supply commissions and companies in the USA had marketing departments in order to market electricity. The question of the economies of scale was so important that they wanted to utilise their units to the full.

As a result of inflation and the tremendous price increases, one has the problem today that it has almost become just too expensive. That is why one should try to educate one’s consumer to adjust. I do not believe our consumers realise that if four heaters are switched on in a home on a cold winter’s evening, Escom might be obliged to switch on some of its units in East London, which are diesel operated. They are very expensive, but such aspects have not as yet dawned on our people.

Now I must admit that the value of economising is not always measurable. The Edison Company in Southern California carried out a test and calculated that if they were able to save 1 500 megawatts electricity until the year 1992, it would mean a saving of R1 billion for that company. So we know that savings can help Escom a great deal in planning their further expansions.

Since 1978 no further nuclear power-stations have been constructed in the USA. Since 1982 no new coal power-stations have been constructed either. A few years ago an article appeared in Business Week in which it was said that Pres Reagan would run into trouble with his plan for the expansion of the American economy because there was not going to be enough electricity. We know what has happened in the meantime. The American economy has grown tremendously over the last few years, and a bottle-neck situation has not yet been reached as far as the supply of electricity is concerned.

Escom has accomplished a great deal in recent times. Firstly we can take a look at the recommendations contained in the De Villiers report. In October 1984 a working group was also appointed by the Cabinet to work out a strategy in order to make the people of this country aware of energy conservation. Escom came up with interesting proposals in this regard. There is for example the question of electricity consumption outside peak hours. If we can educate our people and our manufacturers to co-operate with Escom by decreasing their electricity consumption to during peak times, it could eventually lead to tremendous savings.

Arising from this I should like to mention that there is an outcry from our people if electricity tariffs are increased. Every time electricity tariffs are increased, a tremendous fuss is kicked up about it in our newspapers by people who are opposed to this. We should rather be honest. Electricity which is delivered too cheaply, leads to wastage. If electricity is offered that cheaply, it sometimes leads to the establishment of factories which rather should not have come into existence.

I am not saying that electricity tariffs should be disproportionately high, but it should not be so cheap that we have a misallocation of resources in our economy. I think it would be a very sound technique to grant people using electricity outside of peak times a cheaper rate.

Another technique on which Escom is working, is to provide our municipalities with power-generating capacity during the summer months. That will mean that we enable them to make less use of expensive coal. At the same time Escom will then have a better load, which in turn makes a better utilisation possible.

A third very interesting method which Escom is working on is that of interruptable supplies, which means that consumers will switch off their power supply during peak periods, and when surplus energy is again available, the electricity connection is restored.

However, we should also approach these savings with care. One does not want people saving electricity during non-peak periods, because that costs more money in the long run. This saving should occur during peak periods.

I find it interesting that the Americans speak of a menu which one develops for one’s clients, which amounts to a choice in price being made in the sense that there are cheaper electricity tariffs during a low load and interruptable supplies are permitted in order to obtain lower tariffs. That is in fact the menu to which the Americans refer to. I want to congratulate Escom on the further development of this method.

A further interesting aspect is that in terms of the Electricity Amendment Bill we are now creating the opportunity for the hon the Minister to draw up regulations for local authorities on the promotion of the effective utilisation of electricity. It is very interesting in fact that although Escom is trying to promote savings by means of these price adjustments and tariffs … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few comments and state standpoints on diamonds, the diamond industry, diamond legislation and related matters.

Although they are somewhat disconnected comments and standpoints, they do revolve round one subject—diamonds. This is certainly a core attractive, valuable and hard enough to elicit discussion. If my little speech should prove to be a handful of gravel, I hope it will be interspersed with a diamond here and there.

Talking about diamonds, it is my heartfelt desire, as people say in public speeches, at the outset to make a few remarks about the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I know it would be sensitive, unwise, senseless and perhaps even catastrophic to attempt classifying hon members of the Cabinet according to capability, capacity for work, acceptability, prestige or whatever.

They are all the same.

They may all be the same as I am speaking about diamonds and that is more or less the quality of every hon member of the Cabinet.

Nevertheless I wish to state it categorically today that the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is a scientist in his own right who has made an incisive study of his department and therefore knows what goes on there. Owing to his knowledge, conscientiousness and capacity for hard work he not only knows what is going on in his department but also controls such action and takes the lead there. His feet are planted firmly on the ground. He not only mixes with his Cabinet colleagues, with the directors-general and all the other high officials but also moves about here among us ordinary mortals and ordinary workers at grassroots level. I believe no task is too great or too humble for this hon Minister. He does not mind taking temporarily unpopular steps when he knows they are in the interests of the country. Here I am referring, for instance, to his handling of the fuel price.

In private conversations, such as in the corridors and the coffee room, we obviously do not refer formally to hon Ministers. The form of address The Honourable has in any case already been done away with. Outside this House hon elders and frontbenchers, for example the hon member for Kempton Park, merely speak of Danie Steyn whereas the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke just refers to the hon Minister as Oom Danie. Over the coffee pot or a glass of wine or beer we give one another our honest and straight opinion. Just as we say it to one another out there, I wish to tell the hon the Minister as well that we are proud of him. We are really proud of the quality of his work and we are especially proud of the genuinely human way in which he carries it out. Our grateful thanks go to him for it; we appreciate it.

Perhaps hon members are somewhat startled at what I have just said because I do not spend my entire day praising hon Ministers and distributing compliments. I believe, however, that it required doing today.

Last week in the House we discussed the Bill dealing with diamonds. I believe that legislation has already been debated fully by the other two Houses. I now wish to refer briefly to that Bill. Of course, I may be told that I am providing the mustard after the meat but I do not believe that to be the case. I should prefer to call my offering an hors d’oeuvre to the following meal. I wish to refer to that Bill again today for three reasons.

The first of these is that the attitude was adopted in the standing committee that one should test this legislation in practice for a year or two to establish whether it worked properly. After that it could be reviewed to determine how effective it actually had been in practice. I want to start examining it now, however.

I first wish to point out something else, Mr Chairman. One of the disadvantages of being on the Government side is that the hon Whips, in arranging the speaking roster, may reduce the time limit of individual turns to speak according to the number of speakers who have to participate in a specific debate. My turn to speak in the Second Reading debate on the Diamond Bill, for instance, was reduced from 30 to seven minutes so much of what I wanted to say at the time had to be left unsaid. I therefore want to take the opportunity now of making those comments which had to be left unsaid at the time. I actually wish to refer specifically to the object of that legislation which comes down to the desire to put good, co-ordinated control into operation instead of divided control. Consequently, I should like to refer to what the hon the Minister himself said in the Second Reading debate and I quote:

It therefore means joint co-ordination, Sir.

I have just stated my high regard for the hon the Minister. As good as he is, however, he will know a wicked little devil sometimes perches on one’s shoulder and commands one to do or say something in a hurry. Such a little devil is perched on my shoulder now and is urging me to refer quickly to a report in yesterday’s edition of Beeld. Under the caption “Blink klippies is ‘n sware las” there was a little report in yesterday’s Beeld from which I want to quote briefly, as follows:

Above and beyond these losses, Sir, the man involved also had to pay a fine of R3 000 and he was given a five-year jail sentence too, suspended for five years. The reason I am referring to this specific case is that we are dealing here with someone tempted by police decoys although they used someone else to trap him. That someone else—let us call him Mr B—said he had turned down the first request to find a buyer for the diamonds involved. Nevertheless he was later again requested to find a buyer for them and then approached Mr A—the accused in the case—who lost R15 000 after he had signed as a guarantor in a hire-purchase contract for a friend. Mr B was aware of Mr A’s financial loss and wished to help him because they were friends.

Mr Chairman, I know I am using strong language but I say—as I have already said before—that it is immoral to use State diamonds in tempting a man who has just lost R15 000 and therefore finds himself in financial difficulties. I wish to re-emphasize this: It is immoral. I know some of my hon friends beside me in the benches do not agree with me at all but it is immoral and I also know what its consequences are.

I wish to revert to the Bill, however. Clause 27 deals with applications for licences. People I know have told me that it is a good, positive principle in this Bill that these licences are now to be handled by the SA Diamond Board. I think this is a change which will bring about justice and also provide the perception of justice.

Let us turn to page 33, or clause 59, of the Bill. This deals with “agreements for supply of unpolished diamonds to cutters and toolmakers”. This is where problems start arising. I wish to put my argument regarding this very briefly. Here we have a board which is an independent, impartial body which requires to be regarded highly and probably will be but which is now becoming directly involved in the machinery for the purchase and sale of diamonds. This body may influence the advantages or disadvantages to conglomerates and individuals or at least create the perception of this. One therefore wonders whether this may not lead to malpractice in particular or even cast suspicion on the prestige and integrity of the board. I think this is one of the matters the SA Diamond Board should examine itself. Perhaps the standing committee could also review this case in two years’ time.

Another matter I wish to mention briefly deals with clause 63, the “exemption from export duty”. All I wish to say on this is that it occurs now. Exemption is currently granted by the Department of Internal Revenue in terms of the Diamond Export Duty Act which is now being repealed. I wish to request, however, that steps be taken to reduce the waiting period. People told me they had applied two years before and paid option fees every month. Two years passed, they stopped paying and were still waiting although they had applied two years before. I request the SA Diamond Board to examine this matter with a view to expediting that procedure greatly.

I now get to clause 67 on page 37 of the Bill. This clause deals with the “fine in case of difference in values”. If a parcel of diamonds is worth R300 000, for instance, and the exporter has underestimated the value by 20%, such an exporter is fined about R90 000. The smaller diamond dealer—I am not talking about De Beers and the other large mining houses now—has the right in such a case to go to court and dispute the fine but it takes two years or even more before the case is concluded. So what does such a smaller dealer do? He pays the R90 000 fine instead and suffers a large loss as he is then able to make only a small profit on the diamonds. Yet he does this in preference to being saddled with litigation for two years. I therefore appeal to have the Diamond Board institute a simple but speedy method of arbitration. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I find it easy to associate myself with the hon member Dr Vilonel in his praise of the hon the Minister.I should like to add to this words of appreciation for the concession we got from the hon the Minister and Escom with regard to capital levies for the supply of Escom power in the North Western and also Northern Transvaal. I am referring specifically to Dwaalboom, Sentrum, Steenbokpan, Tolwe and Mopane. Our farmers in that region took cognisance with very great appreciation of the fact that the capital levies had been reconsidered in all schemes and that they had initially been cut back to R125 per 25 kWh as the new amount.

The hon the Minister also undertook to investigate further possibilities in this connection, and I hear that someone made an announcement quite recently in Rustenburg on behalf of the hon the Minister, and the hon member for Rustenburg also referred to this. I am asking the hon the Minister now whether he cannot have this put on record for us today. We would be very glad to have it placed on record here.

It is almost unnecessary to give a description of the predicament in which many of our fanners find themselves in the designated 50 kilometre area. Specifically in the planning region of the Dwaalboom area the financial position of 20 of the 40 people who accepted the offer for the supply of electricity, had worsened to such an extent as a result of the drought and the economic conditions that they would have been compelled to ask for the cancellation of that application before further expenses were incurred. But now we have heard of a further offer from the hon the Minister.

I just want to have a few things placed on record which those people mention to one. Recently all residents of the area purchased radios costing R2 600 each for communication. This was, to put it very mildly, a voluntary compulsory purchase. The State very reasonably offered the money on loan, but every loan must be repaid.

In the second place it is mentioned that all school buses in that region are now accompanied by a military or a police vehicle. Every resident who sees this, begins to think about the seriousness of the situation. The result is that they are now voluntarily compelled to erect security fencing around the houses at an average cost of R6 000. When one also takes the housing of the labourers in to consideration, several thousand rand more is involved.

Before any electricity can be used, the people are compelled to install wiring and so on and because the people are very far from all contractors who may do the work, they must, as always, pay exorbitant prices for the work. For that kind of work a minimum amount of R2 000 is also needed.

The farmers there would not like to create the impression at all that they want to ask for favours, but I think there will be very great appreciation everywhere for an announcement that the capital costs are either being cut back to nil, or that the payment of these costs will be suspended for a couple of years so that the people can overcome the precarious economic and drought conditions. I want to say thank you very much in advance to the hon the Minister for the attention he is giving this matter.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express a few thoughts today on the problems and mining activities in my constituency, especially as regards the iron and manganese industry. It is true that the Northern Cape is relatively well endowed with large deposits of minerals and that they are mined on a large scale which in turn contributes to the development of the infrastructure of that area. In this way a contribution is also made to the total foreign currency earnings of the Republic.

Permit me to provide a little perspective on the mining and mineral industry. When one bears in mind that the Government appropriation runs into an amount of R37 billion, it is interesting to note that the proceeds from mining and mineral activities are R26 billion. This is a relatively large sum of money of which approximately 68% is derived from gold and 32% from other minerals. Manganese and iron comprise approximately a tenth of the R7 billion produced by other mining activities.

The Northern Cape has among the largest reserves of manganese and iron in South Africa as well as in the world. We have actually been blessed with 80% of world manganese reserves. I have to say in the same breath that we are also cursed by this as these reserves are located about 1 000 km from the nearest harbour. This has been the problem from the outset in the mining of iron and manganese in South Africa. Americans wished to purchase some of the iron and manganese as early as 1926 but they could not get it to a port. According to Minister Tielman Roos, the Americans themselfes wished to contribute an amount of £25 000 for the construction of a railway line at the time.

The ideal of a railway line was realised only in 1930 when the line between Postmasburg and Port Elizabeth on the East Coast was built. This is still being used today and is one of the most profitable lines. In later years, during the development of Sishen, another line was built to the West Coast. The aspect of costs was important in conveying the iron and manganese ore at the lowest possible price to harbours for export.

South Africa has experienced increasing competition in the world market from countries which produce iron and manganese ore of a better quality than ours in some respects. Our iron ore is hard and therefore requires more power to shatter and roll. Our ore therefore has to be on sale on world markets as cheaply as possible if we wish to compete.

To date, the inflation rate and especially the fluctuating levels of the rand-dollar exchange rate have contributed appreciably to our being able to remain in the market, especially the foreign market. Sometimes the rand-dollar exchange rate makes it impossible, however, to be able to sell profitably overseas. We are then faced with the important point that a producing mine has to decide either to cease production or to bear the loss for a period. When a mine suffers a loss for some time, it discharges some of its workers and goes over to minimum production. When it becomes advantageous to mine again, the workers have to return and the mine become operative once more. This is not always so easy. In addition, once one has lost a market overseas in today’s conditions, it is not so easy to regain that market.

One therefore has to utilise all possible buffers available to keep the market and exports as stable as possible. One of these buffers is the tariff charged for the transport of iron ore from the interior to harbours. If these tariffs are determined merely on the running and maintenance costs of the Railways, a basic fixed costs factor is built in while the exporter then has to deal with the problem of fluctuating markets.

When tariffs for iron and manganese are fixed, I wish to request that this be done in consultation with the Ministries of Mineral and Energy Affairs and Transport Services. In this way a buffer may be built in for the lean years while profits may be made in good years. One can build greater stability into the system in this manner.

This stability extends further than mere mining activities because it also affects the depopulation and repopulation of rural areas. Once a region has been depopulated, it is not easily repopulated because once a person has left the country districts he does not easily return there. He finds work elsewhere and one does not get him back easily. Beeshoek in the Northern Cape, which had to cease its mining activities, is an example of this. Now that it wishes to restart maximal production, it is struggling to persuade expert people to return there.

A further example is Copperton which simply could not continue competing in the market in consequence of export problems and low prices. As a result the mine is closed and only the enormous infrastructure remains unutilised. I do not wish to enlarge on this subject any further; I believe the hon the Minister will pursue these thoughts with the department.

I wish to refer briefly to the industry in tiger’s-eye. This also falls within my constituency and is controlled by legislation. The tiger’s-eye industry is experiencing difficulties and the principal reason is that there is no foreign market owing to the large quantities delivered overseas in the past.

Legislation which became operative in 1977 prohibited the export of unprocessed tiger’s-eye. This resulted in foreign companies’ planning processing units in South Africa and creating them to a certain extent.

Tiger’s-eye of a high quality is difficult to mine whereas there are large quantities of a lower grade available. There are 26 miners of tiger’s-eye and they are all in my constituency. Only ten of them are still really active and they are struggling to sell the low-grade gemstone. They are reconsidering the export overseas of unprocessed tiger’s-eye and there are increasing representations that the prohibition of the export of unprocessed stones be lifted.

If we were to do this, we should instantly nullify all our past sacrifices concerning the tiger’s-eye industry. If we endure long enough, however, we shall turn this industry into one to be reckoned with because there is an enormous number of tiger’s-eye deposits to be developed and mined but this will have to be done in a more expert manner than at present.

I request that we examine this Act and iron out the bottlenecks because there are definitely a few aspects of it worthy of attention. If we lift the prohibition, however, the developments in South Africa processing tiger’s-eye will merely return to Eastern countries and we shall lose numerous employment opportunities in this way.

In conclusion I wish to mention Escom. I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for their share in the restructuring of the control of Escom. This has contributed greatly to renewed confidence in the electricity industry and especially in Escom. This also applies to the reformulation of Escom’s policy on supply and prices. This has infused new courage into rural areas and placed electric power within the reach of many farmers.

I wish to request that, especially in Karoo areas where distances are vast and although relief has already been obtained by the scaling down of extension tariffs, these be re-examined because some points remain which do not yet altogether accord with the rest of the country. These are bottlenecks which are a source of lesser anxiety at the moment.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Prieska will excuse me if I do not respond to his speech. It had to do with industries within his constituency and other constituency matters on which I do not intend to comment.

It is, however, my intention to talk about the liquid fuel situation in South Africa, and I refer specifically to the finished product which is sold in filling stations. I want to do so against the background of the Government commitment to the free enterprise system and to competition. I am not satisfied that the officials of the department are properly considering this commitment in their decisions and I believe they need to be closely watched by the hon the Minister and by Parliament. I will cite only two examples which I have mentioned before, namely last year’s Coal Act and the extraordinary decision to force some retail outlets to increase the price of petrol. I will return to the latter example later.

Considering the position we occupy in the world today, it is understandable that the State is buying our crude oil requirements. International pressure on oil companies makes it almost impossible for them to buy, but are we buying at the best price? This, of course, we are unable to judge. We certainly have made some bad mistakes in the past, and the available figures do not satisfy me that we are doing as well as we might at the moment.

According to the hon the Minister’s reply to a question, landed crude oil cost us R48 per barrel in March. When one looks at the spot price of $12 and the then exchange rate of approximately 50 US cents per rand—it is now lower, of course—the free-on-board price should be R24 per barrel. Surely insurance and freight charges cannot double that price.

I do not know how the present board of the Strategic Fuel Fund, which is responsible for buying, is constituted, but I would recommend strong private sector representation on that board. By private sector I do not mean any company in which the State has all or any shares. [Interjections.]

Having been landed, the crude oil should be sold at a standard price to all buyers. The State bought it, so when the State sells it it cannot differentiate. The wholesale price is, however, also subject to total control and the oil companies are guaranteed a profit. I understand that this profit is based on a 15% return on their investment. That is low for some types of investment, but it is extraordinarily high for an investment return on property, and a substantial amount of the oil companies’ investment is in property, not only for their refining and distribution operations but also in respect of retail outlets which they lease to dealers. I believe that it is undesirable and inflationary that they should also get 15% on their investment in this type of property.

Having arrived at a landed price which is currently 41,5 cents for 93 octane, the Government starts adding a formidable total of levies and taxes. Before GST is added they total 19,5 cents per litre. They then calculate GST on the total—in other words tax on tax. They also charge 7,4 cents per litre for inland transport. Now, as spokesman for my party on transport, I look at these figures, and in the year ending 1985 the pipeline’s revenue was R229,7 million and their costs, including depreciation and financing, only R54,3 million. Their profit was thus R175,4 million or 76% of turnover. One can therefore only regard this as a further tax on petrol which is used to cross-subsidise railway losses mainly on passenger transport.

The inflationary effect of all these taxes is massive. On the 19,5 cents per litre plus the 7,4 cents per litre for inland transport, the GST totals 3,23 cents per litre or about R250 million per annum. This is tax on tax. It might interest this House to know that between March 1984 and February 1986 South Africa had the highest petrol price increase of 12 major Western nations, and that was an increase of 40%. New Zealand was the next highest with an increase of 27%, whereas the US price declined by 9%. Now, in the USA that really is free enterprise.

In the course of all this tax and control, mistakes are made, and I have a recent headline which appeared in the Sunday Times in front of me here which reads: “Steyn admits fuel hike foul-up”. That was in relation to the petrol price increase over December in the Transvaal when there was a foul-up between the Department of Transport and the hon the Minister. Since the hon the Minister is shaking his head, I shall read the article:

Man, you are a Rip van Winkel.

I quote from the Sunday Times of December 1985 …

Was it a mess or was it not a mess? You say one thing one day and another the next!

Another example was the undue delay in reducing the retail price. So, Sir, having arrived at a now considerably higher price we then also control the retailing of the product. We have the filling station rationalisation plan which limits the overall number of retail outlets allowed. This is very nice for the vested interests but murder as regards the free market system. If one wants to talk about small businesses, a filling station is a good way to get into small business. This rationalisation plan should be scrapped. Furthermore, every filling station has to comply with Urota requirements which force them to have repair facilities and a qualified mechanic. What on earth for in this day and age? Service intervals in modern cars are 15 000 kilometres, and many repair functions today are done by specialists. What is more, modern cars are very complicated, and factory know-how is required to service a vehicle properly. The small filling station mechanic is unlikely to have that specialised factory-trained knowledge which is necessary.

There is another aspect of the fuel price with which I want to deal. I want to ask a few questions about the Central Energy Fund.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, when we broke for lunch, I was talking about the Central Energy Fund and I want to ask some questions about it. Is it necessary to keep piling money into the coffers of this fund? As far as I can gather, the fund receives about R300 million per annum from petrol sales, and I believe it also benefits from the repayments of Sasol. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this is so and, if so, to what extent, because Sasol, according to its latest chairman’s statement, repaid no less than R2 600 million in the past two years. I would like to know how much money there is in the account, and what was spent in the past year, both as to amount and to subject. What are we spending this money on at the moment? Certainly it would appear to me that there should be enough to pay for the Mossel Bay project, perhaps even with something over.

Now I want to talk about the extraordinary decision of the hon the Minister and his department to limit the lowest price at which petrol can be sold. It is absolute nonsense to limit the minimum price of petrol. The only people who may benefit from this are those with vested interests in the motor industry—in other words, a very limited number of filling stations—and a few petrol attendants who might otherwise lose their jobs. I want to quote today’s issue of the Financial Mail on this subject. Under the heading: “Will they ever learn?” it says the following:

Then we come to the argument that has been used that it could lead to a price war. I want to quote what the Financial Mail says about Mr Burgers of the department. They say the following:

Whenever has it been the policy that there should be a static market share for all the oil companies? If this is the policy, why should we limit the slice of the market that one petrol company gets as opposed to another? One might just as well say that because a certain motorcar manufacturer obtained 25% of the market in the 1950s he should continue to obtain that same market share today. I want to deny completely that limiting the minimum price of petrol is likely to create a wholesale petrol war. The Financial Mail then carries on to say that the department says that this could cause bedevilling of the fuel supply situation to South Africa. Well, really, that is a ridiculous statement!

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for giving me this opportunity.

This brings me to the subject of Mossel Bay and the gas into liquid fuel project. I want to know what is happening. The report of the experts was in the hands of the hon the Minister last year. There were tenders called for and received, but since then there has been a deathly hush. We know that the State is trying to involve the private sector, and I want to quote the hon the Minister’s reply to a question I asked last year. The hon the Minister replied as follows:

I imagine therefore that the private sector has been approached and, if they have not accepted participation in this project, one must ask why. Is it perhaps for economic considerations? Is it going to be a viable project? What guarantees of volumes of gas and life of the project do they require, if any? Are we going ahead with the project for strategic reasons; and finally, at what rand price per barrel for crude imports does the Mossel Bay project become viable?

I want to thank the hon the Minister for the Soekor document he sent me under cover of his letter of 29 January 1986. This letter makes quite clear the importance of the project to Port Elizabeth, and I would like to quote some of the highlights from it. At its peak 1 800 men will be employed in the fabrication of the off-shore facilities which cannot be done in Mossel Bay. In addition, pipeline preparation and manufacture of components for on-shore plant will be necessary. Most of this work can be done in Port Elizabeth with its harbour, labour, infrastructure and proximity to Mossel Bay.

I want to urge the hon the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that the bulk of this work does go to Port Elizabeth. He should see firstly that it does not go elsewhere as a result of decentralisation incentives; secondly, he should see to it that central Government gives every possible assistance including preference to Port Elizabeth in accepting tenders; and thirdly, he should ensure that local government and the SATS give all possible co-operation to the private sector as and when requested, such as space at the harbour for construction, for example. Finally, he should see that central Government encourages the private sector in Port Elizabeth—with incentives if necessary—to invest in building this project.

Never before in the history of South Africa has a major centre been in a position of such economic deprivation and, regardless of whether blame can be placed on the local authority or the local private sector, the Government has to take a share of that blame. I appeal to this hon Minister to help us put Port Elizabeth back on its feet.

Mr Chairman, I think one must congratulate the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on his well-researched speech. I want to tell him that I endorse his wish that by means of the new Mossel Bay project we will try to convert the Port Elizabeth area into a functionally effective industrial area, and I wish him everything of the best in this regard.

Today I have a need to tell hon members that the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon the Minister are probably among the most friendly and helpful people one has to deal with when one has to prepare a speech or when one needs their help or must try to get statements from them. I want to thank them all most sincerely for this today.

As far as mining is concerned—that industry which is probably the single most stable pillar of our economy—I also have a desire to thank the people involved in it—from the largest to the smallest; from the most humble worker to the large companies that must supply the money—for what they are doing for our country and its future.

I should like to turn to the coal industry and coal mining and I particularly want to address the problems in connection with pollution in the coal industry. Pollution caused by coal is unfortunately one of those aspects which one comes across in life. Nothing is all good or all bad and consequently we have the problem of pollution in the coal industry.

The pollution caused by coal can mainly be divided into three categories. The first of these is that the site being mined using the open cast method of mining is damaged. In the second place there is the depositing of waste dumps and in the third place there is the pollution of the atmosphere.

If we look at the mining industry to see what proportions pollution assumes, we must also see the size of the industry we are dealing with in perspective. In the first place one must take note of the magnitude of production in the country. The production of coal in the country is 231 million tons, of which 44 million tons is waste in one of two forms. It can be dull coal which has a higher value, or it can simply be discard coal. A total of 183 tons is consequently marketable.

Unfortunately by the international standards the quality of South African coal is very low and consequently we must go to a great deal of trouble to refine it. When one is dealing with metals, one can talk about refining them, but I do not know what the terminology is when one improves the quality of coal.

Because the value is so low and because the coal we export is used for specialised purposes, there is a tendency for the percentage of discard coal in its various forms to increase as our mining industry develops. On the other hand the percentage of discard coal is increasing because the coal we are mining today is of a far lower grade than the coal we mined in the past.

To get back to the amounts of discard coal, we see that the 41 million tons of discard coal constitute approximately 18% of the total coal mining production. On the other hand the duff coal constitutes only about 2% of that tonnage.

Hon members will ask what this discard and duff coal is I am referring to. The discard coal is that part of the coal which is not suitable for further use, or that part of the coal which at the time it is mined, is not suitable for use because the technology at that stage could not yet convert it into a usable form. Hon members may understand more clearly what I mean when I talk about the quality of the coal at the time it is mined, on the basis of the following example: The coal used by Escom nowadays differs a great deal from the coal it used 20 years ago. The quality is far lower.

The other part of this coal—approximately four million tons per year—is obtained from sifting and washing the coal. The purpose of the washing and sifting process is to obtain a better quality of coal of a more uniform grade and size. Unlike the discard coal, this coal has a very high calorie value. The average calorie value is even higher than that of the ordinary steam coal. Consequently it is intrinsically very useful but unfortunately a technique has not yet been developed really to use it because of its fineness.

I have mentioned to hon members what the production figure is. But it is not only the production of discard coal which is a problem. There is also the existing problem of the coal which has been stored in heaps, and now I am referring both to discard and to duff coal. At the moment there are 236 million tons of discard coal in the mine dumps, whereas there are 8 million tons of ordinary duff coal. This discard coal is to be found in 207 mine dumps throughout the country, of which 56 are burning. Consequently 27% of these coal dumps are burning. As a matter of fact they are burning out.

As a result of this burning of the dumps, the atmosphere is being polluted. This is where one of our big problems comes in. A particularly big problem is that half of these coal dumps which are burning, are in the Witbank area. Consequently the Eastern Transvaal area and atmosphere are being polluted tremendously. In addition this is also the area where there is a very large concentration of Escom power stations and, as hon members know, our coal has a very high sulphur content. As a result a tremendous amount of sulphur is being released into the atmosphere, which then causes the so-called sulphur rain.

Hon members must agree that a combination of these two factors in such a limited area has a very adverse effect on our environment and natural habitat in the long term. That is why it was necessary to investigate the matter. Consequently it is a good thing that a committee has been convened on the instructions of the hon the Minister—I want to congratulate him most sincerely on this—on which officials of his own department, as well as officials of the Transvaal and Natal coal owners, the mining engineer and the Coal Research Institute will serve. I think it was absolutely essential for such a committee to be established.

The committee has completed the first part of its task, namely to ascertain what the magnitude of the pollution problem is, as well as to ascertain what the tonnage is of the discard coal involved, and what can be done with it. I am glad that we are sensible enough to start with this at this stage. As hon members know, our use of coal and its further purification are going to assume increasing proportions in future. That was why it was necessary for us to give attention to this matter of the discard coal in time.

I hope that when we talk again next year we will already have reached the stage at which we have identified the problems and the reasons why coal dumps catch alight. The high pyrite content of our coal, which is a very strong oxidiser and which with oxygen causes spontaneous combustion in mine dumps, most probably plays a very important role in this. Once we have got that far in that area, we can solve this problem, but the committee to which I referred, will also have to give particular attention to the other aspect of this discard coal, namely the duff coal, of which there is not a large consumption at the moment. Here we are dealing with a tremendous waste of our coal resource.

The duff coal to which I have referred, has a higher energy value than the ordinary steam coal. Consequently I assume that the committee of the hon the Minister will take this opportunity with the assistance of the levy on coal—for which provision was made in the principal Act last year—to promote the future of our coal further.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Heilbron is an expert on the coal industry—from discard coal to duff coal or fines, and from golden coal to golden earth. We want to congratulate him on his speech; also on having referred to Witbank—he knows the Transvaal and the Free State.

I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister and his splendid staff—as well as Dr Louw Alberts—very sincerely. I am sorry to hear that Mr Theuns Burger is going to Australia. We hope that he will also be successful there.

Right at the outset I want to put two questions to the hon the Minister. Now that the rand is worth approximately 38,70 Americancents, how will this affect the present price of fuel? Secondly, with a view to the tremendous pollution which the lead content of fuel causes, what is the reduction of the maximum permissible lead content of petrol ultimately going to be? Can the hon the Minister furnish any particulars in this regard?

Johannesburg, as hon members know, is celebrating its centenary this year. Gold was discovered there in 1886. A city council, which is being manipulated by the NP, is in control of this city and it is in the interests of the gold mining industry that the city council of Johannesburg remain in NP hands. [Interjections.] In anticipation I now wish to congratulate Linda Lewis, and NP candidate, who will on Tuesday be elected as the seventeenth member of the NP, in ward 45, on her victory. It will not be a CP, NRP or PFP candidate; it will be another Nationalist who will be elected. [Interjections.]

I actually wish to speak about the Mossel Bay project. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon members why I am now coming to Mossel Bay. We have the PWV area in our province. There on the other side the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid is sitting. Sitting behind me is the hon member for Overvaal. And that is how those who represent that important area are scattered all over the place. Despite the tremendous potential which Mossel Bay offers, it is nevertheless a long way away from the PWV area, and since that area will now stretch from the Cape to Mossel Bay and Port Elizabeth—as an hon member has suggested—I think we should call it the CMP area. I hope the CP are listening carefully, because I am not referring to a homeland; it is the CMP area (Cape—Mossel Bay—Port Elizabeth). I think it will provide for the oil industry and the chemical enterprises with a tremendous challenge to market this new find economically. A great saving in terms of foreign exchange will also be made. According to calculations the saving in this regard will amount to R800 million per annum. The security which it will afford us in South Africa is implicit in the fact that it will make us less dependent on the outside world—despite disinvestment and the oil embargo.

By the same token job opportunities will be created for many people. According to the report of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, 1 400 new job opportunities have been created in Mossel Bay. Eventually there will be 10 000 new job opportunities as a result of this, of which altogether 5 000 will be in Mossel Bay. I believe that it will lead to a tremendous stimulation of the economy and to new industrial expansion. Our country’s heavy engineering industry in particular will benefit tremendously in as much as they can also do something in order to utilise the prevailing circumstances.

The mineral riches of South Africa are as it were being expanded in that the mighty oceans and their riches are now being added to the mineral riches of the country. In this regard, I believe, Soekor deserves an honourable mention for the tremendous reconnaissance and prospecting task which it has done, especially at Mossel Bay. I believe it is a remarkable achievement. In this way our country’s oil industry can now be expanded further and can be established on a far more advanced foundation. Here, I believe, our large enterprises, especially our financial institutions as well as our innovative administrative people will be able to put an authentic South African stamp on our own product.

This year Soekor is only 21 years old. Nonetheless Soekor, which came into being in 1965, is one of the largest exploitation organisations in the Republic. What did our average South African know about currents and about the geology of the world below the blue waters of the oceans? We have really been afforded an opportunity to eventually acquire vast experience. What did we know about a sophisticated exploitation company? What did we know about the new and greater depths at which exploration takes place?

What did we know about sophisticated cost calculations? Soekor did all these things in this country. They calculated their costs so accurately that in five years they never exceeded their budget. They kept, as far as I know, their project completely accident free. They sank more holes than was originally planned. Two modern oil drills started drilling under the supervision of Soekor. The third one is to be put into operation any day now. Nearly R600 million has thus far been spent.

That R600 million does perhaps sound to us like a tremendous sum of money. It is, however, less than Brazil spends in one year on its oil exploitation. It also compares well with the amount of foreign exchange which will be saved in one year because of the find at Mossel Bay. Annually we spend R250 million in this regard. Upon the arrival of the third oil drill there will be an expected increase of a further 50% in this expenditure.

Mossel Bay has in the meantime developed and expanded. Originally—hon members will probably remember it—Mossel Bay was but a simple little coastal town. After the find in the form of crude oil in the ocean near the coast of Mossel Bay that town has acquired world renown. Initially 56 million cubic feet of gas was found which according to tests would have provided 1 200 barrels of light oil per day. Rich deposits first had to be found in order to make a viable commercial undertaking of it.

The size of the reserves was of course the important question. The viability of the project was a further big question mark. At first people sceptically thought we would at most have been able to exploit it for 15 years. Then 23 years was mentioned and later 25 years and longer. The envisaged minimum production per day is 160 million cubic feet, which will produce between 26 000 and 27 000 barrels of oil per day. Conditions here are similar to those in the North Sea, where we also acquired a lot of knowledge.

Now that large platform is going to be built, which will be up to 140 metres high, and upon which 100 people will be working every day. Further giant projects are also being initiated by all the companies involved, and when the world production of oil dwindles, we shall have the ideal opportunity to produce large amounts of oil economically.

We should take into the consideration the surface area of our land with minimum costs in mind. Our arterial roads and railway lines are of the utmost importance in this regard. The power networks of Escom should also be taken into account. Hon members are aware of the magnitude of this project. The hon the Minister has to cause everything to be conveyed there. The extent of what he has to think about is therefore clear. That is why we are grateful that he as an engineer has a knowledge of all these matters.

Of greater importance is the distance to the Mossel Bay harbour. He also has to take into consideration future residential areas. He should also avoid unsightly installations, as well as the effect on the environment which should be such that there is no pollution. It must also be ensured that no agricultural land is given away and thorough regard should also be had to the question of water provision. The question now arises: Should it be seawater or fresh water? I have been told that the Department of Water Affairs may possibly build a dam with an inflow of seven million cubic metres of fresh water.

I therefore hope that this project will be a great success. The hon the Minister will also have to negotiate with various Government departments; inter alia with the Department of National Health and Population Development, the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Department of Community Development. I also hope that the hon the Minister will at some time or another be able to make an announcement to us about a suitable site for this great project. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, my speech will take only a few minutes. There is something which I should like to bring to the attention of this hon Minister, while the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is present as well. During the discussion of that hon Minister’s Vote, I referred to the part the private sector can play by getting rid of hostels. I should also like to draw the attention of this hon Minister to the part I believe mining can play in respect of the orderly urbanisation of Blacks.

Yes, that is a good thing. I am glad you are talking about that.

I believe I should talk about it because it is an aspect of our national life which should have been rectified long ago. Because I wish to refer to it, I am going to quote a few statistics which I believe the hon the Minister should take a look at, so that we can see how this matter can progress in the years that lie ahead.

I refer the hon the Minister to an advertisement which appeared recently in Finansies en Tegniek. On page 47 of the edition I have in front of me, there is an advertisement which was placed by Anglo American. Its heading is:

It is a good thing that Anglo American, and mining as a whole, is asking for this. If they are asking for this, however, they should do it with the purpose of giving the South African Black an opportunity to become involved in mining as well. We need only look at urbanisation as it occurred among the Whites. I wish to repeat what I said to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, viz that a large part of the urbanisation which took place among Whites, took place for the very reason that mining played such a tremendous part in their development. If mining has five times as many Blacks in its employ, in my opinion it has a part to play and should start playing that part effectively. I effectively, because in the case of the mine which has existed in my constituency for 80 years, only 3% of the workers come from the Transvaal. If less than 3% of that mine’s workers come from the Transvaal, hon members can realise how many of those workers come from Boksburg. In a period of 80 years it is a tremendous disadvantage to the inhabitants of that area that they could not become involved in mining. [Interjections.]

For this reason I wish to quote what Anglo American said in the advertisement I referred to:

Here I wish to return just for a moment to that aspect which also concerns the mine. If it is so that more trained people are going to be required in this type of mine, it is the duty of mining to ensure that more Blacks from the Witwatersrand are employed.

I think it is a disgrace that fewer than 500 of the 18 000 people who work in this specific mine come from the Transvaal, not to mention how many of them come from the town where this mine has been operating for 80 years. If they are going to be told now that they have to employ these people, we should also tell them that they must ensure that these people are trained now, because they can play a tremendously important part in the creation of housing for these people. There is a lot of work which can be done by those people above-ground at present.

When one takes a look at those specific mines, one sees that some of the mine dumps are being processed. The argument that existed among the people of the Chamber of Mines for so many years that the local people did not want to work underground, therefore no longer exists. It is a pity that one finds, nevertheless, that even today they do not employ local people, while they are able to play a tremendously important part in the housing of those people as well. I do not even want to attempt to say how many Coloureds are in the service of these mines. I believe the number of Coloured workers is less than 50 in a total of 18 000, while a township such as Reigerpark is situated right next to the reduction works. They are only separated by a road. The concrete works at that specific mine is also separated from the Coloured residential area only by a road. When I refer to this specific mining group, therefore, I cannot understand why 14 000 of the 18 000 people working there have had to come from countries such as Mozambique and Malawi for 80 years, while we have such a great unemployment problem on the East Rand. I mention that to the hon the Minister because I believe he can exert his influence, with reference to the articles of members of the Chamber of Mines which have now appeared, to address them and to say it is in the interests of South Africa that the members of the Chamber of Mines also play a part in the orderly urbanisation of Blacks.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members who participated in this debate very sincerely for their contributions. It was very clear that they went to a lot of trouble to prepare their speeches. They also raised many important points here. I make so bold as to say that there was not a single false note here today—except perhaps for the little newspaper report, which was as old as Rip van Winkel. We shall say nothing further about that, and I can therefore say that not a single false note was sounded here. All the matters dealt with were essential and I want to thank the hon members for that. If, during the time at my disposal, I do not have an opportunity to react to all the hon members’ speeches, we shall pursue the matter by writing to them after their speeches have been properly analysed. We hope we shall be able to give the necessary attention to the points they raised.

†My marble was polished by some of the hon members in the Committee and I want to polish the hon member for Edenvale’s as well because I think he made a brilliant speech. Because the hon member made a brilliant speech I want to furnish him with a brilliant reply. [Interjections.] Therefore I would like to spend some time on looking at the points that the hon member made.

The hon member started by referring to the absolute importance, the vital importance, of the mineral industry to the economy and to the future and the quality of life of all the people of this country. I do not think I want to elaborate on that because the hon member made those points very well. I think the point the hon member made was that we should not stop at mining minerals and metals and exporting them in a raw form, but that we should also concentrate on and put some effort into the beneficiation and processing of our minerals to obtain maximum advantage for our people. Two of the three points he highlighted in this regard were that we could increase the value of our minerals by improving their ability to earn foreign exchange—I do support that view—and that this would also create more jobs. I do support the point of view of the creation of more jobs. I think that was the hon member’s second point. His third point was that we should lower the import value of our commodities insofar as the mineral industry is concerned. I fully support that.

The hon member referred to two examples of beneficiation, namely chrome and titanium. I agree with the hon member on that point. The hon member also referred to Mintek which is part of our department. We have identified certain minerals which we feel should receive higher priority insofar as beneficiation is concerned. Chrome and titanium are two of these minerals.

I want to tell the Committee today that we have made considerable progress since we last spoke on this matter in this Committee in identifying our strong points which are mainly in the mining field, as well as identifying the fields on which we should concentrate such as the fields of processing, added value and beneficiation.

We have drawn up a strategy programme for every single mineral found in South Africa up to this stage, and for some of them we have developed a 10-year-plan to improve their processing and added value situation.

I feel we should take cognisance of one fact, however, namely that the Government does not own the mineral industry. The mineral industry is totally in the hands of the private sector, and the Government can only motivate and perhaps provide incentives and a climate to promote these aspects of the mineral industry.

I have here the chart for the manganese strategy programme. We highlight the potential added value that can be earned through a downward processing action. I want to thank the hon member for Edenvale for supporting us in our efforts to improve the added value situation.

Insofar as the jewellery industry is concerned, the hon member was quite right in saying that just over one ton of gold was processed by South African jewellers. Only yesterday we held a long discussion with the top people in the jewellery industry in South Africa as to what we can do to improve the industry in South Africa. The most alarming fact that was conveyed to us yesterday was that just over one ton of gold had been processed legitimately by our own jewellery industry but that over 10 tons had been processed on the black market. This is only an estimated calculation but according to information we received this is a fairly accurate estimate.

I think that the Diamonds Act which was recently passed by all three Houses will go a long way to assist us in advising the private sector on how the jewellery industry can be improved. I have already had discussions with the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry, and we will look jointly at what can be done to develop and improve the jewellery industry. I fully agree with the hon member that something should be done, and the sooner the better. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

The hon member also referred to the mineral policy committee and I think he tagged it onto the jewellery industry. He suggested that there should be closer co-operation among the three relevant departments. I can inform him that our Mineral Policy Committee will include members of the Department of Finance and the Department of Trade and Industry. If we are lucky, the White Paper on that policy will be tabled by 20 June. If not, it will be tabled in the first week of the second part of this year’s session. I will discuss the question of scheduled persons at a later stage.

I quite agree with what the hon member said about the nuclear situation. I would like to deal with it in a little more detail when I refer to the hon member for Constantia, otherwise I shall have to repeat myself. I fully agree with the hon member, however, that one should look at the siting of any possible future nuclear power stations very carefully. I think one should bear in mind the population density of an area in which one wants to build a nuclear power station. We will definitely examine that aspect very carefully in the future when we have to take such a decision.

*I want to thank the hon member for Rustenburg for his kind words. He is also the chairman of the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs, and the information I received from that source was that things were going very well, that he was a very competent chairman and that he had the ability to cope in a very competent manner with the matters dealt with by that committee.

Before I discuss the hon member’s speech any further, I should like to raise three points. The first is that Annatjie, the wife of the hon member for Carletonville, a member of our group, is seriously ill. I think that we as members of the committee would like to wish them strength for the days which lie ahead, and for the great ordeal she is going through at the moment.

We are losing two members of the department’s parliamentary personnel. Mr Jasper Nieuwoudt has been promoted, and I should like to place on record that we congratulate him. I also want to thank Mr Theuns Burger, who is going to become our representative in Australia, for the many good years he shared with us. We wish him everything of the best in Australia with the very important position he will occupy there to represent South Africa’s mineral industry.

The hon member for Rustenburg referred to Escom. He said that Escom, in its new guise, was at present drawing up its technical plans in a very scientific way. In this respect Escom has a very good record, and its technical ability has never been under any suspicion. Escom has a great many competent technical people and engineers and I should like to associate myself with the hon member when he discusses what has been achieved. I also agree that the financial planning of Escom is at present of a very high standard. I thank the hon member once again for his kind words.

The hon member spoke about reform, and he associated it with socio-economic welfare, progress and the circumstances which are also very important in the mining industry. I think he was quite correct, and we are in full agreement with him that there can be no reform if there is no socioeconomic reform as well. If the standard of living and the quality of life of the people in our country are not enhanced, we are going to experience great problems with reform. I think the mineral industry can truly make a very great contribution in this connection.

The hon member also referred to the consumption of electricity and said it was an indication of the quality of life of a population. The greater the electricity consumption, the higher the quality of life. The hon member is quite correct and I think Escom has a huge task to supply electricity, as far as it is economically possible, to as many people and organisations as possible in South Africa. But we must really not expect Escom to provide every little hamlet with electricity. There are certain standards, but I think it is Escom’s task, within the specified standards and the specific economic conditions, to generate sufficient electricity to meet the need, and that the distribution of electricity should not be in Escom’s hands, but in the hands of local government and other distribution organisations. The distribution of electricity is not Escom’s task.

†I want to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Mooi River. I want to congratulate him because I think he also made a very, very good speech. I should really classify it as brilliant. We are used to this hon member making good speeches, and I want to thank him. He highlighted three issues.

The first is that South Africa has a track record of being a reliable supplier of minerals to its customers and clients in the Western World as well as other parts of the world. I want to emphasise that that is our philosophy. We want to be a reliable supplier. We do not want to be the only supplier; we want to be a reliable supplier. I think the hon member motivated his point very correctly.

The second issue he highlighted was the quality of the material we supply, the quality of our product. We cannot take our share of market unless our product is of good quality. I quite agree with the hon member.

The third issue, is that the price must be right. One might be a reliable supplier of a quality product, but if one’s price is not right, one still cannot sell one’s product. I fully agree with the hon member on this point as well.

However, the hon member made one statement which I do not support fully. He said that there was no inflow of capital in the mining industry at the moment. That is not quite true. At the moment, even this year we have had an inflow of tens of millions of rands—possibly more than R100 million—in foreign capital into our mining industry since January. So, our mining industry is still attracting foreign capital. This is not share capital; it is direct investment capital. I am not even referring to share capital. I am referring only to development capital in the mining industry.

The hon member also referred to the jewellery industry. I thank him for his support. He referred to gold coins. It is quite amazing, now that our gold coins have been banned in America, that the price of the Krugerrand is going through the ceiling. It is increasing dramatically, and we predicted it. I personally predicted it, and I am glad that it is happening.

I agree with the hon member that we should not use our minerals as a threat. We have never intended doing that. I think the speech of the State President—I made statements in that regard—was misinterpreted. They coupled an incorrect perception to it. We do not intend to use our minerals as a threat to our clients.

The hon member also referred to the Chernobyl issue, but I want to leave that for a while.

*I now want to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Koedoespoort. I am dealing with the speeches made by the main speakers of the respective parties first. I should like to thank the hon member for Koedoespoort for his kind words on the annual report. We shall convey his thanks and appreciation to the compiler of the annual report. He put a lot of hard work into it.

The hon member also referred to the importance of mineral earnings. When the hon member referred to the removal of the measure on scheduled persons from the Act the hon member referred only to the blasting certificate. There are 13 other occupational functions that are also entrusted to scheduled persons and consequently we are not dealing with the blasting certificate only. However, I should now like to know from the hon member whether he is really speaking on behalf of the Mineworkers’ Union when he says that the Mineworkers’ Union will not make any concessions. Was he speaking officially on behalf of the Mineworkers’ Union?

Yes.

He says yes, he did. The information we have in writing, however …

He did not say that!

Oh, I beg his pardon. Was it another hon member who said that? I withdraw it. Nevertheless I want to know from the hon member whether he was in fact speaking officially on their behalf, because I do not think the hon member speaks officially on behalf of the Mineworkers’ Union. I think the hon member is creating an embarrassing situation for the Mineworkers’ Union.

Oh, shame!

No, it is not a question of “oh, shame” because I think I know more than the hon member does. [Interjections.] The hon member made the statement that there was a war between the Mineworkers’ Union, the Chamber of Mines and us. That is completely untrue. We have been negotiating with one another from week to week and from month to month on this aspect; and not since yesterday. These negotiations have been in progress for four and a half years. The information we have in writing does not in fact indicate that the Mineworkers’ Union is accepting our proposals—I do not want to imply that for a moment—but the Mineworkers’ Union is negotiating with us on our proposals and is prepared to accept certain of our proposals, although they have many reservations about them and although they would in fact primarily like to maintain the status quo. Nevertheless they are prepared to negotiate with us, and they are in the process of doing so. There are some of the officials sitting in the bay who are negotiating with them on a personal basis. They are not only negotiating with them in writing. In addition the impression is also being created that I will soon discuss matters with representatives of the Mineworkers’ Union for the first time.

But he did not say that!

Oh please, man, he did say it! I think the hon member for Jeppe should keep out of this conversation entirely, because he knows nothing about the hon member for Koedoespoort. The hon member for Koedoespoort and I have a very good understanding. I am replying to the speech made by the hon member for Koedoespoort, and I think the hon member for Jeppe should now keep quiet for a while.

I am his attorney! [Interjections.]

Are you the best he can afford? [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon member for Koedoespoort that there is a White Paper on the scheduled persons. In that White Paper certain statements are made about industrial councils, about work reservation, about replacement—as the hon member correctly observed—about the scheduled person and about the competent person. At this stage we are even considering not doing it any more, because we are making real progress. The impression has been created that we are quarrelling, I want to rectify it, because we are not. We differ with one another on many points, but we are discussing the matter, and it is important that we try to obtain consensus in order to solve the problem as successfully as possible.

Finally there is one more thing I must add in connection with the scheduled person. I want to repeat, for the sake of regularity, that the scheduled person does not only have a blasting certificate. That is one of the aspects, but there are a further 12 additional occupational areas in which the scheduled person must operate. The other 11 associations and trade unions are fully in favour of the removal of the measures on scheduled persons. They are all White trade unions, and therefore the impression the hon member created was not entirely correct. I thought I should rectify this matter without criticising him, because I know what the standpoint of the hon member’s party is on scheduled persons. I thank the hon member for his support in respect of the jewellery industry. He agrees with all of us, and I therefore do not wish to elaborate on this any further. We must look into this matter attentively, particularly as far as the diamond cutting and gem polishing industry is concerned.

As regards control over tiger’s eye, I should perhaps apologise to the hon member for Prieska. We have a committee dealing with tiger’s eye, which consists of four people from the private sector—two from the mining industry and two from the tiger’s eye processing industry. We undertook—and this is also in reply to the representations made by the hon member for Prieska—that this committee should reconsider the legislation to determine whether we should not eliminate the restrictions which prevent the processing aspect of the tiger’s eye industry from getting under way—if such restrictions do exist. We even went so far—because there are Coloureds, too, who are tiger’s eye producers—to appoint a Coloured person to this committee as well, so that we can take a fresh look at the tiger’s eye industry and the associated legislation to determine whether we cannot improve the situation. I agree with the hon member, and I thank him for his support for the measure.

Several hon members referred to the safety of the Koeberg nuclear power station. They were the hon members for Constantia and Edenvale, and I want to make the following statement. I think there are two things which we should not confuse with one another. We must not confuse the technical security with regard to the possibility of radiation from Koeberg, with the emergency plan. We must not confuse the two.

As regards the technical security for the possible combating of radiation under certain circumstances, I want to content myself by telling hon members of this Committee what the total difference between the design philosophy of Chernobyl and that of Koeberg is. There is a world of difference between the two design philosophies, and I do not think mention was ever made of the statistical possibility of a radiation problem at Chernobyl. The only possibility we know of—and I think this is what the hon member for Constantia referred to—is that the Russians themselves made a statement a week or ten days before the Chernobyl disaster.

†They issued a statement to the effect that the probability of an accident happening in one of those power stations would be extremely remote. I cannot remember what the probability factor was, but it was extremely low, and yet a few days later it happened.

*It was not the international community that made that calculation. No one knows what is happening there. We still do not know what is happening there. We do not even know whether those people had an emergency plan. We do not know that. It is very clear that they did not have an emergency plan. As regards the security aspect in respect of radiation, we are prepared for that, and we have all the information at our disposal. We really have a great many experts. It is not necessary for us to appoint other people to conduct an independent investigation into this matter. We have two organisations, namely the Council for Nuclear Safety and the Licensing Board and the most expert people available in South Africa have representation on these two bodies.

Make one of them the Minister!

No, unfortunately the hon the Minister has no representation there, otherwise they would have had another expert. Some of the greatest experts in South Africa have representation on those bodies, precisely in order to ensure that safety is maintained as far as possible. However, the hon member made a very good point. I think all the hon members made good points. I do not think that we should sit back and say that it is not possible for us to experience a problem as well. We must accept it and we must do everything in our power to ensure that if we do experience such a problem, our emergency plan will be put into operation as effectively as possible.

The hon member referred to Dr Coogan. Dr Coogan was a member of a delegation who travelled all over the world to study the emergency plans in America and at the other nuclear installations to make certain that South Africa at least had a comparable—if not the best—emergency plan if something should go wrong. The experts who went over, returned, and devised a plan.

I should like hon members to look at the Koeberg power station’s emergency information and civil protection programme. It is an intensive programme, in which the Cape Town City Council, the Cape Divisional Council and all local authorities are involved. We already have control centres in the area, which fall under the control of the Cape Divisional Council. There is also a control centre in the civil protection centre of the Cape Town City Council, which falls under the control of Dr S Evans, the town clerk of the Cape Town City Council, on which Dr Coogan has representation. Dr Coogan plays a part in the emergency plan which will be put into operation if something should happen. Since he is in the inner circles, surely he can ensure that the necessary adjustments are made, if he is not satisfied.

I know the hon member for Constantia asked me whether there should not be a doctor as well. The three doctors involved in the emergency plan are Drs Coogan, Tibbit and Macmahon. [Interjections.] Consequently here are doctors involved in the emergency plan. If the hon member for Constantia thinks more doctors should be involved, we shall see whether we cannot do so. [Interjections.]

There are emergency control officials at the Koeberg power station itself, who are on duty 24 hours per day in a fully equipped centre and who undertake and control the technical monitoring and evaluation of all the circumstances. The Defence Force, the Provincial Administration and Metroplan are also involved in this. I almost want to say that there is no organisation which is not involved in this matter in a coordinated way. If there are any deficiencies, however, my department, Escom and I will be the first who would gladly give attention to the matter in order to see whether we cannot rectify it.

I think everything humanly possible is being done to make sure that the emergency plan will work as effectively as possible. If a few problems arise with an initial exercise, surely it is the responsibility of those people to iron out the problems that have arisen. According to the information at my disposal as to how the emergency plan in regard to any possible incident at Koeberg has been developed and evolved, I can say that I really feel assured that this has been done well, and that everything humanly possible has been done to ensure that the plan will, if necessary, function as efficiently as possible.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he would please note that what I actually asked was whether it was not possible for control to be exercised over statements that are made which jeopardise security? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Koedoespoort was of course referring to Dr Coogan’s statement. I do not think it is possible for us to exercise control over every individual who wants to make a statement to the newspapers. I think a man like Dr Coogan, who has full access to the plan, is actually sabotaging his own city council when he makes such statements. In reality he is saying that his own town clerk is incompetent to deal with these matters! I do not think there is any way in which the department can prevent such irresponsible statements from being published. I do think the hon member is correct when he says it creates an erroneous image.

It creates an image which does South Africa’s nuclear industry no good at all, and in my opinion such statements ought not to be made, particularly not by people—in the case of Dr Coogan—who ought to know better. I am sorry I did not react to the question of the hon member; I was simply replying to the speeches made by the hon member for Constantia and other hon members together. The hon member actually gave me a good opportunity to do so.

The hon member for Waterberg asked me a question with reference to which I can now say something about the electricity schemes in the North Western Transvaal and in the Northern Transvaal corridor area. I shall gladly comply with that request, because I think it is very important also to place on record that this department and this Government is considering the problems being experienced by the farmers in that area in particular with great compassion. I think it is also important for the Government to do this on an ongoing basis, and for this department and Escom to go out of their way to help the farmers. We have just heard from the hon member for Gordonia about the plea that guarantees to farmers from his constituency should not be withdrawn.

Escom undertook not to withdraw these guarantees. I am mentioning this now since the hon member is also present, so that he can take cognisance of it. I am also saying this because I wish in this way to convey the message that the Government has great sympathy for the problems of the farming community in South Africa; not only in the North Western Cape, but also in the vicinity of Gordonia, and I could mention many other examples. [Interjections.]

When I discuss the North West area hon members must allow me to add a bit of a preamble. For the sake of completeness I want to say there can be no doubt that the Government takes cognisance with great understanding and sympathy of the problems in general with particular reference to the border areas of the Northern Transvaal.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to make an announcement on electricity schemes in this area. The following schemes have already been completed in this area: The Derdepoort Scheme, the Pontdrift Scheme, as well as those of Messina West, Waterpoort, Ellisras, Crocodile River North, Messina East, Ellisras, Palala and the Limpopo. It has therefore been decided that the capital amounts for these schemes will be nil from 1 May 1986 to 1 April 1988. No further contributions for expansion will be requested. The following schemes are being planned or are under construction, and will possibly be completed by the following dates: The Dwaalboom Centre, November 1986 or September 1987; Steenbokpan, May 1987; Tolwane, 1987 and Mopane Linton during the second half of 1987. The capital contributions to these schemes will also be nil until 1 April 1988.

This decision will be reviewed annually, from 1 April 1988, taking into consideration the economic and climatic conditions. However the capital amounts will, whatever the decision entails, not exceed the following amounts: R125 for a 25 kWh supply point; R135 for a 50 kWh supply point; R155 for a 100 kWh supply point and R490 for a 200 kWh supply point. Escom will notify the consumers in question in due course. I thank the hon member for the opportunity of being able to make this announcement.

Mr Chairman, in respect of this fantastic concession to farmers in the areas involved, what about the farmers who are in arrears with their instalments? Can the power supply to those farmers be cut off, or what norm is being applied to determine who may receive further power? Could the hon the Minister just give an indication?

The matter concerning the unpaid accounts of many of those farmers was discussed with the Department of Finance and with Escom. In spite of the fact that those farmers’ electricity accounts are outstanding, it was decided that the power would not be cut off, but that the co-operatives and the Land Bank, together with the Treasury and the hon the Minister of Finance, would provide Escom with the necessary guarantees. Because Escom is not legally entitled to do this of its own accord these organisations will furnish Escom with the guarantees—either through their co-operatives or the Land Bank—so that this power supply can remain connected until such time as production is off their hands and they are able to pay their overdue accounts. However, there is no way in which Escom or this department can make good those overdue accounts because we simply do not have the finances available for that. The farmers will ultimately have to do so themselves.

Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, the time at my disposal is very short. I also want to thank the hon member for Pretoria East very sincerely for what he had to say about the White Paper on energy, on which our people are at the moment working very very hard. They are also being supported by people from the private sector. The hon member also explained the strategic need for it, and in fact referred to the very important role of the research projects which are going to be financed by the SEF, particularly in the coal industry. The hon member gave a very clear elucidation of this and said—and I am in full agreement with him; I also think it important for us to put this on record—that when we tackle such projects, there should be an objective in regard to every project. There should not only be a specific objective, but also a time scale in regard to each separate project, as well as a financial budget and of course eventual results. We cannot merely spend money and expensive manpower on research projects without also expecting eventual results. I am fully in agreement with what the hon member said. I thank him sincerely for his contribution.

†In regard to the hon member for Constantia’s speech I should just like to make one initial remark. The hon member said there had already been a few minor accidents at Koeberg. That is totally untrue. There has not yet been a single accident at the new Koeberg nuclear power station. The only incidents of which I am aware include the incident of ferrite intrusions discovered during the course of an inspection. That incident was subsequently investigated and, if I remember correctly, we were found to have erred on the overcautious side. I believe we were supported in that by the hon member for Edenvale who also maintained that we should rather err through being overcautious than to follow the example of the French who have for a long time been trying to push us into putting the nuclear power plant into operation as expeditiously as possible.

The second incident I can remember was that of the irresponsible action on the part of a few workers at the plant who failed to take the prescribed protective measures necessary to obviate exposure to radiation. They became exposed to a very slight degree of radiation but without suffering any ill effects at all. The radiation level to which those workers were exposed was even less than the level of radiation to which any air traveller between London and Johannesburg is normally exposed in an aircraft. These were the only incidents I know of, and they were of an extremely minor nature. There has not, however, been a single accident at Koeberg, as the hon member for Constantia alleged. The only incidents worth mentioning were the two to which I have just referred, and even those could at worst be described as irresponsible actions, but never as accidents.

Furthermore, Sir, the hon member for Constantia also said we should reconsider our whole nuclear programme. We do not have an established nuclear programme. We only have the Koeberg nuclear power station. At the moment we are also investigating the question of our future approach to the field of nuclear power. The hon member, however, tried to create the impression that we had unlimited coal resources in South Africa. That is of course not correct. At some stage in the future our coal resources are going to become depleted. We still need energy. We still need electricity. The only other available source from which electricity can be generated at the moment is nuclear power. Therefore we are at the moment investigating the possibilities in this regard. We want to establish where we can locate our next nuclear power station, and I have already made certain comments in regard to the possible location of such a power station. We also have to establish when it will be necessary for us to embark upon the erection of a second nuclear power station. That decision will only be taken within the next two to three years. No such decision has yet been taken, which means that, apart from Koeberg and the Atomic Energy Corporation, we have no further nuclear power programme at the moment. That we are eventually going to build more nuclear power stations, however, is a fact of life. That we will never get away from because we need electricity.

The hon member also made the statement that countries all over the world had terminated their nuclear programmes. That is totally untrue. They may be hesitant about designing new nuclear power stations, but according to the 1985 report, 180 nuclear power stations were in the process of being erected all over the world. These power stations would deliver 160 000 MW of power. There is no way whatsoever that the generation of electricity by means of nuclear energy will be stopped. It has started and it will continue. Countries like Japan and France have no hesitation whatsoever about what to do with their nuclear power programmes.

The hon member also drew an economic comparison based on my reply to a question he put earlier this session.

You must not take him seriously.

It is important that the general public know about this.

The hon member said Koeberg’s generating costs amounted to 5,2c per kWh, comparable with the average coal cost of 1,89c. He said that was the 1984 figure. There is no reason why the 1985 figure should not be 5,2c per kWh for Koeberg, for at present it is still operating with the same nuclear elements. The first nuclear elements are only now being replaced.

Is that figure, 5,2 cents per kWh, correct for 1985?

Yes, it will have been 5,2 cents per kWh for 1985. The cost was exactly the same as it was in 1984. The hon member can verify that, but I am sure that I am right. If I am not right, I shall apologise to the hon member, but I am 100% sure that I am right.

As far as coal is concerned, the cost is R1,89 for 1984 and R1,99 for 1985.

*We come now to the mistake the hon member made. The hon member compared Koeberg’s power costs with the costs of power generated by power stations in the Eastern Transvaal. For example let us consider West Bank, in Port Elizabeth. At the present moment the power generated by the coal power station in West Bank, Port Elizabeth, is 5,4c per kWh.

West Bank is in East London.

Yes, I beg your pardon, at the West Bank power station, in East London. The voters there pay that cost.

The cost of power generated by the Salt River power station is 4,84c per kWh. If we had to build a coal power station in the Cape today, at 1986 prices, the cost of the power generated would be approximately 6,59c per kWh.

So, if the hon member wants to venture into this field, he must make certain in the first place that his information is correct and in the second place, if his information is in fact correct, that it is correctly interpreted. Otherwise the hon member arrives at erroneous conclusions.

Unfortunately, Sir, my time is up. I should very much have liked to have replied to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central as well. I shall nevertheless reply to him in writing. Unfortunately, my time is up, and I therefore cannot reply to the other hon members. I undertake, in any case, to reply to them in writing.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister talked about the cost of building a new coal-fired power station in the Cape. What would the cost of a new nuclear power station be at the present time?

We are not considering building a new nuclear power station at the present time. We will know that in two years time once we have completed our investigations and studies. I can understand the hon member’s point. When, in two years’ time, we decide on whether or not to build a new nuclear power station we will compare the cost of building such power station—for instance in the Port Elizabeth area—with the cost of building a new coal-fired power station in the same area. We will definitely make that comparison and we will use our economic parameters to guide us in deciding.

Mr Chairman, I should now like to ask a different question, but one which I directed at the hon the Minister during the debate.

Order! The hon the Minister has already resumed his seat.

Yes, but he said he would take a question.

Mr Chairman, I shall reply to the hon member’s question.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he can give us an indication of the situation regarding the supply of fuel for Koeberg and the problems of keeping it safe in view of the international boycott of nuclear contact with South Africa?

Mr Chairman, the hon member raised the problem that some of the experts have left South Africa. The experts whom we did use in Koeberg were under contract. Their contracts have expired and they have left. We have experts in training and we have enough experts’ in this country to make sure that Koeberg will be run effectively and efficiently for the next 30 years—the full period of its economic fife. As far as the fuel is concerned our enrichment plant will go into operation towards the middle of next year. We will then be able to supply our own fuel. That is touching very, very briefly on the question about the viability of the Atomic Energy Corporation. I will give him a full reply in writing on that aspect.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, yesterday I addressed a few brief words to the hon member for Green Point and indicated that the so-called political publications which are detrimental to the security of the State, are in reality responsible for only a relatively small portion of the work of the Directorate and the Appeal Board.

To this I just want to add a few words. We are talking about the concept of “danger to the State” as it occurs in the Act. In this connection the Appeal Board does not merely apply an ideological criterion, but ascertains whether the material will contribute to the promotion of violence, terror, sabotage and such eventualities.

There must be a clear and imminent danger. Ordinary political criticism, even in its most acrimonious form, is not considered to be detrimental to the State.

In the case of pamphlets of course, which are rapidly distributed and more readily available, a far more stringent attitude is adopted, precisely because they can be distributed so easily. But here, too, violence must be promoted before they will be regarded as detrimental in terms of those specific sections of the Act.

I can just mention that even publications arguing for Defence Force exemption on the basis of political convictions are not found to be undesirable.

In the same connection I want to mention to the hon member for Green Point—I think the hon member for Johannesburg North also discussed this matter—that it definitely does not take longer than two to three weeks to get a decision on a political publication from the Publications Committee. In most cases it takes only one week. If an appeal were to be lodged, it would of course take longer, but I think a person such as the hon member for Green Point, who is well-acquainted with the way in which the Supreme Court functions, will know that there it will of course take far longer.

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Umlazi said. The hon PFP members perceived and supported the outstanding features of this Bill, and in reality they ought not to oppose this Bill. I think they were merely looking hard to find reasons to express the PFP’s displeasure. After all, it is becoming fashionable now to see who can lodge the loudest protest.

The hon member referred in an accomplished way to the manner in which our publications control is being applied. I want to thank him for doing so. He said inter alia that the panels should be more representative of the general public. I want to give him the assurance that we are looking into this, because it is essential.

The hon member for Koedoespoort made a good speech, but I think he went off the rails at the end, when he began to talk politics. I must say, though, that 99% of his speech testified to expertise on this subject. [Interjections.]

He referred to the area in which control was being applied. He also referred to my Second Reading speech, in which I spoke about the obligations of the State. I want to make it clear that the State does in fact have an obligation, in conjunction with the other partners to which the hon member referred. I want to emphasise that one should preferably perceive the role of the State, in regard to the guarding of mores and in the moral reconstruction to which the hon member referred, as being that the State with its legislation and the combating of undesirable factors creates a favourable climate in which the task of the other partners—the religious and cultural educators, the home, the church and all the other builders of morals—of building up morals and mores is facilitated and can be brought to fruition. I think that is also how the hon member views this matter.

This brings me to the question of norms and standards which are possibly being neglected. In particular it was the hon members for Rissik and Germiston district who referred to this. Hon members on this side of the House also wondered what the norms of the system of control were.

I want to remind hon members that another function for the control of publications and other forms of entertainment contained in this legislation does not exist. We must perceive very clearly that no decisions are taken according to specific preferences or non-preferences, or to serve some special interest. Publications control, as contained in the principal Act, and particularly on the level of the Appeal Board, is a judicial process. The decision-maker must therefore form an objective judgement, and not from the outset protect a specific interest.

It ought to be clear that control is not an arbitrary matter. One cannot simply take a decision because it suits one; one must act within specific boundaries and responsibilities. To be more precise about this, one must have an understanding of publications control.

At some stage or other our law courts have already set the pace, and the committees and Appeal Board go according to decisions that have been handed down by our courts. Consequently no arbitrary meaning is attached to terms such as “indecent”, “offensive”, “harmful”, “blasphemous” and “State security”. Clear indications have already been given in our highest courts of law as to what these concepts mean, and with publications control—this includes the Appeal Board as well as the committees—decisions must be based on judgements that have already been handed down, otherwise our judgements will continually be susceptible to review.

I also want to remind hon members that the Publications Act relies to a very large extent on the principle of community norms and standards. The bodies implementing control must obviously apply these norms and standards and take decisions accordingly. They cannot anticipate progress and act prescriptively, determining for the community what its norms should be. Equally, they may not lag behind and get out of step when the community has already moved clearly in a certain direction.

That is why the other partners in this whole process—the parents, the churches and the schools—have such an important part to play, and are in fact the senior partners.

It is also a fact that opinions within a specific community are not uniform. Sometimes they are widely divergent, as the hon member for Sasolburg indicated. Consequently one must constantly search for the standards of the average, reasonable person, because a control system as we have here certainly cannot be expected to serve either of these two extremes. Each one of us is probably aware that a world-wide superficialisation of values is discernible, and our South African community, too, has not escaped entirely unscathed.

I want to emphasise, however, that the State is thoroughly aware of its obligation in this connection, and takes cognisance of what was said during this debate. In fact I have taken cognisance of it very earnestly indeed.

I can also tell hon members that I keep on receiving visits from various interested parties, and I welcome this. I listen to the representations which are being made, and I shall continue to try in this way to establish the attitude of the public.

Mr Chairman, in view of the unanimous finding of the committee on this subject, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he does not consider it necessary at this stage to market this entire matter over a wide area for a change, and to open the eyes of the public to precisely what is happening and to what part they play in these matters, so that we can have more wide-spread involvement? The legislature itself has now gone as far as it is able to.

Mr Chairman, my reply to the question is that I definitely find that idea meritorious. I should like to find a method—in co-operation with all hon members of this House who are involved in the matter—by means of which we could proceed with this marketing campaign. I shall give attention to this matter.

Then, too, the hon member for Koedoespoort and other hon members—I think the hon member for Sasolburg as well—raised certain matters and expressed their concern at the fact that decisions were sometimes taken which were subsequently reversed. This happens, and I want to refer hon members to the altered circumstances which apply in most of these cases. These altered circumstances are not clearly spelt out when it is indicated that a matter previously prohibited is on a subsequent occasion found to be in order.

I just wish to refer to one case in regard to which I recently had to reply to an inquiry. This was the case of a film called The Meaning of Life. In 1983 this film, with certain cuts, was not found undesirable. Certain cuts were made and at that stage it was available for exhibition in all cinemas and also on video. Since 1983, however, concern in regard to the video industry increased considerably, and the Appeal Board proceeded to allow certain films only for cinema performances. This films were clearly not undesirable, but the far wider distribution and the possible abuse of such films by the video industry could entail that it was seen by viewers who might misunderstand it. Then the subsequent decision came, and the Appeal Board found that:

The second approval, in other words, was subject to completely new conditions with a view to a new audience.

I also want to refer to another case. This is a film entitled The Exorcist which I do not wish to see in any case. I understand that in 1974 it caused a sensation in Great Britain and Europe. In 1975, 1981 and 1983 approval was withheld for the exhibition of this film in South Africa. During the 1985 examination as well a publications committee found it undesirable and rejected it. The distributors appealed and the Appeal Board passed the film for distribution by five votes to two. I can just mention that there are clergymen serving on the Appeal Board as well. The film was passed, on quite a number of conditions. The following conditions were laid down:

The Appeal Board, for example, drew up a permanent list of these single cinemas at which it could in fact be exhibited, and made another 14 cuts, primarily owing to profanity and crudities in the dialogue.

I have been informed that technically the film is of an excellent quality, and all the critics are agreed that evil is depicted as evil, and that satan or evil is definitely not revered. Nor is there any question of satanism.

Although—according to the notice one sees—the exhibition of the film was subsequently allowed, it was allowed under circumstances which in the opinion of this control body would not be harmful.

As far as this subject is concerned, I want to emphasise that one must of course take cognisance of the fact that there are cases in which there was at first a prohibition, which was subsequently lifted. It is these cases which attract attention, but there are many more cases which are rejected on review or on appeal, and in which the prohibition is simply maintained.

There are many more cases of this kind. Unfortunately special attention is only given to those cases which are subsequently allowed. In this connection I want to tell the hon members for Germiston District, Rissik, Koedoespoort and other hon members in particular that they must remember that the Appeal Board, just like a Supreme Court, is a body which takes independent and final decisions. Although it may not seem to be the case to some people, the Appeal Board is constantly waging a successful struggle against pornography, blasphemy and subversive publications and films. The control is such that film makers and publication owners simply cannot break through the defences.

As an example it could be mentioned that the Appeal Board, with its approach that nakedness may not be depicted in publications which are sold in cafès, has already caused quite a number of companies purveying this material to go insolvent, or brought them to the brink of insolvency. Other such material is totally prohibited.

In contrast to this there is the idea to make certain publications with artistic or technical merit available to adults in certain bona fide bookshops. As the hon member for Koedoespoort indicated, we must recognise the need for research at the universities. This is a meritorious suggestion. When it comes to mass distribution, however, really strict and effective measures are applied. But this is a process which we must watch very carefully. I want to give hon members the assurance that I, as the responsible Minister, am keeping a watchful eye on the situation all the time. If it is necessary, I shall not hesitate to come to this House and propose that amendments be effected to the existing legislation.

I thank the hon member for Brentwood for his contribution. He emphasised once again that there is a partnership that must pay attention to these matters. I also thank him for praising the activities of the chairman of the directorate and the members of the standing committee, as well as the hon member who is the chairman of the standing committee. I have already dealt with his speech. The hon member for Brentwood also emphasised—as did the hon member for Umhlanga—that it was the powerful video industry itself which took the wonderful step of coming, of its own accord, to ask for control based on standards and norms of which all of us may be proud.

†I want to thank the hon member for Umhlanga for what he said. I wish to confirm what he said. Control is an enormous task. When one looks at the video industry one finds it is a vast industry, as the hon member pointed out.

The hon member for Umhlanga, as well as all the other hon members who serve on this committee, obviously benefited by the experience they gained during their work in the standing committee. I wish to thank all the members in the standing committee for their work.

*The hon member for Germiston District made a fine speech and mentioned a few important matters in respect of publications control. We accept that it is important to protect a woman’s honour, for she is really the centre of the family. Her image must not be tarnished. That is why the hon members will see in scores of decisions of the committees and of the Appeal Board that publications in which the privacy of the female body is shamelessly invaded have been prohibited. In this respect quite a number of publications, postcards and particularly calendars have fallen by the wayside in recent months. I have been informed by the director that four publications, 8 calendars and 10 postcards on this subject were prohibited during the past 8 weeks. Although pressure is being exerted on these control bodies, the committees and even the ministry, I give hon members the assurance that we are standing firm and that no concessions are being made in this respect.

†I have dealt with the hon member for Johannesburg North.

*I want to thank the hon member Mr Schoeman sincerely for his contribution. He is a valuable member of the standing committee, but the thanks I actually wish to convey to him is because he reacted so well. He knows that he should not, in the times in which we find ourselves at present, make speeches which are too long. He complied with that requirement very well indeed. I want to thank him.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Sasolburg referred to a number of matters I should like to deal with. [Interjections.]

He referred inter alia to the report in the Sunday Tribune, under the headline: “Ban this dirty Bible.” This headline was of course repugnant. For understandable reasons it is totally unacceptable and it gives offence to Christians, and I reject it totally. I do not wish to justify it in any way. I am now referring only to the pamphlet in question on which that report was based, and I just want to mention a few matters in this connection.

That headline was of course that of a journalist of the newspaper, and it was not commensurate with the report itself. The report itself was considered by a control body in terms of the Act. We must remember that this ill-intentioned headline came from a journalist. When one reads the contents of that report, however, one finds that it did not justify that headline at all. I myself never saw the report, but I have been informed that the pamphlet was examined and was not found to be undesirable. I do not want to mention the names of the experts involved, but some of the foremost people examined the report—people who also have a theological background.

That pamphlet which was examined—I am not referring to the newspaper now—focused on a debate between Christians and Muslims, and in such a debate one must simply accept that the dialogue between the parties sometimes becomes aggressive. The hon member for Sasolburg knows that an argument sometimes becomes aggressive. He is a master of that when he wishes to drive home his point. [Interjections.]

I can also just add that the director contacted the Muslim people concerned personally and had a serious discussion with them. Consequently we did not simply leave the matter at that. Discussion took place, and arising out of what the director told me, I deduce that it was a fruitful discussion. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to section 47(4) of the Act, and proposed that it be deleted. I just want to remind hon members of what it deals with. The section reads:

According to our Act the envisaged object is not taken into consideration when material is submitted for consideration. Anyone who is acquainted with the law, and this includes the hon member for Sasolburg, will realise that the deletion of this section will change the entire character of the Publications Act. The commission of inquiry which was responsible for the motivation of this Act, had in mind that there should not be long hearings at which evidence would be led. At present the Act is of an administrative low nature. The hon member for Sasolburg will know precisely what I mean by that, and with all due respect, Mr Chairman, so will you.

If we delete this section, the entire character of the Act is going to change. We shall then pass over into the arena of criminal law, because if the prosecutor is able to advance arguments in respect of the object and purpose outside the evidence of the publication itself, the defendant must also have the right to defend himself by leading evidence and cross-examining witnesses. As I said, we are then entering the area of criminal law.

The Appeal Board is then no longer the administrative tribunal which it is at present. Section 47(4) has the important function that it confines the censor to the material in front of him, and consequently does not allow him to assume arbitrary powers. As the hon member for Sasolburg will know, this is a limited function. So far it has worked well. It did away with the accusations which were formerly levelled at the Appeal Board.

The hon member also referred specifically to the Freedom Charter. I want to say briefly that this manifesto, as document—only the document—has already come to the attention of the publications control bodies on various occasions as part of other, larger publications. Except for recently, it was never submitted on its own. The manifesto was always part of another larger framework in which the authors of the document explained what they saw in it. Parts thereof were found undesirable—that is to say in earlier years—but others not. Time and again it depended on the way in which and the context in which the manifesto was used.

A year or two ago the Transvaal Indian Congress issued a publication in which the Freedom Charter was included. In it the congress declared that it accepted the guidelines of the manifesto for its official programme of action. This publication—this is the manifesto and the statement of the Transvaal Indian Congress—was prohibited in terms of the Publications Act. A prohibition was also placed on possession of the publication. The Appeal Board lifted the prohibition on possession, but issued the warning that the Freedom Charter should not be misused because the Internal Security Act could be applied, something which the hon member forgot to mention. In terms of the Publications Act the use of the manifesto will be revaluated within a specific context and in specific situations.

The newspapers and various other people thought, as a result of this, that free rein would be given to the manifesto. That is not entirely true, as I have explained. It depends on the context in which it is used. I have the manifesto in front of me here, and I will welcome it if any hon member wants to come and look at it.

The hon member also asked how this decision of the Appeal Board could be reconciled with the fact that the hon the Minister of Law and Order had just placed a prohibition on meetings commemorating the Freedom Charter. I think that was how the hon member put it. The reply here is very simple. If the hon member for Sasolburg had studied the prohibition issued by the hon the Minister of Law and Order, he would have found the following: The hon the Minister of Law and Order prohibits meetings arranged to commemorate the “acceptance of the Freedom Charter on 26 June 1955 by the so-called Congress of the People at Kliptown. I have the proclamation with me here, if the hon member is interested in taking a look at it. The prohibition issued by the hon the Minister of Law and Order relates quite correctly to the commemoration of an occasion, a specific occasion, from which the ANC and other regularly try to make political capital, as the hon member said. Consequently this does not refer solely to the manifesto as a single document.

I have replied to the hon member for Rissik time and again in the course of my speech. I want to thank him, too, for his contribution, and also for his knowledge which he shares on the standing committee; it is sincerely appreciated. The best part of his speech was that in which he put forward a theological-philosophical argument. I always enjoy those parts of his speech best. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Witbank informed me that he would not be here, but in his absence I want to thank him for his contribution. He also gave a fine elucidation of the process of the publication’s control. I also thank him in particular for having spoken a little longer than was planned, and therefore for having helped me.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In terms of section 14 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, read with item 109 of Annexure 1 of that Act, the election of members of the Houses of Parliament is an own affair.

The amendments proposed in the Bill now before this House will, inter alia, make it possible that the conduct of elections be administered by the respective administrations of the three Houses of Parliament. In this regard I refer hon members to paragraphs (a), (c), (g) and (i) of clause 1, as well as clauses 4 and 88.

Due to the termination of the present provincial system by 30 June 1986, the Bill also makes provision for the deletion of all references in the Electoral Act to provincial councils and members of these councils.

*During the course of negotiations between the Department of Home Affairs and the respective Administrations of Own Affairs, certain amendments were proposed which are now embodied in the Bill.

These proposals are inter alia as follows:

†The standing committee dealt with the Bill in a very expeditious manner for which I am grateful, and made the following remarks in its report which was tabled in all three Houses of Parliament on 16 April 1986:

I have taken cognisance of this recommendation and will make an announcement in this regard soon.

Mr Speaker, the Official Opposition intends to oppose this Bill. It is a Bill which will effect a wide variety of amendments to the Electoral Act. The most important consolidating feature of this Bill is the fact that it will incorporate the concept of own affairs into our Electoral Act. Elections will, therefore, be managed and administered on this basis for the first time. Our problem with this is, of course, one of principle. We believe that there is no sense whatsoever in regarding elections as own affairs, whether from the point of view of principle or from that of practical administration. We also believe that it is unwise to meddle unnecessarily with the way in which elections have been dealt with in the past. In my opinion the administration of elections, seen as an aspect of the administration of our country, has always been conducted with a particularly high degree of integrity; owing to the fact that the Electoral Act, probably more than any other piece of legislation, was the product of protracted negotiations among the divergent political groupings and parties involved in Parliament and the provincial councils. The accumulated experience of members of Parliament and the provincial councils in general elections and by-elections equipped them to make constant contributions and representations by virtue of which the Electoral Act could be amended and adapted to new circumstances and rendered more effective and functional.

I therefore submit that our electoral system enjoys a reputation for integrity among the general public and also unquestionably among those who participate in it. That is why I believe we should hesitate to meddle with it. I see the very idea of introducing a kind of own affairs administration as a threat, as it may detract from the integrity presently attributed to the system. We are aware that this is especially important because mere participation in elections, particularly by the Coloured and Indian communities in South Africa, is a contentious issue. For that reason alone one should be that much more careful in dealing with a change of this fundamentally ideological nature.

I also believe that treating elections as an own affair up to a certain level cannot in any way contribute to the effective management of elections from an administrative point of view. In effect we now have a situation in which certain aspects of elections and related matters will be regarded as general affairs, and will therefore be under the jurisdiction of this hon Minister and his department, while certain other aspects will be regarded as own affairs and fall under the control of the respective Ministers’ Councils.

In the course of the discussions on the standing committee another matter of interest came to light—one which is not all that apparent in the Bill itself. The degree to which elections will become an own affair will largely amount to a kind of nominal rather than actual control. For example, it was made clear to us that the Department of Home Affairs would have central control while certain functions would be administered by the respective Ministers’ Councils, but that as far as the management and control of elections and electoral matters at local and regional level were concerned, the persons at present acting in the capacity of regional representatives of the Department of Home Affairs would to a large extent also act as agents of the Ministers’ Councils which would exercise a certain degree of control over elections. What we have here, therefore, is a management structure which begins at the top with the central level of government and is divided lower down among the three separate Ministers’ Councils, but which is ultimately recombined at regional level to the extent to which the regional representatives of the Department of Home Affairs have control over these matters. In my opinion this makes no administrative sense whatsoever. We therefore believe that there is absolutely no reason why we should support this Bill, particularly because its most important aspect is that it transforms elections—to a certain level, at any rate—into own affairs.

There is perhaps just one other aspect of the Bill which I should like to mention. As I said, a great number of amendments are being effected, but for the present I should merely like to refer to our increasing tendency to keep certain aspects of the management of our elections secret as a result of certain outside pressures. I am referring here particularly to pressure in respect of the elections of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates imposed by extra-parliamentary organisations. When an extra-parliamentary organisation decides not to have anything to do with an election and to discourage the community within which it operates from participating, and is consequently guilty of certain actions which might be regarded as an indeed often amount to intimidation, certain matters which were previously regarded as public are concealed under a blanket of secrecy. I could mention one or two examples of this.

It has always been customary for the lists of applicants for postal and special votes to be available for public scrutiny. Amendments in this Bill will have the effect of making these lists accessible only to the candidates or available only to their representatives. I can tell hon members that I have often in my political career had to deal with those who were inherently distrustful of virtually every candidate and every political party. People who approach elections in this way often want to ascertain the position themselves. The point I want to make is that, even if they are in a very small minority, those people still have the right, like any ordinary voter, to have access to such information.

It has also always been customary for the names of those appointed as election agents or sub-agents acting for candidates to be made known and posted outside the offices of the electoral officer. This practice has also fallen prey to our tendency to be a little more secretive. The reasons are quite understandable. The intention is to try to protect election agents and sub-agents as well as those who apply for postal and special votes.

The question which now has to be asked is whether it makes sense for the legislature to react in this way to attempts to intimidate voters and participants in elections. I do not think it does, because by protecting those people we are already losing the first round against those trying to meddle in elections by means of intimidation. We believe we have the right to expect these things to take place in public. I believe that the intimidation which takes place in connection with elections should be treated as a police matter. It must be regarded as crime and dealt with accordingly. For the sake of integrity we should not react to intimidation by hiding under a blanket of secrecy those things which used to be open to public inspection.

A few aspects of this nature are contained in this Bill, and there have been suggestions in the past that we should perhaps go further along this road. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my opposition to that as well, because I believe that if we go too far along this road, we shall eventually find ourselves in situations in which our elections will increasingly have to be held in secret. Then it would already seem as though we were running away from those influencing elections or participation in elections in an improper manner.

I should like to touch on a final aspect. During the course of the standing committee’s deliberations on this Bill, reference was made to the possibility that a select committee should be appointed to subject our entire election system to a general re-examination. I am merely mentioning the matter at this point, and I hope the hon the Minister will confirm that he is contemplating appointing such a committee again so that the election system can be viewed in a broader perspective.

I should like to mention a few points which I believe should feature prominently on the agenda of such an election committee. It seems to me there is still a degree of uncertainty regarding the registration of political parties. Certain matters have indeed been clarified, but the hon the Minister will remember the uncertainty which existed at the time of the elections for the other two Houses in 1984 as to whether a political party which was registered as such, had the right to put up candidates for more than one of the Houses of Parliament. As a result of the opinions expressed on the standing committee by law advisers, there is now greater clarity about this, but there are still certain aspects to which I think the committee should give attention again.

I think a second aspect to which we are still giving attention is what is required of candidates who stand as independents in an election. A third very important aspect is the franchise position of the Indians who are going to settle in the Free State in increasing numbers. Hon members will know that we recently passed legislation making it legal for Indians to settle in the Free State. Hon members will also know that, according to the present provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, an Indian who settles in the Free State—I think figures show that there are already more than 70—is in fact disfranchised. An Indian living in the Free State therefore has no franchise at all. If he lives in the Transkei he has the franchise and Indians residing in the Ciskei or Bophuthatswana can be granted the franchise in terms of a regulation in the Electoral Act, and there are specific regulations which allow him to be registered in a constituency situated geographically close to that independent homeland. When such a person lives in the Free State, however, he has no franchise if one reads the present Constitution in conjunction with the Population Registration Act.

Why?

It is simply because one is registered at one’s ordinary place of residence. I am not entirely sure of the correct term, but the English expression is “ordinary place of residence”. There is a special provision in the Electoral Act and the Population Registration Act concerning the meaning of that term in the case of a South African citizen residing permanently in an independent homeland, for example. Such a provision does not, however, exist in respect of a South African Indian living in the Free State. I think this is a matter which will of course require the urgent attention of such a committee.

Can they have a constituency for 15 people?

The hon member for Bezuidenhout is asking me whether it is possible to create a constituency for 15 people. I think there are 77. It is of course not possible, but there is no reason why these people should not be treated, as an interim measure, in the same way as South African citizens who live in homelands. One never knows, of course, because the hon members of the CP may well discover in two or three years’ time, when delimitation again takes place, that there are enough Indians in the Free State to enable one to create a few constituencies there. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that in the meantime this requires the attention of the committee.

A further aspect which I feel requires attention is the tremendous administrative flexibility which exists at present in respect of the announcement and holding of by-elections. I consider it an unhealthy state of affairs that the determination of when a by-election may be held is left completely to the discretion of the executive authority.

We now have a situation in which a constituency in this country can remain unrepresented virtually indefinitely if it suits the Government. I believe this is an unhealthy state of affairs and, although one accepts that there must be a degree of flexibility, that the present situation is unsatisfactory. One should not tolerate a situation in which any constituency in this country is without representation for a period—to use an arbitrary period—of longer than six months. We ought to do something about this. I am now thinking specifically of Claremont and Pinelands, but there are many other constituencies which have suffered the same fate.

By way of comparison I may just point out that the procedure for municipal elections is much clearer. There are definite set limits in the form of dates within which the municipal by-elections have to be held. I understand that this is also the case in the Transvaal Municipal Ordinance. I feel that attention should be given to this matter.

I now come to the question of voting facilities for South African citizens who are overseas, whether touring, studying or on business. Arrangements are in any event made to afford South African diplomatic staff in foreign countries an opportunity of voting, and I see no reason why it would be so much more difficult, administratively, to offer the same facilities to those who happen to be overseas. I concede that one cannot go too far with this situation. One cannot make it all that easily available to everyone, but the creation of voting facilities in our consulates and embassies is really not too much to ask.

A final aspect which, in my opinion, merits the attention of a select committee in future is the question of the demarcation of electoral divisions. We have an extensive system for the delimitation of electoral divisions and, to a certain extent, it works satisfactorily although we quarrel about it a lot. The demarcation of districts, however, is dealt with completely according to discretion and frequently leads to grave problems. I believe that if we had a sensible system for the demarcation of electoral divisions, it would be a great contribution towards making the conducting of elections more meaningful.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry the hon member for Green Point and his party are opposing this measure, because the strange thing is that the hon members of the other two Houses have supported this measure insofar as it makes provision for specific aspects of elections as own affairs. [Interjections.] The hon member for Green Point dragged the issue of Indians in the Free State, who do not have a franchise, into this debate. In the standing committee we felt that this was a matter which could be left over for a later discussion by the committee which it is expected will examine the whole Electoral Act.

I want to remind the hon member for Green Point of a story which the late Mr Vorster once told us. He told us about a parrot which was sitting in its cage when a swarm of bees attacked it. The parrot realised it was in trouble and it said to the bees: “Please gentlemen, one at a time!” Perhaps we should also say to the hon member for Green Point “one at a time”. [Interjections.]

The hon member spoke about the Free State, and it reminded me of another anecdote Two students decided they had to travel through the Free State very quickly, and the only way to do so would be to disregard all traffic signs. They decided that if they were stopped, both of them would simultaneously speak very rapid English to the traffic officer. This they then did. When they were stopped at the third or fourth traffic light, they both simultaneously spoke English to the traffic officer. The traffic officer stepped back a bit and said: “Wag net so ‘n bietjie. Not twice together but once upon a time!” [Interjections.] I at least just want to tell the hon member for Green Point that in the standing committee he is a man who plays his part and always brings any hitches to our attention in a very stimulating manner. We appreciate his contributions. I also thank all the other members of the standing committee.

The problem of the hon member for Green Point has concerning the measure is of course that the PFP completely rejects the basic principle of own affairs. Any person who was opposed to the Constitution, could have had many stories to tell over many years, but I think in the way we are progressing, and also hinging on these measures, in the activities of the standing committees with the handling of Bills the realisation dawns on most members, even those who were completely opposed to the tricameral Parliament, that we are dealing here with a system which is of incredible value in a complex country such as South Africa. [Interjections.]

I find it strange that the hon member for Barberton is now laughing. The fact is that every Bill before a standing committee eventually becomes an Act which has been drawn up by all the people represented on the standing committee. Whether in principle one likes that or not, if that Bill has eventually passed through the standing committee and, if the standing committees are functioning properly, the three communities of South Africa which are represented in the tricameral Parliament at the moment, could in my humble opinion state very definitely and correctly that they participated in having the particular legislation drawn up. There are other aspects, however, which we cannot deny.

Yes, then two of the Houses refer them back to the committee!

That is correct. It is certainly no longer possible in South Africa to ever again have a Bill passed by Parliament which contains a slight touch of discrimination against other people, because in this system people who can speak for themselves are involved.

The hon members of the CP always say we are just giving in the whole time! [Interjections.] Let us be honest! The other population groups can rightfully say they were not at all acknowledged when most of the Acts which we are now amending, were passed.

The Blacks also …

Now if that is giving in, we on this side of the House state that this system and the standing committees do justice to more people than ever before in the history of South Africa.

What about the Blacks? [Interjections.]

Just allow me to tell the hon member for Jeppe: The day we in South Africa arrive at a democratic political parliamentary structure in which what I have now said today about the Coloureds and the Indians, can also be said of Blacks, we shall have the power-sharing and the consensus democracy which will be necessary if this country wants to overcome its problems. [Interjections.] I do not want to be sidetracked, but I must tell those hon members that those who think that they can hold on to all the power in the new South Africa and one-sidedly and unilaterally make laws for themselves and for other people too, are living in a complete dream world. [Interjections.]

We should also put you on the CP’s payroll.

I must honestly say that I myself also wondered how the tricameral system was going to work, but I can now confidently say—I think all the members in our standing committee share that experience—that we are dealing with a system, the essence of which is consensus government. [Interjections.] If we in this country can overcome our problems in this country with a political structure in which no single group can make any decision without other people agreeing with it, then we would have reached a point where we have really started sharing power in the interests of our own people.

I really am tempted to say many other things which do not apply now.

Albert, tell us a little bit about yesterday!

Yes, what about the security laws?

I really should say something about this matter. The hon members of the CP always like to make an international drama of a political school concert. [Interjections.] They are entitled to do so, but we regard these minor little clashes simply as a normal part of democracy. [Interjections.]

Growing pains!

We all learn something in the process, and we all see where the hitches and problems fie, but once we have overcame our difficulties in a few months time, together as legislators in this country we shall all be laughing about the hitches, having reached a point where we understand each other. [Interjections.] I am definitely not going to allow myself to be tempted, because it is very dangerous … [Interjections.]

Carry on Albert! [Interjections.]

I am a man who allows myself to be easily tempted, but I am not going to allow it anymore now. [Interjections.]

We looked at this measure against the back-drop of item 10 of Schedule 1 as well sections 31 and 98 of the principal Act. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister very much for the fact that he intends to refer these questions in connection with elections to a joint select committee of Parliament. We are under the impression that our colleagues in the other Houses are very enthusiastic about working together on election procedures. I want to extend my thanks for the way in which it is being handled.

Before I say we are grateful for this measure and the reference of this matter to the joint select committee, let me on behalf of the standing committee—if it is wrong to say so, it is a mistake I shall simply have to make—I want to thank the hon the Minister publicly here in the House for the open-minded way in which he as a fine Minister handled the nuances of interaction between people in the standing committee in a very complicated South Africa. We are grateful that he understood the standpoints and the emotions of the various members of the standing committee. It is enjoyable to state openly in the standing committee that we have spoken with the hon the Minister and this is how he feels, how do the hon members of the standing committee feel. We are grateful that the members of the standing committee frankly and openly accepted it as part of the process so that we could straightforwardly say that we had spoken to him. At no stage did the hon the Minister treat the hon members of this standing committee unfairly in their evaluated judgement of matters.

It is only in this way, and in this way alone that the system of standing committees can really work in this system of ours. There has to be an interaction between people as well as an exchange of ideas when they meet or meet again. We are very grateful for this, and gladly support this measure.

Mr Chairman, having listened to the hon member for Innesdale over the past year or so, I wonder how it could be possible that he and I could have been in the same party for so many years.

We wonder ourselves. [Interjections.]

I wonder …

He voted for Jaap at a stage.

Yes. I listened to the hon member for Innesdal and thought that all these years—actually, if I remember correctly, he was one of the farright members in the NP right at the start—he was to the right of me, and that is difficult. [Interjections.] He was to the right of me.

Far-right.

I addressed a few friendly words to him during the previous debate, and I stand by that, because it came from the bottom of my heart, but when it comes to politics, this hon member confuses me and I am not easily confused.

Yes, but he is so confused. [Interjections.]

I do not know whether he is coming or going or whether he is going or coming. There are about 91 clauses in this Bill, and this Bill deals with the rules of the game. This is the game in which we have to participate, and it really has been the custom all these years that we have tried to accommodate all political parties, as far as we could, so that we could at least play according to the same rules of the game. The hon the Minister of Trade and Industry is sitting in front of me here, and I remember how nicely he could score a try. That is one thing I always remember about him. His rugby was better than his politics.

The best try at Loftus!

Let me say that the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry would agree that one cannot really play a good game of rugby if everyone does not play by the same rules. And the referee should of course not only be on one team’s side. He should be on both teams’ side.

Cowboys don’t cry!

I shall leave the hon member at that for now. I shall return to him in a while, but now I must first say that every time he speaks, I can already hear how, after the next election when the results for Innesdal are announced, they will say that the former member for Innesdal came second. [Interjections.] About that I have no doubt. [Interjections.] Every time the hon member speaks, we gain a few votes.

Amongst other things, the hon member said that if we want to overcome our difficulties, no decision should be taken on which everyone does not agree. I wonder if the hon member does not want to return to university for a while. He was after all a student of mine, or was he not?

Daan, I only attended one of your classes! Fortunately!

Only one? Now I know what the hon member’s problem is. [Interjections.]

The hon member then tells the hon member for Green Point in the same breath that he rejects the whole question of own affairs. I should like the hon member, some day somewhere in the world—we shall give him a long time in which to do so—to take his time about explaining to us what he really believes in, why he believes in it, and what the outcome of his view really is. The hon member refers to the activities of the standing committee. Naturally there are certain standing committees in which the members calmly agree on certain legislation when the legislation is not contentious. In many respects the Government capitulates so rapidly that they very probably do reach consensus with the other Houses. If the hon member talks about the security legislation here this afternoon, however, and refers to a political school concert in connection with that, I want to point out to the hon member that the security of our country and the problems the other Houses have caused about it, is not a political school concert. I shall once again return to the hon member’s speech just now.

I want to tell the hon member for Green Point that I agree with him that it is always a hassle for people who have to travel overseas. We live in a world where many businessmen and also some of their staff have to travel overseas when an election is being held. Those people should be given the opportunity to vote. I think it is a good thing to think about that. One would of course have to be careful at least that certain people who have South African passports, and are therefore still eligible to vote here, do not live overseas for years on end and merely return to vote here every time when there is an election and thereby perhaps exerting too great an influence on events here. This is merely a warning light which one should perhaps take note of.

I can understand why the hon member for Green Point is voting against this Bill. The CP is also going to vote against this Bill. The Government often asks how it could be possible that the PFP states there are too many own affairs, or that apartheid is being built into the legislation, while we on the other side say there is no separation and no apartheid. Neither are correct about this. Both are wrong about it. That is why the NP is supposedly correct. This is precisely the Government’s dilemma, and that is why we are not going to vote for this set of rules. The Government is forcing us into a match which is becoming impossible to play. No referee in the world, regardless of how bright or clever he may be, or how learned he may be, could play the political game of South Africa on the sports field on which the Government members in South Africa want to play it. That is impossible. I shall return to this later on.

Let me tell the hon the Minister here in front of me that the NP has made a hash of apartheid. Now it would appear to me, according to the arguments of the PFP, that they are also making a hash of integration. First they make a hash of apartheid, and now they are also making a hash of integration. [Interjections.] I want to point out that right from the start we did not believe the claim that so many own affairs were built into our structure. Neither do we believe it now. That is why I want to return to the question of elections, which we are discussing here this afternoon.

The hon member for Gezina arrived in the House with great fanfare a while ago. A while ago that hon member was so right wing, one could hardly get to him. He was almost on my level. Now however, the hon member for Gezina attacks the Conservative Party because we did not want to give Black policemen coffee during the by-election in Springs. [Interjections.]

Yes, that was scandalous! [Interjections.]

No, do not be so quick to say it was scandalous. We went into that situation. I want to tell the hon member for Gezina that if they say my speech is scandalous, their behaviour, as far as that is concerned, is four times as scandalous. But I want to return to the subject under discussion.

We put various questions to the hon the Minister of Law and Order concerning the presence of the police at our elections. Apparently there were non-White policemen at every election.

That is not true.

The hon member says that is not true. The problem is that we are struggling to obtain a quorum here. We are struggling to obtain a quorum here because some hon members are so seldom here. [Interjections.] Is it the hon member Dr Vilonel who said that? Oh, no, the hon member Dr Vilonel is at least here fairly regularly, but he does not always listen. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister that this year there have been non-Whites present in virtually all the constituencies. The hon member for Innesdal, however, now accuses the hon member for Green Point by saying that he does not accept the whole question of own affairs. But what other issue in our overall constitutional set-up today is more of an own affair—seeing as we have separate voters’ lists and for the time being also separate councils—than that we should have members of our own people as police officers when elections take place. [Interjections.] Let me say that this makes us very sceptical and critical of the Government’s behaviour.

Resign and we shall show you how we hold an own affairs election! [Interjections.]

Would you also resign?

Let me tell the hon the Minister I shall talk to my colleagues, but I am at least worth 50 of those hon members. If 50 of them resign, I shall also resign. [Interjections.] I am worth 50 of them. I shall resign, then I shall chose 50 hon members from that side of the House who will also have to resign. We shall hold an election. [Interjections.]

I want to state that the Government should not tell us that own affairs are involved in this. In some places there were six policemen. There were three non-Whites and three Whites. We then asked the hon the Minister why those non-White policemen were there. Why is a police officer present when one votes? We do after all have to maintain order there. A bit of a scuffle could break out. The hon the Minister states that it is an own affair, however, but he wanted to send a Black in to deal with the situation between two Whites on an election day. No, let me state that we cannot support this Bill, because it is an inseparable part of the Government’s so-called extension of democracy. [Interjections.]

There is something else I want to say. The chairman of the standing committee, on behalf of the hon the Minister, gave us the assurance that we will look at the entire Electoral Act in the future, and that we will be able to come up with a new Electoral Act. My problem is that the Government is broadening the base of democracy. We now have here the rules of the game of broadening the base of democracy, but there are so many points in between which create problems for us. The hon members now want to extend democracy to such an extent, however, that it includes the Blacks of South Africa. This they apparently want to do by the end of the year. I therefore say, rather leave this Electoral Act then. First come to this House, or go to the people, so that we can vote on what should really be the final goal in the constitutional structure in South Africa—together with all the checks and balances. [Interjections.]

We shall give the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning three or four months’ leave to sit calmly in this committee and work out some plan with all his elected advisers. [Interjections.] Then he can present that constitutional plan to us, so that we can introduce a new Electoral Act.

We cannot even give an indication of whether we would support this Bill, because it would give the impression that we support the Government in the process of broadening the democratic base, which really only means integration, and the abdication of the Whites.

I also want to say that reference is also made here to political parties, and I think the time has come for us to take another look whether we are not changing democracy in the normal sense of the word, by placing too much emphasis on the registration of the political parties.

I know that this had its origin in the old days when I still sat on that side of the House. The requirements of the 300 signatures and the registration of the parties was a way of hitting at the HNP on the one hand, and on the other there were the cases of Mr “Boorgat” Botha, in the region of Randburg, who merely made himself available as a candidate each time. The feeling was: Why should one waste so much time and money in a particular constituency if there is only someone with a whole lot of strange ideas, who only gets 30 or 60 votes? I was not happy about it at the time. I want to repeat that in my view we should allow someone simply to go ahead and to propose a candidate regardless of whether he has any specific party affiliation or not.

There is another matter on which the hon the Minister must give us a pronouncement. When the State President appoints certain people as members of this Parliament, is it the hon the Minister’s opinion that they should necessarily belong to the State President’s political party? According to the provisions for the registration of political parties, someone does in fact have to be a member of a particular party to be able to come here.

As far as the reference made to identity documents in the Bill is concerned, I want to say that we expect that the present identity document will very probably change. When we consider what the rules of our game are going to be, we must first know exactly what the Government is going to come up with. We should know what the identity document is going to look like and what influence it will have on elections in the existing form and on opinion polls during referendums.

I next want to refer to clause 51(c). According to this clause someone who has made his little cross on the ballot-paper, and realises afterwards that he was a little confused, will be given the opportunity to put the matter right. Strangely enough it does happen that people who have often voted, suddenly do not know how to make a cross in the polling booth. I think it is a good thing that provision is now made for it in this way.

I remember the first time when I participated in an election, the hon member for Bryanston, who is a Van Rensburg, was my opponent. I am Van der Merwe and he is Van Rensburg and when we got to the polling station, one of the English ladies came up to him and said: “Congratulations, Mr Van der Merwe.” [Interjections.] She was completely confused. I received two more votes than I should really have received. I should just like to know from the hon the Minister how many times a voter, in terms of his interpretation of the Act, may make a mistake.

Once.

Oh, just once. Some people, like the hon member for Innesdal, however, make two or three mistakes.

On one day!

If one does so on one day, one can at least be quite certain of what one’s mistake was! [Interjections.]

Clause 76 deals with the whole question of corruption. I think section 130 of the Principal Act, which is again receiving attention now, is a very important section. We are living in times in which corruption, deceit and intimidation could be very prominent. That is why in my opinion it is correct that the legislator pays specific attention to excluding the possibility of corruption or other negative elements in the event of an election.

As far as clause 77 is concerned, in my view it is also important that we pay attention to malicious damage to property. The supporters of all parties are guilty of this. The people who vote for the CP, as far as damage to property and so on are concened,are sometimes apparently just as guilty of it…

They only damage the NP’s cause!

But it is something which one finds amongst the supporters of every party. I think it is very important that we broadcast the message here from Parliament that it is not right and that it is neither a good nor an honourable thing to damage the posters of opponents.

The hon member for Jeppe has just said that you people do this!

You are speaking nonsense. I said we damage the NP’s case! We want to destroy your whole government!

Order!

Members of all political parties are guilty of this. [Interjections.] In my opinion it is neither a good nor a sensible thing to do. That is why we should in a spirit of unanimity tell the country at large that we should not be guilty of such things.

Do not preach to us! Preach to your workers! [Interjections.]

A final remark which I want to make, deals with clause 87, which very clearly refers to the question of observing the Sabbath. In regard to polling day falling on a Sabbath, provision is made in terms of this measure for it not to fall on a Sunday. We are very grateful for this, and we support the Government very strongly in writing it into our Statute Book again. To us the Sabbath still remains a special day. We do not want to hold our main polling days on Sundays, like those “civilised” people from our countries of origin. I trust that in South Africa we should make sure, for as long as we are able, that these particular principles of ours are maintained, upheld and preserved in the Statute Book.

I just want to conclude by also expressing my appreciation to the officials of the Department of Home Affairs. I always have the feeling, when I look at these officials that they are equipped with an additional personality trait to be able to work specifically with these things. They are officials who work in a department in which dams are not always being built or war be waged and so on. They are really the quiet, stalwart kind of workers in that department. [Interjections.]

I think the Minister is fortunate to have such officials in control of matters in the department. The hon the Minister of National Education—here he is sitting in front of me now—was also Minister of Home Affairs in his time. [Interjections.]

Daan, you do have a good point … [Interjections.]

I have particular appreciation for the officials of the Department of Home Affairs in particular—not only as far as this legislation is concerned, but also because of the fact that they often have to steer a course between the political parties, problems and disputes to enable our polling day to run peacefully and have the applicable rules applied without a hitch.

Tell them they should of course not choose their own Ministers.

The hon member for Koedoespoort says officials should not elect their own Ministers, but I do not want to offend them in this way now.

They would then have gone for you, Daan!

In the days when I was still the two Ministers’ chairman, things did not go too badly with them. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I like what the hon member for Rissik has just said about the officials and I agree with what he says. I know it is not customary to mention officials by name, but I think there is one official who must sit and smile quietly to himself, because he knows that over the past five or six years there have been five things common to the Electoral Act. It has himself, that is Mr Attie Tredoux; it has the hon member for Rissik, the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member for Green Point and it has myself. We seem to be the five common elements that come together each time there is any discussion on the Electoral Act. [Interjections.]

It is also interesting to see the shifts that have taken place over the past five years. I find myself in this place halfway between two very dear friends, namely the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Innesdal. Politically I am today closer to the hon member for Innesdal than I am to the hon member for Rissik, but that does not detract from the fact that we have walked a long road together on this particular Act.

However, I do want to say one thing to the hon member for Rissik. I see he is in a bit of a hurry, but I want to say this to him. I do not say this with any rancour, but it is something that I would like him just to consider. We all know elections are an own affair; we can have an election and we know what happens at a polling station, but I do not feel we should raise the issue of Black policemen at polling stations at all.

One thing sticks in my craw and that is the fact that if a member of my family were to be assaulted in the street or anywhere by a member of my group—the White group—which makes it an own affair assault, I would never ask what colour policeman attended to or helped that member of my family. [Interjections.] That would not concern me one little bit. If a member of the South African Police Force was available to assist a member of my family, a friend of mine or anybody I know in need, I would never question the colour of his skin; I would thank everything and anything there is for the fact that he was able to be of assistance. I should therefore like to say to the hon member for Rissik that I think he should just consider that. [Interjections.]

It is common cause that the entire Electoral Act must become the subject of investigation by a select committee with a view to the complete revision thereof. It is because of that fact that I do not intend wasting the time of the House this afternoon, because it is my understanding that the hon the Minister has agreed to this in principle and I think we are going to hear him tell us that this afternoon. The entire debate in the standing committee hinged around the acceptability or otherwise of the own affairs concept in respect of elections. At this stage we have absolutely no difficulty with that at all. The argument surfaced with the first definition, viz administration in relation to each of the Houses. It was an argument that raged backwards and forwards and, quite frankly, it is meaningless in the sense that we are today a tricameral Parliament, and in order to have that identity we have to work within the concept of own affairs as far as elections are concerned. Therefore we can debate this issue ad nauseam, but the fact will remain that in terms of the present Constitution we must provide for the conducting of elections in each of the Houses by each of the Houses.

The Bill also makes reference to the provincial councils, and it effects certain changes that are inevitable, as it does in respect of titles in order to allow each administration to provide its own officials to act during a period of an election; and then too there are certain amendments in respect of special and postal votes, and we accept those amendments. I do give notice, however, that when the Electoral Act in its entirety does come up for review we are going to urge a complete rethink in respect of aspects pertaining to this type of vote. I believe we can all agree that there is no shadow of a doubt that this is an area in which abuse of the existing system has become the most popular game in town. It is quite amusing after elections to see the piety with which each of our political parties claims innocence of any malpractice whatsoever. I do not suggest for one moment that we in this party stand apart from this. We are all in this together. I mean, there is not one of us in this House who, after an election, knows anything about any little bit of skulduggery that could possibly have been embarked upon during the course of the election. We are then, all of us, such innocent babes in the wood, it just is not true. I am, however, delighted to see the hon the Minister smile quietly. I think he is a man of much experience in this regard as well. I do not mean that in a derogatory fashion at all. [Interjections.]

Speak for yourself!

Sir, I say this in the lightest possible sense.

[Inaudible.]

I see, yes. Of course not! Look at that innocence, Sir. [Interjections.] Look at the smiling face of that hon Minister! [Interjections.]

Sir, in general, this Bill before us represents an improvement of the existing Act, and we will support it on the clear understanding that we consider this an interim measure pending the complete revision of all aspects of the Electoral Act. I know we have started on this, and it is my sincere hope that we will finish this work during the course of this year.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Umhlanga was saying. I also think that it is absolutely essential that the whole Electoral Act of South Africa should be revised. We are living in a revolutionary world as far as technological development is concerned, and I think our Electoral Act and our system of elections should be adapted to it without any delay.

Mr Chairman, I think I will be pardoned if I say that I do not take the remark made by the hon member for Rissik about Black policemen so lightly that I can excuse the hon member’s smiling about it. That politics should be made of the presence of Black policemen at White polling stations, as the hon member for Rissik is now doing, is I think absolutely scandalous.

But who started it, André? [Interjections.]

I think every Black policemen in this country should receive a medal instead of people making remarks of this kind about them. [Interjections.]

Daan hates Black policemen!

He hates all policemen.

If we are to be consistent now, there are certain things which we do have to admit. We as well as hon members on the opposite side believe in separate residential areas. In my constituency a White and Black policeman patrol the same street side by side, and provide a service to the people there. They act together to protect people there. I now ask the hon member for Rissik—if he is also logical about own affairs and own residential areas now—if a Black policeman may not serve in a White residential area.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member for Turffontein? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, the hon member has had his turn to speak. In any case, he does not reply to my questions. [Interjections.] I think the hon member should really realise that we can definitely not afford this kind of politics in South Africa.

We should build up good relations in South Africa. There are after all hundreds of thousand of Blacks in South Africa, in the Police Force too, who are friendly and moderate people and who are seeking solutions with us in South Africa. I think the hon members owe an apology to every Black policeman in South Africa, specifically for that remark and those questions they put to the hon the Minister of Law and Order the other day. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said he was looking forward to the next election and he specifically referred to the hon member for Innesdal’s constituency. I wonder what is going to happen in Rissik.

He will not stand there. [Interjections.]

I am now going to repeat what I have said in this House before. The afternoon when we quoted the figures pertaining to by-elections we have held during the past few years, we just jotted them down here. Let us just repeat them to place them on record. There is a saying in English about elections: “Let us look at the score board”. Let us for once and for all settle this issue of whether or not the Government has a mandate and whether or not the voters still stand by the NP. Let us just take a look at the list which I have here.

You have done that already.

I want to do it once again, because the CP comes up with the same old argument time and again. Since 1981 the NP have won the by-elections in False Bay, Parys, Stellenbosch and Soutpansberg I. [Interjections.] Then the CP took the two seats of Waterberg en Soutpansberg II. [Interjections.] After that the NP won the by-elections in Waterkloof and Germiston District. [Interjections.] In Pinetown the PFP won a seat. [Interjections.] I blame the hon members of the NRP because they should really have won that seat. [Interjections.] Then the NP won the election in Rosettenville, but the CP won in Potgietersrus. After that, Parow, George, Newton Park, Port Natal, Springs, Harrismith, Bethlehem and Vryburg came up. The NP won all those seats. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg of course won the seat there. Let us just take another look at this. Twenty by-elections for the House of Assembly and the provincial councils have been held since 1981.

What about Primrose?

Yes, the NP won in Primrose as well. Twenty-one by-elections were therefore held, and the NP won 16 of those seats. The CP won three, the PFP one, and the HNP won one as well. We should also concede that these elections were held over a wide cross-section of South Africa. These elections were held from the Cape to Soutpansberg and from Port Natal to Vryburg. The NP has had the support of the majority of the voters in South Africa all along.

Let us examine the city councils of South Africa. In Johannesburg we held a municipal by-election in Ward 47. 45% of those voters were in the Maraisburg constituency, 40% of the voters in that of Langlaagte—in Parliament it is a CP-seat—and 15% of the voters come from my own constituency. This is a ward which the NP won from another group in the city council.

Order! Perhaps the hon member should come back to the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I still want to add another two examples or so, but this will suffice.

There is a specific aspect which I should like, as far as the hon the Minister is concerned …

Mr Chairman, as you have now called the hon member to a halt, may I ask him what is going to happen on Tuesday in another ward where the hon members were too afraid to put up a candidate? [Interjections.]

I shall not reply to that, but I think we shall win convincingly. [Interjections.]

I should just like to raise one aspect in connection with voters’ list with the hon the Minister. I think there has been a great improvement in the composition of voters’ rolls, amongst other things from the population register. I do not know how to set about this, because from a statutory point of view it is probably not possible, but the system does not yet function completely satisfactorily yet. One finds that city councils help draw up voters’ rolls by keeping the population register up to date. When someone goes to pay his water and electricity account, they give him a card and either the husband or the wife are registered, but the rest of the family are not registered. When a husband or wife who has changed his or her address puts in an application for a fire-arm licence, the Police will tell him/her to have the address changed on the identity document. Either the husband or the wife’s address is then changed, but not the rest of the family’s. The same applies to drivers’ licences. I really do want to ask the hon the Minister if we cannot find a way, short of a statutory measure, to assist us in this case.

The private sector too can be involved, particularly with regard to blocks of flats where, as hon members know, people regularly move in and out. The owners of flats could establish whether all the people who move into the flats have at least changed the address in their identity document, because that is the way we also pick this up in the case of the voters’ roll. The same applies to banking institutions where people have accounts. I think we can really give more concerted attention to this matter.

The second point which I just want to deal with briefly, is the argument put forward by the hon member for Green Point. The PFP objects to the fact that in terms of the Bill, elections must be administered as own affairs by the own affairs administrations in future. We can understand that the PFP possibly has another approach, because their philosophy is completely different to the NP’s standpoint. Why do they not just accept the existing Constitution as far as this matter is concerned, and try to improve the Act rather than propagating their own philosophy which in any case is not going to be put into effect in South Africa? We should all accept the fact that we have three separate houses with separate voters’ lists which have their own unique problems.

I want to present one example to the hon member for consideration. Perhaps the PFP will then change their standpoint. When it comes to the delimitation of constituencies, many of my colleagues and I regard it as essential that the boundaries of municipal wards in a big city such as Johannesburg should be the same as that of the electoral districts in parliamentary elections. This matter is after all an own affair, and local authorities maintain their autonomy, do they not. If we could lump the two together with regard to each of the three groups in South Africa, we could facilitate the situation for each other a great deal. Instead of wards which exceed the boundaries of polling districts, we will instead have constituencies with wards and polling districts which correspond to each other.

I see the hon member for Yeoville is here, and I am really tempted by this! Do hon members know what happened in Yeoville? We fought a municipal election there and lost by a mere 39 votes. [Interjections.]

There is no second prize.

I just want to make a final remark about the abolition of the provincial councils. I myself was not a member of a provincial council, but it is with a measure of nostalgia that one notes the removal of every reference to the provincial councils in the Bill. I think we all want to convey our respect and thanks to the hon members of the provincial councils right throughout South Africa, who served, as our colleagues served the interest of our voters.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein mentioned a number of by-elections that have been fought over the past few years, and the last one he mentioned was the one fought in the Johannesburg municipality a few weeks ago. What he did not mention was that his party actually came second in that contest. [Interjections.] The important thing was that the NP thrust everybody from their provincial leader down to almost every organiser on their payroll into that by-election. Almost every NP public representative and people from not only the central, northern and eastern suburbs of Johannesburg but also as far as Krugersdorp were involved.

And SABC-TV! [Interjections.]

They spent a great deal of time on that election campaign and even brought SABC-TV in to assist them. They were given a great deal of coverage in the public media. They threw money, resources and human beings into the struggle and even brought the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs there to address a public meeting. They did everything they possibly could. [Interjections.]

Which clause of the Bill are you discussing now?

We were laid back and took it all in our stride, but we won! [Interjections.]

And Western Province tomorrow! [Interjections.]

One vote is enough to win. What ultimately counts is that the councillor who won that election represents the ward in the city council chamber of Johannesburg and is a PFP man! [Interjections.]

One thing disappointed me particularly when the hon member for Turffontein reeled off the list of by-elections that had been held in the past couple of years. He mentioned three that had been held in November 1982. He spoke about Parys, Stellenbosch and Walvis Bay but he did not mention Johannesburg North, and that by-election was held on the same day. I would have thought he could have mentioned Johannesburg North and mentioned that the PFP had won that by-election. There might have been a “hoor, hoor!” from that side of the House. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? I should like to ask the hon member with which clause he is dealing now. [Interjections.]

Clause 1, Sir! The same clause the hon member for Turffontein discussed. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal, who is the chairman of the standing committee, was quite correct when he spoke about the interaction in the standing committee, not only in respect of this Bill but also in respect of the many other Bills that have come before this committee and no doubt before other committees as well. There is no doubt that in the case of this committee, it is due in a large measure to the understanding and the approach of the chairman of the standing committee. I have no hesitation in saying that he handles the committee extremely well and I personally am extremely appreciative of his efforts in ensuring that all points of view are heard and adequately discussed. He must not be upset when people refer to him as “our Albert”, because if that name has now become accepted, then I think he should regard it as a compliment rather than an insult.

Hasn’t he done well, our Albert! [Interjections.]

It really is a mark of affection rather than anything else, and so if it becomes a regular thing to refer to him as “our Albert”, he should accept it as such. [Interjections.]

I hope the hon member for Rissik is wrong, because when he addressed the House shortly after the hon member for Innesdal he said he hoped that the result of the next election would be that the present hon member for Innesdal would lose his seat.

That is completely wrong!

I hope he is wrong, because we have a high regard for the present hon member for Innesdal and I have no doubt that when the NP splits—which it will as sure as night follows day—the hon member for Innesdal is someone with whom we shall be able to negotiate.

Then he really will be our Albert!

Yes, then he will be our Albert. [Interjections.] We have great affection and a high regard for the hon member for Innesdal and for the way he acts as chairman of that standing committee.

My colleague, the hon member for Green Point, has mentioned our objections to the Bill. We have two fundamental objections. The first is that it entrenches the concept of own affairs and the second is the degree of secrecy that is now being introduced into the holding of elections. Our standpoint on own affairs is well known. We believe it to be nonsensical, and we have often said so in the House. In fact, we introduced a private member’s motion earlier this year supporting that point of view. We fought the referendum in 1983 on the basis of our opposition to the whole concept of own affairs, and therefore we are opposed to it. We regard it as the current model of apartheid. It is a way to breathe life into the system. It is the new definition for segregation that is in use these days and we are therefore opposed to that concept. It really will not mean a great deal to make it an own affairs administration. It really does mean that the same officials employed by the Department of Home Affairs will still administer elections. The regional representatives with whom one normally deals in general elections and by-elections will still be the people who will run the show. It does mean, however, that some sort of life will be given to the concept of own affairs. It really is quite meaningless and we are therefore opposed to it.

[Inaudible.]

That is absolutely correct, Sir. The hon the Minister suggests that the officials might not be the same. Does that mean, then, that we are going to employ additional officials? Are we going to take on extra staff? The Government has a voracious appetite for bureaucracy and for employing extra people. [Interjections.] I can understand that this may mean that they will want to employ extra people. If that is so, then we are opposed to it all the more. I look forward to the hon the Minister’s reply at the end of the debate because we think that to make the administration of elections an own affair, is really quite unacceptable.

Our other objection is the concept of secrecy. This is a very fundamental concept because, like justice, democracy must be seen to be done. There are a number of provisions in the Bill before us that provide for the names of officials who have been appointed to posts or positions in elections to be kept secret. In the past it has always been tradition for the names of candidates and their agents and what are known as the “twaalf apostels” always to be posted up on the board outside the magistrate’s court or the Department of Home Affair’s office and thereby made public to people in general. In Johannesburg in particular it is a common practice. The notice board outside the magistrate’s court in Fox Street is a place where those notices usually appear. The members of the public can go along there and see who has been appointed to act in all those capacities.

I admit that not many people normally make use of the information that is available to them, but the point is it is there. If anybody actually wants to know who has been appointed to those positions then they can go along to the notice board, be it in Fox Street or outside any other magistrate’s court or regional office of the department, and find out who has been appointed to all those positions. It is therefore a great pity that it is intended to take those provisions away from the original Act.

The other aspects of secrecy that concern us are the matters that relate to the application for postal and special votes. Fortunately, part of the Bill was changed in the standing committee, which provided for the secrecy surrounding the application for postal votes to be removed to a certain degree. As yet it has not been rectified to our total satisfaction, but there is an improvement on what was originally proposed in the Bill that was presented to the committee. There is an improvement with regard to postal votes, but the position regarding special votes still gives us cause for a great deal of concern.

We are aware that there is to be a joint select committee appointed to look into the Electoral Act. This is a very important development because it does mean that in fact many aspects of the Act can be reviewed. Evidence will obviously be called for from outside people and no doubt all the political parties in the country will look at the existing Act very carefully and submit memoranda to the joint select committee. I am aware that my own party will present a great deal of evidence to that joint select committee and people are already looking at it to see how it can be improved, because this will be an opportunity to bring about a number of fundamental changes in the Electoral Act. We are appreciative of that and pleased that the recommendation of the standing committee is going to be accepted by the hon the Minister. I believe he announced in one of the other Houses a few days ago that the joint select committee would be appointed. We are very pleased with the fact that the joint select committee will be appointed.

However, what concerns us is that the two principles I have referred to—that of own affairs and of secrecy—will become enshrined in the Act and that they will become principles that will not be reviewed. As I have mentioned, we have fundamental doubts about those two questions. Our concern is that if these are now accepted in this Bill, they will become matters that will not be reviewed. People will be reluctant to review them during the course of the deliberations of the joint select committee. We shall certainly do our best to encourage members of that joint select committee that they should look very carefully at those matters and come to an understanding as to the reasons why they should not be there and, hopefully, we will be able to change them. However, that is a matter for the joint select committee.