Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is closely linked with the two Bills that appear next on the Order Paper, viz. the Scientific Research Council Amendment Bill and the Coal Bill.

As is evident from the long title, it is the aim of this Bill to repeal the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Act, 1963, (Act No. 35 of 1963) and by so doing abolish the Fuel Research Institute and transfer its functions, assets and liabilities to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

The Coal Bill contains inter alia several corresponding provisions of the FRI Act which are being repealed, and the Scientific Research Council Amendment Bill in turn contains inter alia an extension of the objects of the CSIR so that the activities of the FRI are defined in the CSIR Act.

The managerial functions of the FRI were in fact transferred to the CSIR as long ago as 1 January 1980 by the then Minister of Mines and of Environmental Planning in terms of section 5A(1) of the FRI Act. Therefore this legislation is a direct result of the Government’s policy of rationalization in order to promote more effective national administration.

After in-depth investigations into the future organizational home of the institute, in which all bodies with an interest in the activities of the institute were consulted, the conclusion was reached that it was in the best interests of continued effective research and service to the coal industry if the institute as a whole were to be incorporated in the CSIR. The CSIR was further instructed to institute an investigation, in consultation with other interested bodies, into the possible transfer of specific functional modules of the activities of the institute that could be carried out more effectively by other bodies, and if necessary the necessary steps in this regard will be taken without delay.

The Bill regulates the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the institute and the transfer of the present staff to the establishment of the CSIR. To ensure uniformity of conditions of service as far as possible, the Bill provides that the Council of the CSIR can apply the conditions of service of the CSIR to employees of the institute, on the understanding that such conditions of service will not be less favourable for any employee. If any employee affected thereby feels aggrieved by such adaptation of his conditions of service, he is afforded the right in terms of section 3(4) to appeal against such a decision.

†The repeal of the Fuel Research and Coal Act, 1963, further has the effect that the Fuel Research Board, which acted as the statutory control board of the institute since 1930, will be abolished. As the maintenance of sound relations with the coal industry is of the utmost importance, the CSIR will, in terms of section 9 of the Scientific Research Council Act, 1962, establish a subsidiary committee on which members of the coal industry will be appointed whereby they will, as such, have a continued say in research programmes. With the formal incorporation of the institute into the CSIR, it is the intention to rationalize the institute’s activities by focusing on coal, instead of on fuel in general, and by having research work done on a national basis in close collaboration with the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and other interested parties, whether in the public or private sectors. This entails that the old institute will in future be a full and equal institute under the CSIR Act and will henceforth be known as the National Institute for Coal Research.

I think hon. members will agree that this legislation will as much possible contribute to the continuation of the outstanding work which the Fuel Research Institute has done for South Africa since its establishment, and I trust that with the rationalization of its activities under the wing of the CSIR, and with the support of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the institute will keep up its outstanding professional performance to the advantage of our country.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill reminds me very much of the old saying “the King is dead; long live the King”, because we have a situation here in which the Fuel Research Institute, in terms of this Bill, will be dead but will continue to live on because its staff, its assets and its functions are to be taken over by the CSIR. I hope the CSIR will continue to do the job as efficiently and as well as the old Fuel Research Institute have done.

I believe it must be fitting at this stage to have a brief look at the Fuel Research Institute and to what it has meant for South Africa over many years. I think it is interesting to note that this institute has in fact existed since 1930. It is therefore some 53 years old, and over that period of time it has not only achieved a national reputation but it has achieved an international reputation. This is indeed one of the problems which we face perhaps with the legislation now in front of us because international coal purchasers—people who receive our exports of coal—are in fact accustomed to getting export certificates and coal ratings from the Fuel Research Institute. That is not going to happen in future. They will no longer be getting export certificates from the Fuel Research Institute. They will, be getting those certificates from the CSIR.

While we all in this country know the CSIR, does it necessarily follow that countries who receive our coal exports are going to be aware of the fine reputation and the quality of the work that has been done by the CSIR over a long period of time? This, I believe, is one of the first things I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify. In terms of this Bill the Fuel Research Institute disappears. I believe that in some shape or form it should continue to live on in the certificates that we issue to our coal exporting companies so that overseas countries can somehow be aware that a certificate for export will in future have the same, or perhaps even a better, value than a certificate of export has had in the past. I want to commend this to the hon. the Minister’s attention and I look forward to receiving a reply from him on the subject in due course.

The Fuel Research Institute has a board that consists of a number of people, and this is my second area of concern. The board consists of the Secretary for Industries, Commerce and Tourism, one person recommended by companies producing coal in Transvaal and the Orange Free State, one person recommended by companies producing coal in the Cape and Natal, one person who is appointed because of his special knowledge and one person from the CSIR. I happen to believe that the input of private sector companies in a board of this nature is extremely important and I wonder what the hon. the Minister’s intention is in relation to these people. We have heard about the assets and we have heard about the staff of the Fuel Research Institute, but does this apply equally to the board of the Fuel Research Institute? If it does not, then I think we may have a problem on our hands. In my view it is absolutely essential that the private sector should continue to have some sort of input in this particular situation. If the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism cannot reply to me in this regard then perhaps the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs will reply to me in due course on this particular subject.

We have heard from the hon. the Minister that one of the reasons for dispensing with the Fuel Research Institute and transferring its functions to the CSIR are, in the words of the hon. the Minister himself, “in the interests of rationalization”. We are well aware in this House that the whole rationalization process was instituted by the hon. the Prime Minister a few years ago. I am afraid that it is not good enough just to talk about rationalization simply for the sake of rationalization. If it is to be worthwhile, it must bring specific benefits with it. Normally when one considers rationalizing something, the first thing one looks at is whether it is going to be more cost efficient than the old situation. I do not think we have had any sort of indication from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech as to whether in fact this change of operation is going to be more cost efficient and whether in fact the rationalization is going to lead ultimately to a reduction in staff or in expenses. I should like to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some information on this particular subject.

The Government has had plenty of time to think about this particular piece of legislation that is before the House today. In the report of the Fuel Research Institute for 1980 we read the following—

It is now three years later and, of course, these steps are now being taken. In the next report of the same Institute we read the following—

I should like the hon. the Minister to spell this out for us a little further. What were the practical difficulties and how have they been overcome? The report states further—

However, we have had no feedback from the hon. the Minister as to what the Commission for Administration advised and what in fact their recommendations were. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give us a little more information in regard to this particular matter.

When an institution is done away with, obviously the first thing one has to think about is the staff because the staff are the infants in any such situation. There were 137 White and 130 Black employees on 31 December 1981. Unfortunately we have not yet had the report of the Fuel Research Institute for the 1982 year, but one would assume that something of the order of 267 to 270 people have been employed there until recently. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has made a specific point of mentioning the staff when he indicated that they have made suitable arrangements for the staff. I certainly have had no feed back from anybody that the situation regarding the staff does not appear to be most satisfactory. This is certainly due to them; they have worked hard and well in the interest of fuel research in general and of coal in particular over very many years.

It remains therefore for me only to say that while one looks forward to hearing certain replies from the hon. the Minister, we in the PFP will support the progress of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central supports the legislation on behalf of the official Opposition. This is not a controversial measure and for that reason we are grateful that they are in fact supporting it.

The hon. member praised the Fuel Research Institute for its extremely good work and one shares his sentiments. The hon. member went on to raise a few matters on which he is not clear with the hon. the Minister. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will set his mind completely at rest in this regard. The hon. member also made a few detours and tried to score political points off someone. For example, he asked whether the CSIR would become just as wellknown as the Fuel Research Institute. I have no doubt about that. I feel that anyone who does not know about the results or good work of the CSIR or how well-known the CSIR is throughout the world, should pay the CSIR a visit.

The hon. member questioned the effectiveness of this step. We on this side of the House have absolutely no doubt that the CSIR will meet the demands made of it in this regard as well. The functions of the Fuel Research Institute have been entrusted to the CSIR from as long ago as 1 January 1980, and this measure merely serves to confirm administrative steps that have already been taken. Since that date the institute has been under the control of the CSIR, while the Fuel Research Institute as such only acted in an advisory capacity. In terms of the measure now before this House the institute is in actual fact becoming a full-fledged national institute of the CSIR.

As the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, the reason for this is the result of rationalization. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also had his doubts about this; he wanted to know whether this was being done merely for the sake of rationalization. I believe that there was an in-depth investigation into this matter before it was decided in 1980 to transfer these functions to the CSIR.

I consider this measure to be a further good example of the Government’s earnest when it speaks of effective administration of the country. This step was taken after a thorough investigation. I believe that the good work will be continued by the CSIR.

You will pardon me if I refer just for a moment to the matter of the transfer of staff. There is always a certain degree of constraint and uncertainty when any institution changes its top structure. Accordingly it is gratifying that clause 3 of the Bill spells out very clearly how the staff of the institute will be dealt with as regards their assimilation into the CSIR. The transfer only takes place with the retention of conditions of employment. All benefits such as pensions, leave and seniority are retained unaltered. Changes in conditions of employment can only be made if such changes are not less favourable for the staff concerned. Particularly where people feel aggrieved after they have been assimilated into the CSIR, they will have the right to appeal to the hon. the Minister and they can put their case in this way.

It is also quite clear from the legislation that remuneration can only be reduced with the officials’ consent, or when disciplinary steps may be taken against them. This measure has therefore been considered with great circumspection in order to transfer these people from that institute to the CSIR with the least possible inconvenience and uncertainty. At the same time we want to express the hope that in future as a full-fledged national research institute of the CSIR the Fuel Research Institute will continue the good work which it started. Accordingly, on behalf of this side of the House, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the way in which this entire change-over was handled. It gives us pleasure to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to tell the hon. the Minister that we can definitely see the necessity for the change-over. We believe it is essential, when bodies function parallel to one another for a period, to see whether money cannot be saved by amalgamating the different institutions doing the same work, particularly if one takes into consideration that in cities like London, Bonn and Los Angeles there are also institutions we can make use of.

In general, all three pieces of legislation concern research into coal. In the ’fifties coal was, of course, the Cinderella of the energy world, but now all of a sudden it has advanced rapidly and we are entering a new period in which coal will certainly play a very important role, and not only as fuel. The byproducts of coal can be of tremendous value to South Africa.

It is not necessary today to conduct a detailed discussion on the responsibility of one council to another. I do not think that is our task. I think this will be sorted out departmentally. We believe the workers are being well protected, particularly in view of the appeal provision which has been included. However, I ask myself one question, a question I myself have practically replied to. I ask myself why it took so long for this change-over to take place. With these few words I just want to say that we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is aimed at abolishing the functions of the Fuel Research Institute and transferring its functions, assets and control to the CSIR. The Bill is a direct result of the Government’s policy of rationalization. There was consultation with the relevant institutions before the decision was taken, and the relevant institutions agreed that this change-over or link-up could take place. The staff are being transferred with the same conditions of employment. The hon. member for Turffontein dealt with this aspect.

I think it is necessary at this stage in the development of the Fuel Research Institute to express a few words of appreciation for the work this institute has done over the years. The original Act, the Act of 1936, provided for the establishment of the Fuel Research Institute. In 1963 a Select Committee investigated the entire matter, and as a result the principal Act of 1963 was drafted. The objects of the institute were, mainly, to study and investigate fuel resources in the Republic and to undertake scientific and technical research into all matters connected with fuel in general, as well as the by-products of fuel. One of its main objects was to test, analyse and grade coal and coal products, and it also had to carry out tasks assigned to it by the Minister. From time to time it also had to publish details of the grades of coal obtainable in the Republic of South Africa. The institute was also controlled by a board which supervised matters and decided on policy, and also reported annually to Parliament. The institute was financed mainly from money voted by this Parliament, as well as from levies on coal and from power alcohol that was manufactured.

The institute’s main task was to undertake surveys of South Africa’s coal reserves and mines and to evaluate them. This was important with a view to the export of coal and its classification. The institute undertook a great deal of work for the S.A. Railways, for Escom and for Sasol. Over the years the institute has had close contact with institutions abroad and it has been possible to exchange knowledge in the international sphere.

Coal plays a very important role in South Africa, particularly with regard to the generating of energy. Unlike many other countries, we are not blessed with a great deal of water that can be used to generate energy. The greatest percentage of our energy is still generated from coal. For that reason the institute has been of great value to Escom over the years. In the manufacture of petrol from coal this institute also played a major role in co-operation with Sasol. The institute did a great deal in connection with research to supply coke to the metallurgical industry.

Hon. members will recall that a few years ago the local authorities compelled people to start using certain types of stoves. This was as a result of research undertaken by this institute into the burning of smoke-emitting coal. They explained how coal could be burnt without producing smoke, and this is still in force in our large towns today. The institute also undertook important research work into the explosiveness of gases and coal dust in mines. In this way the institute ensured that our coal-mines, in particular, became safer. We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister himself said in his Second Reading speech that the reason for this trilogy of Bills, and particular for the Abolition of the Fuel Research Institute Bill, is that it fits in with the Government’s policy of rationalization. When one looks at the whole procedure of rationalization, one has to ask oneself two basic questions, viz. the one which was asked by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the one which was referred to by other hon. members including the hon. member for Turffontein. The first question is whether the whole procedure is going to be more cost-effective and better administrated, and the second is whether better results will flow from the rationalization process.

When we in the NRP looked at these Bills, we asked ourselves exactly those questions. We came up with the answer that, when one speaks of cost-effectiveness in research, one is in fact looking at the problem from a totally different angle to the classical interpretation of what is cost-effective in research. One thinks, for instance—and it is a parallel well worth quoting here—of the cost-effectiveness of the activities of an organization such as Soekor which is spending millions of rand in the search for crude oil. If one were to study the cost-effectiveness of that body in terms of its results, I think most accountants would tell one that they are a liability financially rather than an asset and that their cost-effectiveness is not terribly good. That is, of course, because they have not really produced anything of commercial value and which one could sell on the open market.

However, when it comes to the search for fuel, better fuel resources and a better utilization, one has to approach the question of cost-effectiveness from a slightly different angle. The day Soekor hits the “black-pot” and we strike crude oil off our coast in payable quantities, the whole strategic and economic face and potential for South Africa will change. Only then will one be able to assess the cost-effectiveness of the production of fuel. The search for fuel, such as crude oil by Soekor, and the research work of an organization such as the Fuel Research Institute, are absolutely essential expenditure irrespective of whether ultimately a marketable, viable product is produced or not. We cannot afford not to search for new fuel resources and we cannot afford not to research the better utilization of those resources. Therefore we in these benches are extremely proud of the work that has been done to date by the Fuel Research Institute.

The hon. member for Alberton touched very lightly on the areas of interest of the Fuel Research Institute. If one thinks of the multi-billion rand industry which Sasol 1, 2 and 3 are, then one gets some idea of the contribution which they have made towards progress in South Africa. We are all aware of the fact that the formulas—the Kellogg formula and others—on which Sasol is based, originate from other countries in the world but that their economic viability and utilization in South Africa was entirely due to South African entrepreneurialship and scientific skill.

We note with interest today that the United States of America is interested in obtaining the result of our research on fuel from coal. We trust that in future it will be possible for us to share that knowledge with a country such as the United States of America. It is also well-known that the United State of America has coal reserves which, if used for deriving petrol and diesel from it, have a potential fuel output in the form of liquid fuel—diesel and petrol—which in the state of Illinois alone is greater than the total resource of crude oil in the Middle East. That goes to show the potential which there is as a spin-off from research such as was done for Sasol.

The possibilities are endless in terms of the application of fuel research, especially from coal. Therefore, at this stage we will confine our remarks purely to the effects of the transfer of the fuel function from the Institute in its own right to becoming a subsidiary of the CSIR.

We are very pleased to note in particular that the benefits for employees will be maintained and that there is a procedure for appeal. This is always a matter of great concern to the people themselves when rationalization takes place. The same applies in the case of private companies. When there is a take-over bid of one company by another one must always ask oneself the question whether staff are going to be satisfied with the procedure and benefits adopted. We believe the provision which is made in this Bill for the transfer and continuation of benefits will serve the staff adequately. In particular, the appeal procedure is a safeguard that something will not go wrong.

As far as the administration is concerned and the fact that the fuel research function is now going to be housed with the CSIR, I can only say that I believe this is going to be an improvement for the total function of fuel research as far as coal is concerned. They will now have access to a broader spectrum of resources within the CSIR which may not have been possible for them to achieve previously because of a fear of duplication. One knows for instance of the research work being done in the science of physics and chemistry in general within the CSIR. We know it was not possible in the past for the Fuel Research Institute to duplicate that sort of research effort. They will now be able to have a multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach to their research because they will be able to draw on the broad spectrum of facilities provided by the CSIR. We believe this is a positive move and therefore this party will be giving this Bill its full support.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members of the various parties for their support of this legislation. Various hon. speakers referred briefly to one or two aspects which I should like to come back to. The most important aspect raised was the question concerning the transfer of the Fuel Research Institute to the CSIR on the grounds of the Government’s programme of rationalization. It is clear that because of this rationalization, research in respect of coal and the scientific work which is going to be done at the old FRI, now the National Institute for Coal Research of the CSIR, will benefit considerably. The CSIR has a scientific infrastructure which will now be available to this institute as well. The hon. member for Durban North referred to the fact that today, scientific research has increasingly taken on the character of a multi-disciplinary function. The CSIR has at its disposal skills in many related fields which can be used to the benefit of research in the field of coal. For the information of hon. members, it is perhaps interesting to point out that the expertise of the CSIR in related fields which could be to the benefit of coal researchers, include inter alia the following: Expertise in respect of automation; studies in the field of combustion and liquid fuel; gasification; rock mechanics; geophysical readings; coal technology; corrosion and a large variety of related fields. Rationalization also means that a facility such as the large computer in the possession of the CSIR will also now be available to the institute. Therefore we should not only think in terms of cost benefits, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central remarked, since in terms of scientific research, cost benefits cannot be calculated in the way in which they are calculated in the economy. The question here is rather how scientific staff can be utilized effectively, and if there is a shortage and a scarcity in South Africa, it is surely in the field of competent scientific staff. I believe that the fact that the institute is now becoming part of a larger scientific family, is also going to lead to better functioning in the field of science and better utilization of the scientific infrastructure.

Various speakers have also referred to the long period of time which has elapsed since the announcement that the Fuel Research Institute was now going to function as an institute of the CSIR, and they asked for reasons for the delay. The fact is that an in-depth study of the functioning of various modules of the institute was carried out and the question was put as to whether these modules could be established equally effectively at the CSIR or whether some of the modules could not be placed elsewhere. In order to reach finality on the matter, very detailed talks were held with all the parties concerned, in the private sector as well, and it was even decided that in transfering the institute to the CSIR, as is being done here, investigations into the question as to whether all the existing modules are functionally at home in the CSIR will be continued. Other factors leading to the delay were the consultations across a broad spectrum with the parties concerned, as well as the question as to whether levies imposed by the institute at present, should be imposed by the CSIR in future. The CSIR is not equipped to impose this kind of levy, and deciding which institution would be best equipped to do so, also caused delays. I think we have dispensed with these problems to the satisfaction of all the parties. There is broad agreement that the legislation before this House at present, in terms of which the functions of the Fuel Research Institute are to be performed under the umbrella of the CSIR in future, has in general met with approval. Various functions will be administered by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Provision for this, as well as for the necessary levies, is made in the Coal Act.

There are two or three other matters to which hon. members referred. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central questioned how well-known the CSIR was. I think the hon. member for Turffontein has already pointed out to the hon. member that there are few scientific organizations in South Africa that are as widely known in this country as the CSIR. Not only is the CSIR represented in many international scientific bodies through its staff, but it also has offices in different countries in the world through which liaison with scientific organizations takes place in the scientific field in those countries. Therefore I believe that the issuing of certificates by the Scientific Research Institute will by no means be questioned. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the Fuel Research Institute, now the National Institute for Coal Research, is continuing to function as in the past, but only within a broad scientific framework, and that in future the board of the Fuel Research Institute, in the form of a subsidiary committee, will continue to ensure the involvement of the private sector in the activities of the institute. The functioning of institutes under the CSIR makes provision for the appointment of subsidiary committees in order to afford experts in various fields the opportunity to make inputs in close co-operation with scientists.

Various speakers pointed out the importance of looking after the staff. I thank them for this. In fact, I believe that there is general satisfaction amongst the staff concerning the new dispensation, and that this legislation is undoubtedly going to mean that fuel I research, which has been carried out by the Fuel Research Institute in an exceptional way over the years, will be stimulated further by this new dispensation, and that it will reach new heights under the auspices of the CSIR. I thank those hon. members who have expressed their appreciation for the work which the institute has done up to now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As I indicated during the Second Reading of the Abolition of the Fuel Research Institute Bill, it is necessary to amend the Scientific Research Council Act, 1962, so as to extend its objects to provide for the execution of the functions previously performed by the Fuel Research Institute.

Apart from this, this Bill also makes provision for the vesting in the CSIR of the authority to obtain loan funds with which to achieve its objects.

As far as the extension of the objects of the CSIR is concerned, it is now being envisaged that research be undertaken on a broader front. Therefore the objects now being given to the CSIR are not simply a repetition of what was contained in the old FRI Act relating to the institute. Special emphasis is now being laid on research into all matters relating to coal, fuels of any nature and the utilization thereof. In contrast, the objects of the FRI stressed research only into fuel or fuel by-products. Therefore the aim will be to emphasize the importance of coal in the RSA as a primary source of energy, as a raw material for the chemical industry, as reducing agent and as an export mineral.

†The second aspect dealt with in this Bill is the borrowing powers to the CSIR in order to obtain funds for the purpose of achieving its objects. The granting of this authority is by no means a new policy as far as statutory bodies are concerned. Similar provisions already exist in terms of the Human Sciences Research Act, 1968 (Act No. 23 of 1968), and existed in the Atomic Energy Act, 1967 (Act No. 90 of 1967), which was repealed in 1982. This authority will enable the CSIR to borrow funds for, for example, the more rapid execution of its building programme as is presently possible in terms of the budget and for bridging finance for the purchase of expensive equipment such as computers, etc., which would otherwise have to be leased. It will simultaneously give the CSIR more scope in the application of its liquid funds, of which at present an amount of at least R1 million has to be kept on its current account with the S.A. Reserve Bank to provide for uncashed cheques. The ability to borrow money will mean that provision could be made for possible overdrawing of the account, whereas such casual liquid funds could be invested with interest on short terms.

The measure further has the provision, in terms of section 35 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, that the authority to borrow money may only be exercised with the approval by the Minister of Finance and with the concurrence of the Minister concerned with the relevant institution.

However, I do not foresee any problems in respect of the CSIR misusing this authority, as experience has shown that other bodies, having similar authority, have used that authority in a very responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, as in the case of the previous Bill, we in the PFP will be supporting the passage of this Bill at Second Reading.

I should, however, like to refer briefly to the previous Bill by way of introduction. I am not really sure whether I am entirely happy with the answers given by the hon. the Minister on two topics. The one was related to the coal export certificates. Perhaps I should save that question for the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to answer when we deal with his Bill on coal later. I must say that I find the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs a far more satisfying person to argue with. [Interjections.]

The second topic was that of the input of the private sector into the Fuel Research Institute in the past, and also what is now going to happen in respect of the CSIR. I want the hon. the Minister to respond to this particular question. As I have already said, in respect of the Fuel Research Institute the Coal Owners’ Association had the right to appoint people to the board, or the Minister rather had to act upon their recommendations. They did not appoint them directly, but on their recommendation the Minister had to act. I should certainly not like to see that input on the part of the private sector disappear, as I have said before. I therefore want to know what provision is made that the CSIR, particularly in respect of the work now to be undertaken, will still receive an input by the private sector. I should like to know what sort of input the private sector is now capable of making.

If we look at the Bill now before the House we see that it does not of course only relate to the taking over of the functions of the Fuel Research Institute. It really relates to a variety of other matters. Particularly in clause 1 of this Bill I note that it begins by referring to the undertaking of scientific, technical and industrial research. It then goes on to refer to all matters relating to coal, fuels of any kind, and their uses. It is obviously not the intention to restrict the objective of the CSIR to coal but this opens the whole debate on alternative energy sources. I do not think we ought to lose sight of this very important section of this particular Bill because it is certainly my point of view that South Africa, while it is doing a magnificent job—and I have said this before—into research into coal, and while we are probably the leaders in the world in terms of the uses of coal, when it comes to alternatives, and particularly to solar energy, we are not the leaders in the world. In fact, I believe, we are a long way behind. I further believe that there is a lot that we should be doing in respect of the establishment of alternative sources of energy—not just coal, not just nuclear, but solar energy as well.

What about windmills, John?

Which, of course, Sir, brings me to windpower. I have some information on it here. I knew that I would get that sort of Pavlovian dog response from the hon. members on those benches; in fact, we talked about it as we came into the House. In dealing with the question of energy, I believe that the area of windpower is one in which we can do a great deal more research. We could put a great deal more money into research for the benefit of South Africa’s energy scene in relation to windpower. In 1981 an article appeared in Energy on windpower from which I should like to quote. It reads, inter alia, as follows—

A little wind is a wondrous thing! [Interjections.]

The report continues—

What have we done in relation to this particular kind of research? Do we have any windpower generators?

Blow-all!

Now that was an intelligent interjection in comparison with the sort of Pavlovian utterances of the hon. members in the NRP.

Another report appeared in Energy in January/February of this year in respect of this source of energy on the international scene, under the heading “Britain switches on the Wind”. The report states, inter alia—

These things are happening. They are finding that the technology is such that this is economic. If it can be done in other countries I certainly believe that it can be done here and I personally am sure that it is extremely necessary that more effort, more time and more money be spent on research into the renewable resources of energy rather than the fossil resources. I am very glad to see this particular provision in the Bill and I hope that ultimately this provision will lead to the fact that South Africa will not simply be leaders internationally in the coal sphere but also in the sphere of solar energy, and I really recommend this very strongly to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I am a little concerned about the provision in this Bill in regard to the borrowing of money by the CSIR. The proposed new section 4(3)(a)(iii) reads, inter alia, as follows—

It is the words “from any source” that worry me somewhat. When we read the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech and his justification for this particular clause, we find that he refers almost completely to the Reserve Bank. His justification for this provision in his Second Reading speech appears to justify the borrowing of money from the Reserve Bank. Is this the intention? Is it intended by means of this provision that money should only be borrowed from the Reserve Bank? If that is so, then why not refer to the Reserve Bank in this particular clause? As it reads, the money can be borrowed from any source, and I am concerned about this to some extent. One of the problems that one sees in any economic society is the competition that there is for funds for expansion between the private sector and the public sector. The public sector has its own sources of funds, notably the Public Debt Commissioners, the Reserve Bank and so forth. The private sector traditionally also has its sources of funds and these are predominantly the commercial banks. If the public sector starts competing with the private sector for funds, one may experience an imbalance that can create problems because, fairly obviously, if one is lending money to the State one’s security is very good, unless one is in Mexico! So that as lenders of money, banks would obviously tend to favour loans to stronger people who wish to borrow money from them, people with more assets, with more ability and ultimate creditworthiness to repay those loans. If it is the intention that the CSIR will now go out into the public market place and canvass overdraft facilities from commercial banks, then I do not think it will be a very good idea. If, however, it is intended predominantly to utilize this clause for the Reserve Bank, then I believe it will be very worthwhile.

Apart from that there is nothing in the Bill which has not in the past existed in terms of other legislation. As I have said, we shall support the passage of the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear to this House that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is an expert on wind. I shall therefore not cross swords with him in that sphere. I must nevertheless point out to him that the CSIR is at present already carrying out research into solar energy and wind energy, as well as other forms of kinetic energy. [Interjections.]

There are quite a number of matters one could debate this afternoon, but in the debate on the Abolition of the Fuel Research Institute Bill certain arguments were raised that I do not want to go into now, except to point out one aspect, namely that there are other bodies in South Africa as well that are carrying out research into other forms of fuel. I am thinking, for example, of the Agricultural Engineering Division of the Department of Agriculture which is undertaking research into fuels from biomass—sunflower oil research and so on. The question which immediately arises is why, in this rationalization process to place fuel and energy research under the auspices of the CSIR, research on energy from bio-mass has not also been placed under the auspices of the CSIR. The fact of the matter is that as yet there is no need for this because the research being undertaken by the department can actually be described as exploratory research. It concerns varieties of sunflowers, the quality of sunflower oil that can be produced from the various varieties, the yield potential of these bio-masses in the various agricultural regions of South Africa and so on. It is, however, necessary for this House to be aware of the fact that in future, in the interests of rationalization and in the interests of better research, it may become advisable to transfer research on energy from biomasses to the CSIR as well. It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in the CP take great pleasure in supporting this Bill, not only because we think it is a considerable improvement, but also because we have something in common with the legislation. I shall come to that in a moment.

I think the Fuel Research Institute did great work in the past. Extremely good work was done, and no one in this House will deny that. There are probably many advantages to this institute being transferred to the CSIR. However, I should like to have the assurance of the hon. the Minister that apart from his department and the department of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, there was also thorough consultation with the coal industry and the private sector as such so that we did not perhaps leave anyone out from whom we could have received inputs but did not.

I think there are many advantages to the CSIR now taking care of these matters. I am thinking, for example, of the computer facilities at the CSIR—probably the best and most extensive in the country—which could be of great value to this project. Nor must we overlook the fact that the CSIR has liaison offices abroad. I think there are five large offices which could be of great value in this entire research process, as well as the other institutes of the CSIR which could be used very beneficially. That is, of course, over and above the research taking place within the CSIR itself. All these are major advantages. This also applies to the working area facilities that are available.

Let us consider what research into coal has already achieved. As a result of research, low-grade coal is now being put to far better use. In reply to a question, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said the other day that only 50% of our large reserves we have are economically un exploitable. I think one of the matters that must receive specific attention is the fact that the lifespan of our coal should be extended. Over and above any new reserves which may be discovered, and better exploitation of these, it must also be ensured—as is already being done—that coal of poorer quality is not only utilized, but utilized more effectively.

We in the Conservative Party are obviously interested in this matter. Just as the party to which we previously belonged did great work for South Africa in the political field in the past, it may happen in the future that we of the Conservative Party shall have to take over its assets and obligations and continue the good work.

We support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech, these amendments basically make provision in the first place for the alteration or the extension of the objectives of the CSIR in order to make provision for the functions previously performed by the Fuel Research Institute. In the second place, they also make provision for granting the council the authority to raise loans. As far as the extension of objectives is concerned, emphasis is placed in particular on—

According to the hon. the Minister, the objective will therefore be to emphasize the importance of coal as a primary source of energy, as a raw material, as a reductant and as an export mineral in South Africa. The mere fact that no oil or natural gas has been discovered in the Republic of South Africa, makes the degree of our dependence on coal unique in the Western World and therefore emphasizes the importance of coal in our country.

In 1981 total coal sales came to about 128 million tons, of which 59 million tons or about 46% was used to generate power and 30 million tons or 24% was exported. Today coal is one of South Africa’s most important minerals and meets about 80% of the country’s energy requirements. It is by far the most important mineral sold locally, with a return six times that of copper, which is the second largest earner, and equivalent to half of all local sales of minerals. It is expected that by the end of the century approximately 250 million tons of coal will be used locally every year, of which approximately 160 million tons will be used to generate electricity. The extent, quality and accessibility of the country’s coal resources has already been the subject of various investigations by Government commissions. According to the latest comprehensive survey, the country’s exploitable coal resources amount to approximately 115 000 million tons, of which only 50% can be mined with our present technical knowledge. These reserves are sufficient to meet the export contract of 80 million tons per annum, as well as the rapidly increasing domestic demand, until at least the end of the next century. The importance of the scientific and industrial research projects undertaken by the CSIR in our country are probably well known to all of us. Although the Fuel Research Institute of South Africa was placed under the control of the CSIR as from 1 January 1980, the institute is now becoming a full-fledged national research institute of the CSIR. The CSIR is obviously the right place for the Fuel Research Institute. The council already has 18 such research laboratories and institutes. Through its co-operative scientific programme, the CSIR has already created the framework within which research projects of common interest can be planned and financed jointly in co-operation with universities and other institutions that are involved with a view to their expertise. There are already about 80 bodies, including universities, museums, Government departments and statutory bodies, involved in national co-operative scientific programmes and there are more than 600 scientists involved in some way or other. The programmes are all concerned with comprehensive and complex problems, for example marine and earth sciences, the ecosystems, atmospheric and space research and research on materials and on energy problems. Research work is also being done with a view to developing alternative chemical fuels, the storage of renewable energy, non-chemical resources, the utilization of coal and the conservation of energy.

Now that the Fuel Research Institute is directly involved in these programmes of the CSIR, there will obviously be better co-ordination and increased productivity. As far as the financing of the CSIR is concerned, the 1981-’82 estimates for the Council were approximately R1,9 million. Approximately 72% of this is an annual grant from Parliament. The granting of borrowing powers to the council will give it a more flexible financial policy, particularly with regard to capital projects and bridging capital for specialist equipment such as computers. Provision is made in the Bill for adequate control in that loans have to be raised with the approval of the Minister of Finance in consultation with the relevant Minister who has control over the relevant institution. As already mentioned, such powers granted to other similar institutions are already being handled without any problems.

In conclusion I wish, on behalf of this side of the House, to thank Dr. Garbers and his council as well as every member of the CSIR for the excellent services in connection with scientific and industrial research which they are rendering to our country. I want to express the hope that the addition of the Fuel Research Institute will enable the CSIR to provide an even more comprehensive service. It is a privilege for me to support this Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Newcastle explained the Government’s coal policy step by step, once again focusing our attention on how important coal is for South Africa. He also gave us a survey of the latest developments in the coal industry and pointed out the importance of our obtaining a better reclamation factor in our coal mines than at present. With that we are in full agreement. We shall most probably be able to elaborate on it in more detail in the discussion of the next piece of legislation.

†Although we are supporting the Bill, the hon. the Minister should know that there are two things of primary concern to us which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. The first relates to one of the aspects touched on by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, viz. the scope of the objectives and research field as regards this aspect for the CSIR. The proposed new section 4(l)(aA) reads—

One must ask oneself the question what exactly is meant by a “fuel”. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, with reference to the widening of the scope in terms of this legislation, raised the question whether the institute—we shall come back to this—or the organization which will deal with coal will be expected to deal also with matters such as wind energy, solar energy and hydrological energy. The way we read this definition, a fuel would in fact mean a source of energy which is released on a chemical basis. As we see it, the mechanical aspect of an energy resource in the form of wind or water does not fall within the scope of the definition in this Bill. I do not want to go into a highly technical argument. That is beyond my scope, but it does raise the question what the intent is with the inclusion of the word “fuel” in this Bill.

Let me just elaborate slightly on what our concern is in this respect. If one looks at an energy source, one has a wide range of mechanical and chemical potential. We would see coal, ethyl alcohol and methanol as being fuel which can release energy by undergoing a chemical process of change by the application of heat. At the same time a substance such as nitrogen and freon, which is used as a cooling factor for the absorption of heat, could possibly also be classified as fuel.

When it comes to the research work to be done in respect of solar energy, and in particular wind energy, then we do not see that as forming part of the objectives defined in this Bill. Permission or, if I may, the permit to do research in that field in the CSIR has already been vested in the mechanical engineering and electrical engineering sectors of the CSIR. I should like to have confirmation from the hon. the Minister that we are not going to create conflict within the CSIR by widening the scope of the fuel research aspect, which may clash with the mechanical and electrical departments in that particular organization.

The second aspect of primary concern to us—I want to use this Bill to highlight it—is the inadequate remuneration and benefits for scientific research workers in South Africa, and that includes the CSIR. The CSIR, which is now going to take additional responsibilities, will have to fish in the same limited pool of scientific knowledge in South Africa, or alternatively try to attract fishes from across the sea. I recently asked the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether he was able to tell the House whether the Government had completed its investigations into the remuneration and salary scales for scientific workers in South Africa. Being the good politician that he is, he was not able to give us a direct answer, but did allude to the fact the research was not complete. If ever there was a research function which requires top priority it is research into the remuneration factor for scientific workers in South Africa. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any knowledge of the result of the investigation conducted by Dr. Burger, who was a member of the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Committee which two years ago embarked on an investigation into salaries for scientific workers. We have heard no more. To the best of my knowledge Dr. Burger has left that committee and is no longer involved in the research. Our concern is that that research work has gone down the plug hole and that nobody has picked up the baby and is continuing that investigation.

I have noted for instance that in other organizations, organizations which are subsidiaries of the CSIR and with which I have had a close link for many years, that the whole question of adapting salaries for scientific workers is a hit and miss business. It is not because the directors of those institutes are not aware of what is required, but simply because the parliamentary grants are too small and there are insufficient funds from the directorate of the CSIR or its subsidiary institutes to allocate resources for the improvement of salaries. I want to show hon. members to what a tragic thing this has led. Some of our top scientists in South Africa with Ph.Ds and over ten years’ experience, are earning the same salary as a senior translator or a third-grade Postmaster in the Post Office service. Our top scientists are earning these salaries and their aggregate increase over the last three years—the adjustment to their salaries, not their salary scales—has been 6% per annum when inflation has been running at 15%. That is a tragic situation, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some information or a reassurance that this year we are going to see to the adequate adjustment of salaries of research workers in South Africa, particularly in the scientific field.

With these comments I should like to say that we shall support this the second of a trilogy of Bills that are going to lead up to the better utilization of coal in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He again asked whether the private sector would have an opportunity to contribute their input in regard to the National Institute for Coal Research. The hon. member referred to the board of the Fuel Research Institute, something that is not feasible for the Scientific Research Institute. There is one council, and that is the council of the CSIR. The CSIR, however, consists of various institutes, and it is possible to involve experts or representatives from the private sector in an advisory capacity in the various institutes in subsidiary committees. A subsidiary committee for coal research will also be established and it will also include experts from the private sector so that, as in the past, they will be able to make their contributions there. I hope that that satisfies the hon. member.

Thank you.

The hon. member also referred to wind power. Perhaps I should say that the CSIR is, of course, involved in research in many fields of alternative energy sources. However, I believe that wind power is hardly practicable in South Africa. The kind of wind power required as an energy source is high percentage of wind power for the greater part of the year, without—and this is the important aspect—excessive prevailing wind speeds. Uneven winds cause particularly high friction and are therefore not very economical. The hon. member referred to an enormous wind generator of three megawatt that is being planned in an overseas country. I believe that to replace one Escom coal-fired power station of 3 500 megawatt would require about 1 200 enormous wind generators, and these generators would only function when the wind was blowing. On windless days the 1 200 wind generators would have to be replaced by other generators in any case.

*The hon. member also asked a question about the borrowing powers now being vested in the CSIR. The reference to the Reserve Bank led the hon. member to think that the Reserve Bank would grant this loan. However the Reserve Bank does not offer that kind of credit; it functions as the bank of the CSIR because as a statutory body, the CSIR must keep a deposit in the Reserve Bank in order to make provision for the payment of cheques, as I said in my Second Reading speech. The power to negotiate loans, to which reference is being made here, relates to the capital market in which the CSIR will have to compete for funds in the form of long-term securities or short-term loans.

The hon. member also pointed out that there was considerable competition between the private and public sector on the capital market. That is true, and the policy of the Government is to reduce the public sector’s share of the capital market or to keep it within reasonable bounds. Moreover, the State has succeeded in this policy in recent years. Accordingly it is important, specifically in this respect, that the permission of the hon. the Minister of Finance is required to negotiate any loan. The Minister of Finance is responsible for seeing to it that the public sector’s share of the capital market remains within bounds. The assurance I can give the hon. member in this regard is that the authority of the CSIR to negotiate loans will be in accordance with the State’s share of the capital market.

Mr. Speaker, other hon. members also welcome this legislation, and I thank them for that. The research that has already been carried out, including that done by the CSIR, was singled out by the hon. member Dr. Odendaal and by the hon. member for Newcastle. In addition, the latter provided very interesting information.

The hon. member for Durban North wanted to know whether there would not now be conflict within the CSIR between the research being done on the development of fuel from coal on the one hand and other research in the field of energy on the other. Here he had in mind the chemical engineering, the electrical research that is being carried out, etc. The whole aim of the transfer of the institute to the CSIR is specifically to eliminate duplication, because we must recognize that nowadays, coal research—energy research—covers a wide field, and the possibility of duplication is a real one. At the same time it is believed that it will be possible within one broad scientific community to achieve the highest degree of coordination. Accordingly the council of the CSIR will undoubtely see to it that the various research activities are co-ordinated. The importance of co-ordination in multi-disciplinary co-operation is considerable, and the only assurance I can give the hon. member is that it is the task of the council of the CSIR and the management, Dr. Garbers and his management, to see to it that all research within that scientific family is co-ordinated.

The question whether this concept is wide enough is perhaps of a more technical nature but I am informed that it is wide enough to cover all aspects of research, primarily coal research. This also applies to chemical and other engineering research relating to energy.

As far as the position of scientists is concerned, I must point out to the hon. member that although the Government has decided that there will be no general salary increases for public servants, and that the same goes for members of statutory bodies, the Minister concerned did indicate that the programme of occupational differentiation would be proceeded with. Indeed, the investigation to which the hon. member referred is linked to the investigation into occupational differentiation, in which the position of scientists is also at issue. Further details in this regard will be announced in due course by the Minister concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have now dealt with all the points that were raised and I just wish to thank all hon. members once again for their support. As far as the hon. member for Sunnyside is concerned, I want to give him the assurance that this step is being taken after consultation with all interested bodies and persons. Although initially there was some difference of opinion as regards the placing of certain modules, I feel that in its final form this legislation carries the approval of all interested bodies and persons. Therefore the private sector has been duly consulted.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill forms part of the rearrangement of the functions and placing of the Fuel Research Institute, the abolition of which has already been agreed to by this House in terms of the Abolition of the Fuel Research Institute Bill. In essence this Bill contains no new principles, and merely reallocates certain responsibilities and powers previously vested in the above Institute. Due to practical considerations these responsibilities and powers are now being vested in the CSIR and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

Hon. members will note that the Bill is primarily concerned with four matters, viz. (i) coal export certificates; (ii) levies on the production of coal for research purposes; (iii) the provision and handling of information in regard to coal prospecting, and (iv) related penal provisions.

Apart form matters relating to research funds for coal and coal-mining, to which I shall refer again later, the Fuel Research Institute has thus far rendered an exceptionally valuable service to the coal-mining industry, viz. the grading of coal and the issue of grading certificates, without which a mine may not supply the coal in question for export or bunkering.

Over the years the institute has developed exceptional expertise in regard to the grading of coal, particularly with regard to the extremely important spontaneous combustion characteristics of coal, and the mining industry attaches great value to the service.

In clause 2 of the Bill provision is now being made for the continuation of the latter service to the mining industry, in return for remuneration. The certificate in question is, however, now being defined as a certificate of analysis which will be known as a coal export certificate, since this name is more descriptive of the nature of the certificate than the previous term “grading certificate”. The activities in this regard will be performed by the newly founded National Institute for Coal Research under the control of the CSIR, by whom the certificates in question are to be issued.

†Clauses 7 to 9 of the Bill deal with the imposition of levies on coal production for the purposes of scientific research into the properties and applications of coal and into coal-mining research, as well as with the contribution of monies voted by Parliament to supplement the levies concerned on at least a 50:50 basis.

In general terms the relevant clauses mainly provide for the continuation of the levies imposed by the corresponding provisions of the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Act, 1963, which is to be repealed simultaneously with the promulgation of the Abolition of the Fuel Research Institute Act, 1983, referred to earlier. Hon. members will note, however, that the imposition and collection of the levies, together with the provision of the prescribed Government grants, will in future be the responsibility of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Furthermore, it will be noted that funds collected and provided in the prescribed manner for coal research, will be paid over to the CSIR for such research by the National Institute for Coal Research, while moneys collected for research into coal-mining and safety in such mining, will be retained by the department and utilized in the manner provided for in the Bill.

’Before proceeding to other matters it is necessary to mention, with regard to the levies and related arrangements, that the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs has accepted responsibility for this matter due to its interest in coal research, together with the fact that the method of financing the research is not in line with the normal practices of the CSIR, whereas far as coal-mining research is concerned, the department is in any event primarily entrusted with the control and supervision of coal-mining and mining safety. It could also be mentioned that the mining industry has accepted the abovementioned arrangements.

As far as clause 10 of the Bill is concerned, it merely makes provision, in line with the previous legislation, for the provision of essential information to the CSIR and for preserving the confidential status of the information, whereas clauses 11 and 12 respectively make provision for penalties for certain offences and contain provisions relating to the making of the appropriate regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third of three Bills that relate to the same object. Obviously a considerable amount has already been said on the purposes of this particular legislation. I should like to begin, however, by quoting from the hon. the Minster’s Second Reading speech, where he says—

I know this to be the case, Mr. Speaker. However, I also know it to be the case that there is concern about the certificate about which I spoke during the discussion of the first of these three Bills today. That is that the well-known Fuel Research Institute is disappearing. Regardless of how well the CSIR is known amongst scientific institutions throughout the world, we have here a situation in which a variety of countries have been used to getting certificates relating to the spontaneous combustion properties of the coal on a particular shipment. They have been used for years to getting this particular certificate from the Fuel Research Institute. Now suddenly the little man who has to sit at some clearing desk in another country is going to get a certificate on which it is said it has been issued by the CSIR. This man is used to getting certificates from the Fuel Research Institute. It could happen that he asks what all this about, and that he might even refuse to accept this new certificate bacause he has never seen one of these before, In the past he has always received certificates from the Fuel Research Institute.

It could also happen that a shipment of coal becomes queried because of this very reason. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that a shipment of coal can amount to as much as R2 million in value. I know that this is indeed an area of concern amongst the exporters of coal; amongst certain of them at least. This can of course be easily overcome. If, for instance, such a certificate could state that it was from the CSIR, which now incorporated the Fuel Research Institute, then as long as the name of the Fuel Research Institute appears on the documentation, the whole problem could be obviated. This only needs to be a very temporary method followed for a year or two in order to get the coal importing countries accustomed to receiving certificates from the CSIR. Then, I believe, the problem will be over. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to place on record in Hansard that he will ensure that the name of the Fuel Research Institute will appear somewhere on the documentation that will be issued in terms of these export certificates. Mr. Speaker, I believe this to be very important.

The Bill now before the House is really, to a very large extent, identical with the Fuel Research Institute Act, which was originally passed by this House in 1963. Many of the clauses in this Bill are the same as the relevant sections of the said Act. However, there are some differences; some changes to which I should like to react. I should like to expand briefly on those changes.

One of the things that I note in this Bill is that in defining ’‘export” amongst other things, it says—

1. (a) the supply of coal derived from a colliery for shipment as cargo from any port or harbour of the Republic; or
2. (b) the transport of coal by rail or road as freight,

to a destination outside the Republic …

Is that the intention, Mr. Speaker, that independent countries, such as Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana or Venda, which were formerly part of the Republic of South Africa, should be covered by this particular legislation? Does a coal exporter, if it sends coal to a wholesaler in, for example Umtata, have to get an export certificate for that purpose?

I may be wrong, but I do not think that that was the intention and therefore I shall be moving an amendment at the Committee Stage to include independent countries that were formerly part of the Republic in this particular definition.

Although many of the clauses in the legislation before us are exactly the same as the provisions of the existing legislation, I could not find in the existing legislation that an application for a coal export certificate was subject to prescribed fees. In terms of the existing legislation, the levy has to be paid, and in this regard I am very pleased to see that the levies have remained identical. I want to compliment the hon. the Minister on not doing what the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs did earlier on in the session, namely, to make provision for fees that were not prescribed in relation to the amount of those fees in terms of the legislation. This meant that he could levy whatever amount he chose to levy. However, as far as these prescribed fees are concerned, one imagines that they will be relatively small amounts in relation to the administrative costs of an application of this nature. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to me briefly in this regard because, as I have said, as far as I can see no prescribed fees have to be paid in terms of the existing legislation.

Clause 3 also provides that the council may issue a coal export certificate. It is not mandatory but empowering. I do not believe it is the intention of this Bill that coal export certificates should be a mechanism for controlling the export of coal from South Africa. That mechanism does not belong in this Bill at all. Such a mechanism exists and there are quotas for coal exports. Those quotas are allocated by the hon. the Minister’s department to the various coal producers. I do not think it is the intention in terms of this Bill to decide who should export coal or not. My view is that these exports certificates relate predominantly to the quality of the coal and I believe that if the coal qualifies for export, then the particular mine should be given a coal export certificate. The council should not have the right to refuse a coal export certificate unless there is specifically something wrong. The only real reason for there being anything wrong, would be that the coal was liable to spontaneous combustion and that it could therefore endanger life or property during the course of its journey or at its place of arrival. I shall also be moving an amendment in this connection at the Committee Stage. I hope the hon. the Minister received the copies of the amendments I sent across to his department this morning so that he will have had prior notice of the amendments that we will be moving.

Clause 5 deals with recourse to the courts and is in line more or less exactly with the provisions of the existing legislation. Clause 8 deals with the levies of 2c per metric ton and 0,55c per metric ton, and these are in complete accord with the provisions of the existing legislation. However, in the same clause, we get on to the subject of penalties if any due amount is not paid on the expiry date mentioned in paragraph (a). I believe that these penalties are excessive. The hon. the Minister is inserting a provision here in terms of which a fine of 5% of the amount due can be imposed in respect of every month or part thereof. This amounts to a fine of 60% per annum. I believe that this is a very onerous provision. Companies should certainly be encouraged to pay the levy and I think they should be fined if they do not but I think 5% per month is somewhat excessive. I note too that there are stricter penalties involved in respect of a contravention of any of the provisions of this legislation. Provision is made for fines not exceeding R5 000 or imprisonment without the option of a fine for a period not exceeding five years, or both such fine and such imprisonment. On the whole, while these are strict provisions, I can see no reason why these stricter penalties should not be enforced and we are prepared to go along with these particular provisions.

The official Opposition will therefore be supporting this Bill and we hope that its benefits to South Africa and the rationalization involved in this project as well as the research and development of our coal resources generally will be promoted by this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has indicated that his party supports the Bill, and that they will only move minor amendments to certain clauses.

The hon. member once again referred to the fact that the Fuel Research Institute has issued the certificates concerned, and that foreign buyers of our coal have become accustomed to this and that they have confidence in the research institute. He is of the opinion that they will find it odd if a different organization issues such certificates in future. He made certain suggestions in this regard, but I shall leave that to the hon. the Minister. All I wish to say, is that I believe that the foreign buyers will soon become accustomed to the new organization and that they will even develop confidence in them.

The hon. member pointed out that in terms of the Bill the organization concerned may issue a certificate. I suspect that this provision is specifically designed so that if the quality of the coal does not meet the requirements, a certificate will not be issued. However, I shall leave it at that.

The hon. member also said that in his opinion, the penalties were too harsh. I think it is necessary for the penalties to be such as to serve as a deterrent. If the penalty is heavy, people are inclined to obey the law and to hesitate before violating it. I think this will have the desired effect.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that the Bill did not contain any new principles. He also referred to the task of the Fuel Research Institute and said that it was important to the coal industry. I wish to enlarge on a few aspects in this regard, but before doing so, I wish to say that we on this side of the House support the Bill.

The enormous but valuable coal resources hidden under the earth must be exploited in the most effective way. They are of inestimable value. As a source of energy, and as an earner of foreign exchange. Hon. members mentioned certain figures to indicate what the extent of this mineral is. I, in turn, wish to point out that in 1979—this is the figure I have—103 767 866 metric tons were produced. Our country is ranked fourth among coal producers of the Western World. The value of the coal sold amounted to R2 570 million in 1982. The Bill before this House at present, ought to result in the purposeful improvement and promotion of the exploitation and utilization of coal. Placing the National Fuel Research Institute under the auspices of the CSIR will mean that the institute will now have a broader mandate. I think other hon. members have already pointed this out.

I now wish to refer briefly to safety in the mining industry, particularly in the collieries in our country. One cannot speak about safety in collieries without thinking back to that dramatic and moving incident a number of years ago when there was a coal-mining disaster in the Northern Free State in the constituency of the hon. member for Sasolburg. More than 400 people died in that disaster. Hon. members probably recall that a borehole was sunk and when they could not be reached, a microphone-loud-speaker combination was lowered in order to be able to speak to those people and to hear whether they could still react, so that it could be determined whether they were still alive. However, those people found their graves in that colliery. This research can also make a considerable contribution towards greater safety in the mines. Of course, this is done mainly by the department, the Government mining engineer. They will concentrate mainly on that. Since this is going to be the basic function of the department of the hon. the Minister, I believe that this matter, too, will be dealt with with greater dedication.

I also wish to say something about pollution. Coal and coal ash can be an important cause of pollution. Research can contribute towards combating pollution, and may also result in the better utilization of waste products. The meaningful rationalization of research in this country is extremely important, and now I am speaking about the entire spectrum of research being carried out in this country. The co-ordination of the research programmes of the many organizations will result in the prevention of duplication and overlapping. I may just mention that the budget of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research for the 1982-’83 financial year amounted to approximately R142 million. As far as this organization is concerned, the hon. the Minister and his department will retain control. To me, this is an important provision which is also contained in this legislation. In this way the hon. the Minister can see to it that research is purposeful. This provision is also particularly significant for the industry.

Research is extremely important. This has been emphasized here, and I think every hon. member of this House is aware of the important work being performed by research organizations in this country. However, research must also be purposeful. The results of research must lead to practical implementation. They must be beneficial. If research is carried out purely for the sake of research, for academic or theoretical purposes, then I do not know whether the task is being performed to the full. That is why I believe that in this regard too, since purposefulness is being aimed at, research in the coal industry ought not to be of only academic importance. It must also cause this industry, the country and its economy to benefit to a greater extent from this extremely important industry which makes an exceptional contribution to the economy of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for control of the export and bunkering of coal. Of course, the danger of spontaneous combustion in the export and bunkering of coal is important. It is a possibility which should be regarded in an extremely serious light when large cargoes of coal, which can shift in the ship, are despatched over long distances. This is the reason for the certificate as required. I think one could call it a certificate of quality. This certificate will be in respect of handling. The bunkering of coal in South Africa creates a I major problem. Of course, it is essential that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and his department should deal with this matter. As far as spontaneous combustion is concerned, the mine could even be ignited underground, with the result that the owner of the mineral rights could eventually see a large profit transformed into a total loss. Although the Minister may not be able to assist him in that case, nevertheless he will request assistance and he will ask whether some mining firm would not be prepared to undertake sealing off, as it is called, or mining in order to extinguish that fire. The certificate is really extremely important.

Then we come to levies. The levies are essential for research. Money has to be available for research, and the Government, as well as private enterprise have always seen to funding. However, these levies will be utilized to furnish certain statements and arrange for information in respect of coal mining and prospecting operations.

Therefore it was necessary to stipulate certain provisions in legislation with regard to the responsibility for the export and bunkering of coal, the imposition of levies on the sale or use of coal, the utilization of such moneys, and the obtaining of statements and information concerning coal mining and prospecting operations. For practical reasons, this legislation falls under the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

The mining engineers are going to play an extremely important role. Let us just look at the accident rate at mines. I wish to refer specifically to the collieries. There has been a disappointing increase in the number of deaths. The mortality rate has been counteracted by a slight drop in the accident rate. Most of the deaths—30,3% of them—were caused by landslides, whereas cocopans and cocopan rails were responsible for 21%. Fifteen of the deaths, or 12% of all deaths, were caused by gas explosions. The mining engineer has a great deal of say in these matters. Surely the mining engineer looks into the methods used in mining? Nowadays coal has to be exploited rapidly in order to fulfil contracts. We request that the safety of the people working in mines be looked into. We are aware that mining engineers have done very good work over the years. In co-operation with the CSIR, more attention will definitely have to be given to surface structures above mines, since extreme dangers lurk there. Earlier the hon. member for Welkom referred to the Coalbrook incident. We all recall the incident, and even today we shudder when we think of it. One should remember that there are people who earn their daily living in this way.

Looking at all the other clauses, one sees that there are clauses which are to have a better effect on the export of our coal. Of course, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that the certificate is going to create a problem overseas. Any businessman—the hon. member knows this as well as I do—will see to it that when a certificate arrives, he will already have prior knowledge of its source. Therefore there will be no problem in that regard. Perhaps the hon. member has offered sound advice by requesting that people overseas should be informed in good time by letting them know that there is now a process whereby a new and better certificate is involved. I believe that this certificate is really a certificate of quality as well.

By timeously submitting these three Bills we are discussing today—one could almost say the three are being combined—we are saving a year. I believe that we have achieved something today in respect of economy, as a result of timeous foresight in respect of problems which could arise in this field. For that reason we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to hear that hon. members on that side of the House support this legislation. I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is perhaps a little too concerned about the misunderstandings which could arise with people overseas as a result of the issuing of certificates by the CSIR in future. In any case, I do not think that those people are so foolish as not to be able to see that they are issued by an official Government organization.

That might be just the problem.

I think we have to credit them with at least a little bit of intelligence.

*I think that in any case those people will be warned in good time that this is going to happen.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also mentioned the fines, and so on, which must be paid. My opinion is that no fine is too severe when human lives may be in danger. The very purpose of these fines is to see to it that payment of these levies is effected correctly and timeously …

My complaint was only about the 5% fine.

Are you worried about the fine? I think if we do not have these fines it could jeopardize the whole research into the safety aspects, etc., of the coal industry, as a result of the CSIR running short of funds.

*In essence, this legislation brings together what belongs together. It groups things which belong together logically under one roof. The rationalization of the functions of the Fuel Research Institute means that certain responsibilities fall under the jurisdiction of the CSIR, whereas the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs will now also be responsible for, inter alia, the size of the levies and for their collection, as well as for the submitting of certain statements by collieries.

However, the abolition of the FRI and the accompanying rationalization will not result in any real change in principle. The provisions of this Bill are the same in principle and in essence as prescribed in the constitution of the FRI. This Bill results in coal—or black gold, as we know it nowadays—now coming into its own. Coalia becoming increasingly important as a source of energy and it is only fitting that research in this regard be carried out by the appropriate body, viz. the CSIR.

However, there is another, related, aspect which is of importance, viz. control. It is important that we maintain certain minimum standards, since our coal exports are becoming increasingly larger. It is particularly in respect of safety standards that the FRI has played an extremely important role in the past. The FRI has exercised strict control over the analysis and grading of coal, particularly with regard to the spontaneous combustion aspects, and it has only issued analysis certificates if certain minimum requirements could be complied with. These certificates were required before a mine could offer coal for export or bunkering purposes. This certificate—and this is what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is so concerned about—is going to be issued by the CSIR in future and will be known as a coal export certificate. For the sake of completeness, I think I must point out that this certificate should not be confused with an “export permit”. The coal export certificate is aimed at certifying that the coal supplied by the producer in question complies with the minimum safety requirements in respect of spontaneous combustion, and that as far as it is humanly possible to certify it, it is safe to ship the coal. In addition, however, an export permit must be obtained. Of course, the converse also applies, viz. that an export permit can only be used for coal which has been graded. In any case, I do not think that the hon. the Minister can use this certificate to prevent people from exporting coal. It can only be used to prevent people from exporting coal which does not fulfil certain minimum safety standards. These minimum requirements which have to be fulfilled before a certificate may be issued, are extremely important. In fact, they are vitally important. I think hon. members could visualize for themselves what could happen if a cargo of coal were to ignite spontaneously out at sea. It could do incalculable damage to our coal industry.

As has already been mentioned, this Bill also provides for the appropriation of funds for research purposes. Provision is made for the imposition of levies on producers and for the payment of an equal amount by the State. This is extremely important. The State, too, supports the research project financially. Funds collected in this way will be utilized to finance scientific, technical and industrial research, or surveys in respect of coal, as well as to undertake research with regard to coal mining and safety research. Although the Bill prescribes maximum levies, the present total levies payable are less than what is provided for. Producers welcome the research which is being done, particularly with regard to safety, health and dust emission. All three are of cardinal importance to the coal producer and producers have no objection to the levies they have to pay.

An important aspect of this legislation is that producers do not have to feel that the refusal of the CSIR to issue a coal export certificate is absolutely final. The Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is empowered to direct the CSIR to issue such a coal export certificate after having reconsidered all aspects of the matter.

On behalf of this side of the House, I, too, take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before the House is the logical conclusion of the two Bills we have discussed just prior to this one. We will be supporting this measure without qualification or amendment. In doing so, however, I should like briefly to pay compliments to the hon. the Minister and to the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, and to say that we acknowledge the courtesy of the department in answering our questions put to them prior to this debate. They treated us in a most courteous way, and the department was also able to give us substantial background information on this Bill. I should like to thank them very much indeed for that.

Then I should also like to congratulate the South African team of negotiators that recently went to Japan, and who were able to secure for us a renewal in the coal contract, very much to the surprise of our foreign competitors in that country. I believe that team showed considerable expertise and skill, as well as cunning, in being able to negotiate the size of the contract which they did, as well as the price on which they were ultimately able to agree in respect of that contract.

I am sure that when it comes to the issuing of certificates for the coal which is going to be exported, the CSIR will show as much ingenuity and skill as the old Fuel Research Institute did in respect of this particular function. I believe that the coal industry itself, which is currently experiencing quite a considerable slump, will be most grateful to those people who were involved in negotiating that contract. We obviously always hoped that the contract would be bigger and the price better but under the circumstances we are most grateful for the work that has been done.

Then I should also like to point out that I notice that the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is here in the House now. I notice that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is about to interfere in the free market system for the distribution of coal. I want to issue a warning to that hon. Minister. He must not start to encourage price fixing and cartels in South Africa. His bench-mate, the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, has at his finger-tips powers to prevent private individuals from doing exactly what the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs wants to do now.

The Competitions Board is looking into it. [Interjections.]

I am delighted to hear that, Mr. Speaker. They will have to look into the matter very quickly because the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is about to take action to prevent people who have found an economical way of marketing coal from passing on that benefit to the consumer. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs whether he is going to await the report of the Competitions Board before he takes any real action in this direction.

There is a winter coming.

Yes, there is a winter coming. We have to distribute coal as profitably as we can, and yet at such a low cost that the majority of people, who are in fact Black, will be able to benefit from low priced coal. There is no alternative source of domestic energy available to the majority of Blacks in South Africa, and it is in the interests of the country and of the consumer that we should keep the prices of domestic coal as low as possible. I shall give the hon. the Minister one good reason why this has to be done. Recent surveys conducted in kwaZulu indicate that every single Zulu living in that area—I am talking about kwaZulu proper; not Natal; there are 3,5 million souls living there—burns one ton of firewood a year. However, they do not plant a single new tree. What is happening is that 3,5 million tons of trees are being destroyed every year in order to provide domestic heat.

How many souls, Ron?

3,5 million souls.

And the Progs have only one.

I am not so sure that they even have a soul. [Interjections.] The position is, however, that there is no alternative for these people except coal. Once the natural resources are depleted, as it has already been depleted in Soweto, in Guguletu and in KwaMashu, and in all urban areas, the only other alternative source available to them is coal. When we bear in mind the harshness of our winters—the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has pointed that out to us—and the fact that there is no other alternative because the majority of them do not yet have electricity and/or can afford it, then it is in the interests of this country to see to it that our domestic coal prices are kept as low as possible. If there are organizations that cannot compete on an economic basis with the larger distributors, they will unfortunately have to look for other avenues of earning a living. We cannot protect inefficient organizations at the expense of the consumer. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has got the message from us. We certainly want to express the hope that he will not go in for price fixing and cartel establishments in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulties with the Bill before us and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we will support this Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank all hon. members for their contribution and for the spirit in which this debate has taken place.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised the matter of renewable energy resources. I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that the question of renewable energy resources is being borne constantly in mind. It goes without saying that the renewable energy resources, as the name indicates, may, in contrast to the nonrenewable energy resources like crude oil and coal, play a very important role in the distant future because they are renewable. In this regard one calls to mind for example vegetable sources, vegetable oils and so on. It is also true that solar energy and other energy resources may also play an increasingly important role in that regard in the future.

I may just mention that the Energy Planning Branch of my department gives constant attention to the whole spectrum of energy resources and energy supply in South Africa, and that this matter is being constantly reviewed at a high level. As far as solar energy is concerned, I should like to mention that special attention is being given to this matter too. I should also like to mention that as far as the 1982-’83 financial year is concerned, the budget of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs in respect of other renewable energy resources such as solar energy, wind energy and battery vehicles amounted to almost R400 000. This illustrates the importance attached to energy resources of this type. I might also mention that the Building Research Institute of the CSIR is a leader in the field of designing buildings in such a way as to utilize solar energy.

What is most important—and this has been mentioned by various speakers this afternoon—is the question of coal and the question of the importance of coal. It is also true that coal is one of the most obvious sources of energy for and in our country. It is plentiful, it is well-known, it is relatively cheap, it is constantly available and apart from that, we have enormous reserves of coal in South Africa. What is more, technology for the manufacture of fuel from coal is not only well-known but has already been tried and tested in South Africa, as the success of the Sasol projects shows.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also mentioned that he was concerned that due to the fact that the export certificates would now be issued by the CSIR, confusion and a lack of confidence could arise among purchasers and that we should have to make some plan in this regard to maintain that confidence and the good name that the Fuel Research Institute has built up in the past.

†Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention for the information of hon. members that on these new certificates it will be mentioned that the National Institute for Coal Research was previously called the Fuel Research Institute of South Africa and that it is now incorporated in the CSIR. I think that this will accommodate all the hon. member’s doubts as far as this particular matter is concerned.

*I now come to the question of the fine of 5% mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. Formerly the fine was only 2%. I think the hon. member for Welkom has furnished an adequate reply in that regard. The fact is that 5% is indeed high—I readily concede that—but the aim in this regard is specifically for it to serve as a deterrent so that people will make their contributions promptly. It is important that research should not have to wait for the funds required. After all, we cannot permit research to lag because people do not make their contributions promptly. We suggested the fine of 5% to the industry—therefore the industry does in fact know about it—and the industry has not raised any objection in this regard.

The hon. member also raised a point relating to the discretion of the council in the allocation of export certificates. I do not believe that this is something about which I can argue meaningfully at this stage, because it is a matter which could more appropriately be touched on in the course of the Committee Stage. Provisionally, then, I shall leave that point at that.

The hon. member for Welkom referred to the importance of coal to South Africa. I agree with the hon. member. I believe that one could in fact call it the black gold of South Africa. He also stressed the issue of safety in our mining industry and the importance of maintaining very high safety standards in our mines. As far as safety measures and the proven safety record of the South African mining industry are concerned, I believe that we need not take second place to anyone in the world. Accordingly, in this regard I wish to convey a special message of appreciation to the Government mining engineer and his staff. They are in fact the guardians on the walls of Zion as far as this is concerned, and they watch over the safety of our mines with very strict but also very expert eyes. Apart from the safety aspect, they also supervise health conditions prevailing in our mines. It is true that there must be confidence in this industry. People must not feel unsafe in the bowels of the earth, and therefore it is essential that we should have a good name as far as safety is concerned. People must not be deterred from working in our mines for safety reasons, because the fact is that we need many workers in our mines.

The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to the problem of spontaneous combustion of coal. He also referred to the safety aspect. I think the hon. member added that he for-saw no problems with regard to export certificates. He is of the opinion that every businessman will make advance arrangements to ensure that there is confidence in the certificate issued, because he will point out that in essence, the same body that issued those certificates in the past will still be issuing them.

The hon. member for Stilfontein also stressed the question of safety and health. I think it is important to note that a specific contribution is being made here in respect of research into safety in mining. Therefore research is not only being carried out into the utilization of coal, because there is also a special levy which accrues to my department and is largely devoted to research into safety in our mines.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Durban North for his words of appreciation to the officials of my department for the way in which they handled the legislation before its introduction here. He was also appreciative of the information which they supplied to the different study groups.

*The hon. member for Durban North said that the issue of competition in the coal distribution trade was a matter of real concern to him. I think it would fall outside the scope of this debate to argue that matter with him, except that I wish to react very briefly by saying that we wish to ensure that sufficient coal will be available for the coming winter. In the coal distribution trade we cannot the eyes of the market to be picked out. We cannot allow the people who are able to sell in bulk, to pick out the eyes of the market, but omit to make adequate provision for coal sold by the sack, The hon. member rightly said that there are many people in this country—particularly among the lower income groups—who are unable to buy coal in bulk and who therefore rely on the supply of coal in sacks. Since the supply of coal by the sack is perhaps the more difficult part of coal provision and in many instances, too, the less remunerative part, we must take special care that a sufficient amount of coal in sacks will indeed be available in the coming winter.

In conclusion I wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to hon. members who have taken part in this debate for their support of this Second Reading.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman …

Hear, hear!

… I should like to start by personally thanking the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs for his very encouraging “Hear, hear!” As I mentioned in the Second Reading debate, I do not believe that it was the intention—I might be wrong—of this Bill to regard coal exports as coal that is sent to the independent countries which were formerly part of the RS A. Certainly, in the legislation which this Bill is replacing, legislation passed in 1963, the definition of the Republic included Transkei, Ciskei, etc. I therefore move an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, surely independent countries that were previously part of the RSA, are in fact nothing but destinations outside the RSA. The definition therefore covers the type of exports the hon. member has in mind. I would therefore have to make a good many exceptions in this legislation, in this provision, and begin to exclude various countries. I do not think this is practicable. I should then for example have to say: With the exception of Mauritius, Lesotho, this country and that. I do not think it is practicable to draw a distinction here, and I feel that the clause should rather be left as it is, so that all destinations outside the RSA can be covered. That is all I have to say.

Mr. Chairman, surely this is a little extraordinary, because we are not talking about Mauritius. We have not sent coal to Mauritius through our normal wholesale channels. It can easily happen, however, that a wholesale coal merchant in East London or in Port Elizabeth will, in the course of his normal business, send coal to a place like Butterworth which is very close to East London. Now all of a sudden the border-post at the Kei River Bridge is going to have to ask for export certificates for the odd bags of coal that are sent through to Transkei and the other independant States. I really find that this is quite extraordinary. I think it can in fact create a very large administrative problem unless, like Nelson, the officials turn a blind eye to what is actually happening.

I have very little doubt that, as regards this Bill, it is not the intention to cover odd little shipments for the domestic use of coal in the independent homelands. Surely this Bill is intended to cover shipments of enormous quantities of coal for export overseas. This sort of provision is perfectly reasonable in those circumstances, but to apply this sort of provision to the odd casual shipment of coal, or load of coal for transport by rail, from cities in South Africa to cities in independent homelands to me does not make sense at all.

Mr. Chairman, the so-called export certificate referred to in the definitions, does not refer only to the export of coal, but also to the bunkering of coal. It is therefore aimed at covering any situation where coal can become a danger to people or the surrounding area owing to spontaneous combustion. It is therefore not correct to say it only refers to large quantities of coal intended for export. As it is stated here, it very definitely also refers to coal that is only being bunkered. One also wants to limit the danger of spontaneous combustion with regard to the bunkering of coal in this country. For that reason I am not prepared to specifically exclude the national Black States that were previously part of the Republic of South Africa. These States like Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland will also have to be excluded if I start making exceptions. What is more, it is a sound practice in any case to make provision for a certificate indicating spontaneous combustion is not liable to occur. Internally, one does not need such a certificate. Owing to the competition in the market anyone who delivers coal in which spontaneous combustion is constantly liable to occur, thus causing problems, will not be able to compete. He will therefore cut himself out of the market. I therefore want to put it to the hon. member in all fairness that if I begin excluding states here, for example Transkei, it would be pointless not to exclude States like Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana and all the neighbouring African States at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister seems to be referring to the bunkering of coal as if that is in any case a storing of coal. “Bunkering” actually means bunkering of a ship. What we are therefore talking about in this particular Bill is the export of coal to other countries or the bunkering of coal, and the “bunkering” of coal means putting it into the coal bunkers of ships and not the normal storage of coal. I just wish to repeat that I think that for the coal merchant in King William’s Town to have an export certificate to move coal in his truck from King William’s Town to Breidbach, which is a few miles away, is totally ridiculous.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said and as it is stated in the definition in the Afrikaans text, “bunker” means—

†I will also read the definition in English—

From the Afrikaans wording it is clear that “bunkers” are not connected with ships automatically. That is the point.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 34, to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”;
2. (2) on page 4, in lines 39 to 42, to omit subsection (4) and to substitute the following proviso:
   Provided that, if it is of opinion that the liability to spontaneous combustion of any coal involved in an application constitutes a danger to life or property, the issue of a coal export certificate in respect of such coal shall be refused.

I think I also motivated this at the Second Reading. I do not believe the council should have the right to refuse to issue a coal export certificate other than for these reasons.

Why do you not leave “may” in? It will have the same effect.

If one leaves “may” in then the council can in fact refuse to issue a coal export certificate for any reason whatsoever. I do not believe the council should have the right to do that. I believe the council should only have the right to refuse a coal export certificate in the event of its forming the opinion that spontaneous combustion, or any other quality of the coal, could lead to damage to life or property. The effect therefore of the amendment which I have proposed is that unless the council perceives that there is this danger to life or property, it will have to issue a coal export certificate. This does not necessarily mean that the council can then go ahead and export coal to whomsoever it pleases. We are aware that in other regulations the export of coal is very strictly controlled by the hon. the Minister’s department. Coal is exported through Richards Bay and certain collieries have their quotas. I am not suggesting that all and sundry should be allowed to export coal. All I am suggesting is that the council shall issue a coal export certificate unless the spontaneous combustion qualities of the coal constitute a danger to life or property.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot accept the two amendments of the hon. member. If I were to accept the amendments this would amount to the CSIR not being allowed any discretion. Then there will be no question of there being a discretion any more. I also want to point out that the wording of this clause was taken over unchanged from the principal Act.

And it worked well.

Yes, it worked well. I also want to give the hon. member the assurance that there is still the matter of an appeal to the Minister, it must also be taken into account that the council will then be totally deprived of its discretion. The spontaneous combustion aspect is not always a matter one can determine exactly. And consequently there must be a measure of discretion. I do not even want to suggest by implication that we need in any way doubt the integrity of the scientists undertaking this work and these tests. I believe that they are of such a calibre that we must place them in a position where they can exercise their discretion, particularly as this was also the position in terms of the principal Act. It did not cause any problems. It was not absolute. There was a discretion and at the same time there was a right of appeal to the Minister. Although I can understand the intention of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, namely that he wants to be on the safe side—I can understand that point of departure of the hon. member—I do not think that the problems the hon. member foresees and that he wants to forestall by means of his amendment give reason for concern because it has been proved in practice that those problems do not arise. I think there is adequate provision and inherent controls so that we can accept this section just as it stands in the legislation.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, as I intimated at the Second Reading, I find the penalty of 5% per month in respect of the payment of that fee to be excessive. I therefore move the following amendment—

It can easily happen through an administrative error of a fairly junior clerk that a company does not pay its prescribed levy on 30 June. Perhaps they are a day or two late. The way this clause reads, if the firm pays its levy on 1 or 2 July, just one or two days late, they nevertheless have to pay a penalty of 5%. As I say, I think that is really very excessive. The hon. the Minister suggested in his reply that we could not keep research waiting for funds. I do not think, the coal owners being what they are, that a situation will arise where most of the funds are not paid. Secondly, we have just given the CSIR the right to borrow money if they need it so that they can continue to do their research. So I do not really consider that to be a valid argument.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to the hon. member that this is actually a deterrent. If someone is a day or so late with his payment, the matter can always be dealt with administratively. If we were to lower the interest to 2%, this would mean that the interest over a period of 12 months would only amount to 24%. This is the interest a person will have to pay if he did not pay in time. If we consider how high interest rates were only a short while ago, this is not really a high interest rate, and this is not much of a punitive measure either. If a person is therefore able to retain money in his possession, while it is earning 24% in interest, particularly in view of the fact that until recently money was lent at interest rates which were far higher, this is not actually a punishment. It would actually be an encouragement for people to pay late, particularly if they are under pressure elsewhere.

I can understand the hon. member’s standpoint. If someone does not pay the first month, and knows that he will subsequently have to pay 5% interest, he will definitely pay before he is two or three months in arrears with his payments. I therefore want to ask the hon. member to assist me to make this punitive measure an effective deterrent. The object here is to deter people who may be wilfully inclined to pay late.

I just want to bring it to the attention of the hon. member again that this matter was brought to the attention of the industry. The industry is therefore aware of this 5% interest rate that has been decided on. To the best of my knowledge and that of my department, we did not receive any objections to this. I know the hon. member does not want us to impose an unreasonably heavy penalty on people. At the same time it is, however, necessary to have a deterrent. That is the position in the first place. In the second place the industry did not make any objections to this.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I am sure hon. members will be delighted to hear that this is the last amendment I wish to move in respect of this particular Bill. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

It relates to the auditing of accounts. Clause 9(4) reads as follows—

It is, without doubt, a distinct improvement on the relevant clause in the previous Bill, where it was stated that these accounts would go to a private auditor and that the Auditor-General had nothing to do with it. We certainly approve of the fact that it shall be audited by the Auditor-General. We totally approve of this, but where it says “or by such other qualified person as maybe appointed by the Minister”, we believe this could result in the Auditor-General being shut out from the auditing of these funds altogether. We believe that the Auditor-General should always have the right to investigate these funds. We want to make it perfectly clear in this particular clause. We know of the problems that have been created by the Auditor-General not having the right to audit other funds controlled by that hon. Minister. One does not want to go into that in any detail now because it might leave a rather oily taste in the mouth. In order to try to add a simple proviso to this clause, Mr. Chairman, I accordingly move as an amendment—

By adding these words, I believe, it would cover the difficulty to which I have just referred. Furthermore, I cannot see that this can give the hon. the Minister any problem whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I was tempted to enter into an agreement with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth with regard to the Third Reading. Because the hon. member has struggled so hard and his amendment is in fact an improvement on the existing clause, I shall accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is intended, in the first place, to correct a few erroneous amendments introduced by the Defence Amendment Bill, 1982, and to improve the formulation of section 29(2) of the Act. These amendments are mostly of a formal nature. In addition, provision is being made for the present organzation of the S.A. Defence Force by replacing the concepts of “armed services” and “corps”, which have become obsolete and may cause confusion, with new concepts. This change involves amendments to several sections in which the obsolete concepts occur.

The existing provision in the Act in which the composition and objects of the commandos are laid down have also become obsolete and are no longer in line with the role and the utilization of the commandos as part of the modern S.A. Defence Force. It is obvious, therefore, that those provisions have to be amended and that the provisions applicable to the organization of the other two components of the S.A. Defence Force must be made applicable to commandos as well. The impression which may be created that commandos are not on an equal footing with the rest of the S.A. Defence Force as far as discipline is concerned, because there is a separate provision in the Act in terms of which they are subject to the Military Discipline Code and to disciplinary regulations, while they are subject to the Military Discipline Code in any event in terms of the provisions of section 104(5)(b) of the Act, is being rectified in the Bill by the deletion of that specific provision.

†Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the next provisions of the Bill. These deal with the new dispensation for persons objecting on religious grounds to their rendering service or undergoing training in the S.A. Defence Force. Before dealing with this matter in greater detail it is necessary to mention that a committee under the chairmanship of the Chaplain-General designate of the S.A. Defence Force was tasked with an investigation into the whole question of conscientious objection to military service. The committee, after having conducted a thorough investigation, came forward with certain recommendations. These, after having been accepted, form the basis of the new dispensation. Hon. members will know that the Defence Act, 1957, limits the special accommodation of objectors to military service to persons who bona fide belong and adhere to a recognized religious denomination by whose tenets its members may not participate in war. At present those persons are allotted to units where they are able to render service in a non-combatant capacity.

Under the new provision this position changes. Broadly speaking one can say that, as before only persons objecting on religious grounds will be accommodated, but to qualify, their own religious convictions will be looked into by boards for religious objection.

*These boards will be under the chairmanship of a judge or a retired judge and will for the rest consist of three theologians and two members of the S.A. Defence Force, one of whom will be a chaplain.

†These boards will be appointed by the Minister of Manpower. Three categories of religious objectors will be recognized. Firstly, those with whose religious convictions it is in conflict to render service in a combatant capacity in any armed force. Secondly, those with whose religious convictions it is further also in conflict to perform maintenance tasks of a combatant nature in any armed force or to be clothed in a military uniform. Thirdly, those with whose religious convictions it is in conflict to render any military service or to undergo any military training or to perform any task in or in connection with any armed force.

It will be noted that religious objectors will only be accommodated in the new dispensation if their convictions are of a general or universal and not a selective anti-South African Defence Force nature.

The first category of objectors will be required to render service in a non-combatant capacity in the S.A. Defence Force over the normal periods prescribed by law. The second category of objectors will have to perform prescribed maintenance tasks of a non-combatant nature in that force over periods which shall each be one and a half times as long as the normal periods of service. The third category of objectors will instead of service in the Citizen Force have to render community service in posts in Government departments, provincial administrations, municipalities and others which will be determined by the Minister of Manpower. Such service shall be completed in a single continuous period which shall be twice as long as the aggregate of the normal period of service in the Citizen Force.

*The penalties provided for in the event of classified religious objectors refusing to perform the prescribed service are related, as far as their duration is concerned, to the period during which the service was to have been rendered. For this offence, the first two categories of objectors are punished with imprisonment and the third category with detention. The object of this is to grant parole to those religious objectors who up to this stage have still been prevented by their religious views from rendering community service, on condition that they render community service now. If they still refuse to do so, provision is made for the balance of the sentence to be served in a prison. In order to ensure equal treatment, provision is made for a penalty in respect of ordinary objectors to military service which is in line with the dispensation for classified religious objectors who refuse to render service. It is not my intention to discuss in detail the further provision contained in this Bill in respect of religious objectors, except for mentioning to the House that a wide range of matters are provided for. These include the procedure and powers of the boards for religious objection, the withdrawal or amendment of decisions of such boards, the prohibition of participation in political activities—with certain exceptions—by persons belonging to the third category of religious objectors which I mentioned earlier, and the regulations which will apply in respect of community service.

To sum up, I should like to single out the most important principles relating to the treatment of objectors to military service as laid down in this Bill. Firstly, provision is being made for objections to compulsory military service on religious grounds only. Secondly, the provision is no longer limited, as it is at the moment, to members of religious denominations who are prevented by the tenets of those churches from participating in war, but will apply in respect of the objector’s own religious convictions as well. In other words, it is not only a question of the tenets of the church of the person concerned, but also of the personal religious convictions of the objector. Thirdly, a neutral body, consisting of competent persons, will decide on the applications of objectors. Fourthly, provision will be made for the “religious objector with whose religious convictions it is in conflict to render any military service or to undergo any military training or to perform any task in or in connection with any armed force” to render community service on a demilitarised basis. In the fifth and final place, the service of a religious objector must not, all things considered, be more advantageous than that of a national serviceman.

The Bill also provides that members of the S.A. Defence Force, the Reserve or an auxiliary or voluntary nursing service established in terms of the Act may not bind themselves to serve or render service as mercenaries. In this respect the Bill provides for exterritorial jurisdiction.

Finally, provision is being made in the amending Bill for the Government to have a right of recourse against third parties who have, through their negligence, injured any members of the S.A. Defence Force, in respect of expenses incurred by the S.A. Defence Force during the treatment of the injured members or in respect of certain compensation paid by the S.A. Defence Force to such members during their incapacity. Several related matters are also covered by the provision.

I conclude by pointing out that this legislation, which concerns objections to compulsory military service, deals with approximately 98% of all persons who have objected up to now, namely those persons who have objected on purely religious grounds and for no other reason. In other words, this legislation provides for those who are pacifists for religious reasons. I should like to repeat this, because this is the crux of the matter. The Bill provides for those who are pacifists for religious reasons, and not for selective pacifists. Hon. members know that at the moment, these persons have to remain in detention for three years. There are 351 of them in detention at the moment, where they lead an unproductive life. They are not criminals, and therefore I regard these amendments to the Act as very positive amendments. They enable our country to face up to the challenges of today in this sphere as well. Many of the persons who are pacifists for religious reasons are highly qualified persons, even medical practitioners. The question arises of whether we can afford to squander such an important source of manpower in today’s circumstances. When one takes into consideration the fact that they have to be provided with housing, food, medical care, etc., and that they have to be guarded and cared for by military staff who could be used to perform more meaningful tasks, I believe that hon. members will agree with me that the time has come to consider a different dispensation for them. More and more urgent appeals have been made for this recently from various quarters, as well as from their own ranks. I want to quote only two. In December 1979, the following reaction was recieved from church leaders, including Bishop Tutu, the Roman Catholic Archbishops of Cape Town, Pretoria and Durban, the CPSA Bishop of Natal and others—

In March 1980, the broad moderamen of the Dutch Reformed Church passed the following resolution in respect of alternative service—

Since the dispensation in respect of religious objectors has to be adapted now in any case to bring it into line with the new system of compulsory military service, this is the appropriate time for taking this step, and I regard these statutory amendments, especially the ones in respect of religious objections, as a positive step in the right direction to make better use of many young men in the national interest in future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Brig. Naudé and his colleagues for the information documents they made available to us and for the information they gave us when we asked to have the background to this Bill explained to us. The defence group of the official Opposition sincerely appreciated that meeting. Although, as we shall indicate in the course of the debate, we do not accept everything which he and his colleagues put to us as a part of our approach or policy in respect of the problem which we are discussing today, the meeting nevertheless took place in a very good spirit, and we appreciate it even more for that reason.

†When dealing with defence matters, I believe it is necessary to set the right tone and to set the scene for the debate which is to take place. I believe that, as in the past, it is necessary for us not to use a debate such as this for petty political gain, but that we should rather try to overcome small differences to see whether we cannot get down to the essence of the problems facing us in order to come up with the best possible solution for South Africa as a whole. That is why I should like to refer the House very briefly to some important defence debates which took place in the past. I am doing this to prove to the House that even as far back as 1967 there was a desire amongst most hon. members here, not to agree with one another, but when differing with one another, to do so in a reasonable atmosphere so that the best possible legislation for South Africa could be established.

There was a different kind of Opposition then.

I want no interjections from that hon. the Deputy Minister. Let that be quite clear. As I have indicated, I should like to refer briefly to the debate which took place in 1967. The then spokesman of the official Opposition said the following—

He then goes on and puts one or two further points.

The major point which I want to make in regard to this debate is that very shortly after the introduction of the measure by the then Minister of Defence, who is today the Prime Minister, the House agreed that the subject of the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading so that the legislation before it could be dealt with in the most objective possible manner.

Moving a little forward in history, to 1974, again there was major legislation before the House.

Was the measure of 1967 not a fundamental measure?

Yes, it was a fundamental measure. In 1974 there was another fundamental measure, although the Bill was then not referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. Nevertheless, we find that the Minister then, the present hon. Prime Minister, said—

Further on he said—

I cite this example where, on an important Bill, the interested parties got together and thrashed out some of the differences and, hopefully, came up with legislation which was good and on which they could agree.

There was a different kind of Opposition then.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is finding it very difficult to keep quiet. In 1977 there was again important legislation before the House. In this case the Minister of Defence, with reference to certain shortcomings, said—

Further on he said—

The debate then went on and my predecessor as chief spokesman on defence matters, the hon. member for Yeoville …

Where is he today?

The hon. member for Yeoville said—

He goes on to explain that they reached certain agreements and understandings and then says—

We therefore have examples of defence legislation before the House over a number of years in which all those concerned were obviously well briefed and had discussions before the time. They obviously ironed out problems before the time. In the one instance where this had not been done the Bill was referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

I believe that as regards the legislation we have before us today, the House should very seriously consider the same course of action. I shall motivate an amendment later on which I shall move in this regard.

Before I come to that, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Standerton.

*I understand that this is the first time that he is going to participate as the official spokesman of his group, and I congratulate him. That hon. member does not appear to share philosophy of this party with regard to defence matters. [Interjections.] He saw fit to take a stand even before this debate had begun. In other words, even before it was possible to state standpoints and to debate matters in this House, he had already decided what his standpoint was going to be, a standpoint which was perhaps even in conflict with that of his Minister. In this connection he saw fit to attack people who were to participate in this debate, even before they stated their standpoint. I consider this to be unacademic, short-sighted and not in the interests of the debate which is taking place in this House at the moment.

I did not issue a statement like you did.

It is not often that we have the opportunity in this House of conducting a general discussion on matters relating to the Defence Force. Therefore I am going to utilize this opportunity to the full.

Of all the departments, none is so directly involved in the daily life of every young man as the S.A. Defence Force. From the day he receives his call-up documents, he and his family are intensely aware of everything affecting the Defence Force, because he knows that he will soon have to contribute his share. Hence the general interest that is being taken in this Bill.

There are other considerations, too, which contribute to the special importance of this debate. Firstly, there is the increasing intensity of the civil war in Zimbabwe. I believe that most South Africans take cognizance with interest, dismay, disbelief and even fear of the hideous violence that has erupted there. Secondly, there is the conflict between the MNR and the Frelimo regime in Mozambique, and the resultant violence cannot leave national servicemen in South Africa unmoved, because the possibility that this tide of brutality may rush across our borders like a river in flood is a reality which we must face. Thirdly, in Namibia, the earlier and more massive attack by Swapo killers has given a totally new dimension to the struggle. Fourthly, there is the fact that communist-manufactured arms have been entering South Africa at a very alarming rate over the past decade. This fact in itself gives us cause for grave concern.

†I now want to make the point that as sure as night follows day the presence of vast quantities of war material could result in massive conflict in Southern Africa unless we—and I am talking about all of us in South Africa—together with our allies do everything possible to stabilize the situation in this area in Southern Africa.

Unless stability is brought about and we all get out of the dizzy helter-skelter to greater turmoil, Southern Africa will become just another testing ground for the arms race between the super powers, and I believe that nobody in this House would seek to participate in bringing about that situation.

*The legislation which is before us deals with aspects relating to the organization of the S.A. Defence Force and the Reserve. Therefore I wish to comment briefly on the composition of the Defence Force as the PFP would like to see it. We believe that national service and especially the subsequent Citizen Force service feature too prominently in the Defence Force. We believe that the Permanent Force should be considerably expanded, and that it should be composed of professional soldiers who join up voluntarily. We believe, furthermore, that the Permanent Force should be organized on a multiracial basis, where equal pay for equal work and responsibility should be the norm and where no racism should be tolerated. This is our belief.

Furthermore, we believe that a man or woman in the S.A. Defence Force should be remunerated on an equal footing with his or her counterpart who has the same responsibilities in any other sector of our country. We believe, moreover, that provision should be made in the S.A. Defence Force for those who wish to make a contribution on a voluntary basis in a temporary capacity.

There are many differences between the PFP and hon. members on the Government side with regard to these things I have just mentioned. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of this, but I understand that in Britain today, the position is that the voluntary Reserve Force, which consists of officers and non-commissioned officers, includes almost 50% of the total number of members of the Permanent Force at the moment. That is a very high figure.

We are not recommending that the system of national service be abolished. We do recommend, however, that it should become a less important component of the S.A. Defence Force in future. Hon. members are probably aware of the fact that the Air Force and the Navy make relatively little use of national servicemen today. Whatever the ideal may be, however, national service and amendments to such service are dealt with in this legislation, and I shall come to these matters in due course. The general approach of the PFP is that the solution to South Africa’s problems is to a far greater extent to be found in political change and adaptation than in military action. Perhaps I should repeat that. We believe that the solution to South Africa’s problems is to a far greater extent to be found in political change and adaptation than in military action.

Furthermore, it is my opinion, and that of my party, that the belief exists, especially among some persons in the NP, and also among some persons in the CP, that the might of the S.A. Defence Force should be used as a guarantee of security and a shield behind which the status quo can be maintained, while we believe that the true role of the S.A. Defence Force is quite different. [Interjections.]

This question has to be settled for the sake of those who have to serve, because they must know where they stand and what they are fighting for. It is our belief, therefore, as well as the basis of our support for the Defence Force, that its primary role is to protect South Africa against any acts of aggression from beyond our borders, irrespective of whether those acts are committed by the defence force of another country or by citizens of South Africa who have left the country for some reason and have returned with the specific intention and the means of bringing about change in a violent and revolutionary manner. In the second place, we believe that the second task of the Defence Force is to maintain order within this country, so that change may take place in a peaceful atmosphere. We believe that the adaptations in the political, social and economic spheres should be properly planned and executed so that the realistic aspirations of the Blacks may be satisfied. The PFP has frequently spelt out the nature of the adjustments. If a dispensation is not created within this country which will satisfy the needs of a significant majority, the Defence Force will not be able to perform its task of maintaining order and all our pleas for peaceful change will go unheeded.

The legislation provides for alternative service for objectors, and this forces me to say something about persons who have refused to participate in a war effort under different circumstances. Without going too far back in history, I must point out to hon. members that an attempt has always been made in South Africa not to take any coercive action against persons who have objected to military service. For this reason, there was no conscription in the 1914-’18 war, but only voluntary service. In the 1939-’45 war, too, there was voluntary service. We concede that to a large extent, South Africa was not directly involved in that war, but South Africa nevertheless made a significant contribution under those circumstances. More than 335 000 troops, including more than 211 000 fighting soldiers, joined up voluntarily. Others simply decided that they did not want to be involved, while a smaller group actively opposed the effort.

Like Kowie and his friends.

Yes, the hon. member is correct, but not only Kowie. Even those people were well treated under the circumstances and not a single one of them ever had to pay the supreme penalty for treason. As far as the war effort is concerned, our own present Prime Minister had the following to say on 30 April 1973, when he was still Minister of Defence (Hansard, col. 5370)—

†The point is, Sir, that in a diverse society such as ours it makes very good sense that sensitive matters such as defence should be dealt with with great care and understanding—and here I am directing my remarks more specifically to the hon. the Minister. It makes sense that as far as possible all groups concerned should be given the opportunity of stating their views. When I say that all groups concerned should be given the opportunity of stating their views, I must remind the hon. the Minister that within a year or so we are going to involve in Parliament groups who are not represented here. When we have the same Bill before us, we shall have to take the view of people into consideration who are not participating in this debate. I think we must bear that in mind. This is all I want to say in that regard.

Particularly when one bears in mind the difficulty in dealing with sensitive matters across the floor of the House, it makes good sense to me if discussion can take place in a calm and reasonable manner and where all groups and individuals can state their views very clearly. Therefore, such an atmosphere calls for the exclusion of people such as the hon. the Deputy Minister who sits opposite me and who keeps on making unpleasant interjections. [Interjections.] Under those circumstances it is very difficult to come to an accord. Therefore I move as an amendment—

I move this amendment for the consideration of the House and the hon. the Minister who, I hope, will listen carefully to what I have to say.

I should like to remind the House that this amendment is completely in keeping with the tradition of the House. I think I made this point very clear when I started the debate. It seems to me that the hon. the Minister accepts that. There is just another point, however. When the hon. the Prime Minister was in charge of this portfolio, it was more often than not the case that he acceded to the kind of request that I put in terms of the amendment.

I want to give an example of what happens when a reasonable request such as this is not acceded to. It will be recalled that last year when we debated a Defence Amendment Bill we made the same request, but the request was turned down. The result was a Select Committee after Second Reading which, I believe, satisfied nobody even in the Government benches. It resulted in a Bill which was steamrollered through the House and which to this day is still producing major problems in its interpretation and application. It is strange that nobody disputes it when I say that to this day it is still producing serious problems. Therefore, apart from the reasons given for the amendment, there are many other aspects of the Bill on which we have grave reservations and which should be ironed out before the Second Reading.

Tell us your attitude to the Bill.

I should now like to deal with the matter of religious objection. The Bill provides for alternative service on religious grounds only. It then provides for three classes of religious objectors, but to that I shall come back a little later.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there must be a number of people who are perhaps highly intelligent, highly motivated, good, solid, serious South Africans who want to remain here to make a contribution to this country but who perhaps not for religious, but for moral or ethical reasons are equally strong in the conviction that they cannot render military service. [Interjections.] When the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] … introduced the Bill earlier on, he referred to religious objectors, and then, almost as a throw-away, used the word “pacifist” or something like that. I think we can make out a case for the restriction built into the Bill at present to be expanded to include moral and ethical aspects. [Interjections.]

What do you include under those terms?

The Bill provides for three classes of religious objectors, namely—

1. (i) a religious objector with whose religious convictions it is in conflict to render service in a combatant capacity in any armed force;
2. (ii) a religious objector with whose religious convictions it is in conflict to render service in a combatant capacity in any armed force, to perform maintenance tasks of a combatant nature therein and to be clothed in a military uniform; or
3. (iii) a religious objector with whose religious convictions it is in conflict to render any military service or to undergo any military training or to perform any task in or in connection with any armed force;

These provisions are contained in clause 72D. In clause 72E provision is made for the first class to which I referred to—

with no extra time or penalty. The second class of objector is accommodated by giving him non-combatant maintenance tasks whilst clothed in non-military uniform. In this case he has to serve time and half. The third class of objector, according to the Bill, shall render service in a Government department …

You have told us all this, have you not, Magnus?

… or local government, as determined by the hon. the Minister of Manpower, for a continuous period twice as long as his required military service. Such a person shall, if he has short periods such as camps to complete, pay to the State a sum of money which amounts to roughly one-fifteenth of his taxable income if the call-up was for a 12-day period.

This is a Second Reading speech.

The posts in which a person doing community service can serve will be determined by the hon. the Minister of Manpower. If he already works for the State it will be possible for him to be directed to another job. The service which he is rendering will not be considered for promotion. Nor will the service be regarded as service in that department for reasons of increases in remuneration. Clause 72G empowers the State President to make regulations pertaining to those in community service, regulations which can only be described, I believe, as extremely harsh. Such regulations virtually give the State complete control over such a person during his period of community service. I believe that this is so harsh, so outrageous, that it could, in fact, be likened to slave labour in South Africa … [Interjections.] … except that the person has the right to vote. Let us look at the provisions. Such a person may not participate in any political activity.

This is the first time the hon. member for Pinelands has smiled.

Such a person may not publish or cause to be published any document which would constitute participation in any political activity. If he had drawn up such a document before commencement of his service, he must take all reasonable steps to prevent publication during his period of service. If such a person who is doing community service fails to comply with these restrictions on his civil liberty, he is faced with a fine of up to R1 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. We on this side of the House cannot agree to those proposals.

What about Harry?

Firstly, we believe that by restricting conscientious objection to those who have religious objection only, the State itself is acting in conflict with the teaching of tolerance which is one of the cornerstones of all faiths.

Why do you not tell the terrorists that?

This has got absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

The problem of conscientious objection is not a new one. All countries in which military conscription applies have had to deal with that. In countries like the USA and others there were court cases and it was found that there were ways of dealing with this. For instance, in the case Welsh v. The United States, 1970, the court held that—

Who determines that?

I read further—

The judgment went further to say that—

What we are saying is that, in line with the finding here, we suggest and will put amendments on the Order Paper to the effect that those people who, due to deeply held moral, ethical or religious beliefs, find it irreconcilable with their conscience to (a) serve in a combatant capacity in the armed forces or (b) perform any task in or in connection with any armed forces should be entitled to perform non-combatant military service or nonmilitary forms of national service respectively. Further, we believe that the double time is totally unacceptable in the sense that it is just far too long. If any young man who is a perfectly good and decent young man and who is prepared to do his duty but who for a moral, ethical or religious reason finds that he cannot do military service or cannot participate in any force, determines that he will go before the board and put his case there, is it right that he should be taken out of the community for eight years of continuous service?

It is more than murderers get.

Would any hon. member here believe that that would be correct if that were his son? I do not believe so. What is happening here, is that there is a tendency …

It is an option the young man has.

The hon. member must not shake his head at me. He should rather listen. There is a tendency to believe that people who hold these strong beliefs are in fact treacherous and are not faithful to South Africa. This I say is not so. Therefore I say the period is unreasonably long. We will move amendments to that effect.

Further, for those who are prepared to do service in a non combatant capacity, which we call for—they will not wear military uniforms but will be prepared to take all the instructions that come their way—time and a half is too long. It is longer than the period which one should apply to make up for the fact that such a person is not placed in as dangerous a position as his colleagues doing normal military service. I think that should be the only criterion.

As far as the other restrictions are concerned—the restrictions of participation, of political activity and all the others—why do we place greater restrictions on that person who is now doing community service and perhaps doing a very good job? Why do we place restrictions on that person which we do not place on public servants or, more important, on members of the S.A. Defence Force? Why are we doing it? What are we afraid of? Surely the normal rules and regulations which apply to public servants and Defence Force personnel should apply. What can such a person do that can harm South Africa to such an extent?

My hon. colleague is indicating to me that my time is running out, but there are a few more points which I should like to make. With all the harsh penalties which we are applying, it seems to me very strange that while there are these very sever restrictions on civil liberties—extended periods of what I referred to as slave labour—we have a proposal contained in the Bill that certain people in certain circumstances can simply buy themselves out with hard money. That is a principle which we do not accept. We in the PFP consider this to be an extremely bad and unacceptable principle in Defence legislation. Since when does one provide in a national military conscription system for people to buy themselves out? I know it is said that they must nevertheless be people who have objections on religious grounds, but I do not buy that. If we are going to do service, we must do service. All must be treated equally. If a person is going to do community service for that period, I believe he must do it. We will move amendments to nullify that provision.

Further, we also have problems in regard to the boards. Let me tell the hon. the Minister what my problem is. I suggest that the basis of objection should be slightly wider to include those categories for which I have made provision. Therefore I say the boards themselves should be constituted differently. While I understand that it is the hon. the Minister’s understanding that religious objectors should be heard by theologians, I want to say to him that like militarists, theologians also have very strong views. I do not believe that they are necessarily the best people for the job. We on this side of the House would prefer a judge or a retired judge with legally trained assessors who will be able to listen and who will be able to make a decision with regard to the application objectively. Certainly the military which has a vested interest and the Department of Manpower which also has a vested interest should not be there.

There is one last aspect I should like to deal with and that is the aspect of mercenaries. The Bill makes provision for and deals with the recruitment of mercenaries and makes it an offence for a member of the S.A. Defence Force or the Reserve or an auxiliary or voluntary nursing service to bind himself to serve or render service as a mercenary, and for anybody to advise, encourage, assist, incite, instigate, suggest or otherwise persuade any member; in other words, it makes provision that people who are in the Force may not become mercenaries and that other people may not encourage them to become mercenaries. I think that is a very good principle in the Bill, but I do not think that the hon. the Minister goes nearly wide enough because there are people who are not members of the S.A. Defence Force who can and have incited and encouraged people to become mercenaries. Why must they get off scot-free? Those people are as culpable as anybody else. I believe that the provisions of this subsection should be expanded so as to also make it an offence for anybody in South Africa to encourage others to take up the cause of and fight as a mercenary. I think such people should be included as well.

What about those who encourage others to fight as terrorists?

I cannot hear when you mumble like that. If you want to ask a question stand up and ask a question.

There is just one more point that I want to make. The Bill before us makes provision for a gaol sentence for a period of eight years for those who refuse to serve in any capacity whatsoever. I understand that one has a problem when there is a system of national conscription and there is also a system whereby those who have a problem can opt out and do community service. I appreciate that there is a problem with those who then refuse to co-operate in any way, and something has to be done about those people. But again I say to hon. members: Can any of us justify sending an 18 year old boy to a civilian gaol for eight years because he refuses to carry out a law of the country. Certainly something must be done, but the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. We have a situation where the rapists of women and children, people who commit the most horrible, unthinkable crimes in our community …

Like the terrorists.

You could be right … often have a sentence imposed upon them which compared with this could be seen to be very light. I have not moved an amendment in this regard, but we shall do so when the time comes. However, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister to think about this aspect again. One cannot with a clear conscience put a young man between the ages of 18 and perhaps 22 years in a civilian goal for eights years and destroy that man’s life. I really believe that something can be done about this and I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his attention so that we can deal with it in the Select Committee which, if he agrees to my request and we refer this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading, will enable us to quietly and reasonably debate this matter and come up with a good and satisfying solution.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to welcome the hon. member for Wynberg in his new capacity as main speaker of the official Opposition on Defence. We wish him everything of the best.

The hon. member began his speech on this Bill by attacking me on the grounds of a report in a newspaper. By doing so the hon. member revealed an exceptional degree of over-sensitiveness and touchiness. Mr. Speaker, I can quite understand this. On Saturday one of their newspapers published a report of what the hon. member for Wynberg had supposedly said, and accompanying this report was a photograph of some other person, a smart fellow with a smile so broad one would think he had won the Cape Metropolitan. In this morning’s edition the newspaper rectified the matter, but in a very unobtrusive way, on page 3. This newspaper would not have made the same mistake if the hon. member for Houghton or the hon. member for Constantia had been involved. That is why I can understand the hon. member’s touchiness. Apparently I was treading on sore toes.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has come forward here with a very sensitive matter which we now have to debate. The hon. member said that we should not try to make political capital out of this. We agree with that. Since the hon. member debated meaningfully on the application of the various provisions of this legislation, he followed his own advice. Nevertheless the hon. member left the essence of the Bill aside, in other words the principle of this legislation. That is what we have to debate here. This legislation has so many fine and positive points …

Consequently it differs from all your other laws.

There are so many competent and intelligent people, well-equipped people, to whom we wish to give an opportunity to serve our community. This legislation makes provision for that.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from a speech made 71 years ago, on the occasion of the passing of the original Defence Act in 1912. The then member for Standerton, Commandant J. J. Alberts, had this to say on the issue of religious objectors—

In those years hon. members of this Parliament were just a little tougher than we are today. We have gone and declared ourselves willing to accommodate the religious objectors.

Before we take a closer look at the legislation under discussion we must turn our attention briefly to the philosophy surrounding it. I am grateful that the hon. member for Wynberg said that we differ on certain points as far as this philosophy is concerned. That is assuredly the case. There is one thing, though, which I hope we do not differ on, and that is the task and the prestige of our Defence Force in the service of our country. What does Defence Force training entail? Surely that forms the basis of this entire discussion. What does it entail? Perhaps we could sum it up as follows. It is the preparation of the Defence Force soldier with his total capacity—his physical, his intellectual and spiritual capabilities—to serve his country successfully with the available equipment. This is a universal concept. When we talk about specific Defence Force training in the Republic of South Africa, therefore, we make the same appeal to Defence Force soldiers which I have just indicated, namely that they should be prepared to be equipped to serve the Republic of South Africa with all its people to the best of their ability with all their aptitudes. Included in this concept is the security of the Republic of South Africa and those of all its inhabitants, the maintenance of law and order, the safeguarding and maintenance of everything which has been brought into existence here, the preservation of all the opportunities which exist here, the preservation of freedom, of home and hearth, the preservation of religious freedom, the preservation of the freedom to work and live. All these things comprise the underlying motive for, and the background against which we should assess, this piece of ligislation. It is a sounding board as it were for our assessment of this legislation and of Defence Force training in South Africa.

Now there are a few facts or realities which actually precede this task, facts and realities which we cannot overlook. We must ’ be aware of them. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to other pieces of legislation and other events in other times, and to what action was taken then. In the meantime, however, circumstances have changed.

The first reality which we have to take into consideration is the onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. We must not lose sight of this. This is after all one of the reasons why our Defence Force soldiers are there. The onslaught on the Republic of South Africa is aimed at destabilizing our country. The first sphere in which this occurs is the military sphere. There are many things that furnish proof of this onslaught on us, for example deeds of terror, bomb explosions, terrorists, sabotage, etc. In addition there is also the psychological sphere of the onslaught. This entails inter alia the fomenting of White/Black polarization, something which we find in the role played by the ANC, with its familiar strategy.

Then, too, there is the onslaught on the youth. We see this in the breaking down of authority structures, the revolt against the existing order and against many structures of society. Then there are the economic boycott campaigns that have been launched against us from various quarters. These are a few aspects of the total onslaught on our country and its people; on our entire existence.

The question we must therefore ask now is whether this amending Bill is in fact necessary in this climate. I believe that this House must immediately reply affirmatively to this question. It is the duty of the Government to provide instruments by means of which the order of society in this country can be protected and preserved.

That is why it is also necessary for every able-bodied man to become involved in this effort. The hon. member for Wynberg maintains that national service comprises too large a facet of our Defence Force set-up. I shall come back to this later. This amending Bill is an improvement on one of such instruments to support our Defence Force in its task and actions. If we read the long title of this amending Bill we can see what it entails. There are only a few main features which I should like to summarize, and the first of these is that a few errors which occurred in previous legislation will now be rectified; that organizational functions will be rectified; and attention is also being given to the composition of commandos. Then comes the most important part of the amending Bill which consists of the clauses dealing with religious objectors. There is also the arrangement in connection with the service of mercenaries and, finally, the right of recourse of the S.A. Defence Force in respect of third parties.

Clause 9 deals with the religious objector, and I wish to dwell on this subject for a moment. The object of the legislation in this respect is to establish a procedure for the meaningful utilization of manpower, and among such persons we include the competent men to whom the hon. the Minister also referred. We are trying by means of this legislation to open new doors to religious objectors and to create opportunities for them. As it is stated here, an opportunity is being created for the citizen who has bona fide religious objections. This opportunity is being created by means of the establishment of a board, by means of an instrument, by means of an arrangement so that he can state his case to the board with confident open-heartedness. He can do so with confident open-heartedness because sitting on that board are knowledgeable and sympathetic people. He does not appear in a court because there is no prosecutor. He can with the utmost confidence unburden his heart there, and state his needs to those people. That board will consist of knowledgeable people who will deal with that man’s case with understanding and compassion. This approach will not be as was reflected in one of the editorials in the Cape Times this morning, which read inter alia as follows—

It is not the idea that this board will be a body which passes judgment on people as though they were hardened criminals. Nor is the idea or the object in this connection, as one of the hon. members said—and I think these are crude words—that what we are envisaging here is slave labour. I am referring here to the hon. member for Wynberg, who said that in this House. It is reprehensible to cause that concept to be conveyed to the outside world from this House, coming as it does from the main speaker of the official Opposition. [Interjections.] I think it is truly shocking. I think it is shocking and it is definitely not the purpose of such a body to act in such a way.

The opponents of this legislation can be grouped into three main categories. The first group I want to call the enemies of South Africa, the explicit enemies of the Republic of South Africa. This legislation is already world-wide news, and in this connection I should like to quote a radio report from Moscow. This is a translation of a report from Moscow. It reads as follows—

Please note the untruths which are being proclaimed in this broadcast—

Please note these figures, in the light of the fact that the hon. the Minister said that at present there were only 351 in detention. I quote further—

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

No. I did not interrupt the hon. member while he was making his speech.

Just indicate from what publication that report was taken.

I have already said I was quoting from a Radio Moscow broadcast. This has been translated into Afrikaans.

Your mouthpiece.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: An hon. member on the other side—I do not quite know who it was—stated that Radio Moscow was “your mouthpiece” (mondstuk), meaning that of the PFP.

Order! Which hon. member said that?

Sir, I said it, but I withdraw that allegation.

The hon. member for Standerton may proceed.

I am quoting from another broadcast. This is what Radio Maputo had to say—

I am quoting from these documents to point out that this legislation is being very carefully scrutinized by our enemies. It is the enemies of our State who examine the legislation from that point of view. Nevertheless there are certain things which in my opinion are consonant with this. It is logical that such enemies will not support any law aimed at the security and the stability of and the order in this country.

The second group who are opposed to this legislation I wish to describe as the rigorists. They are the people who do not wish to allow any flexibility at all. Letters from these people appear regularly in the newspapers. Over the weekend, in fact, another letter in this vein appeared. This was from a farmer who said that while he was farming, his son was on the border. He asked for no clemency, no excuse for anyone whatsoever—the whole lot of them have to go and carry out their task. He even asked that the board which will, inter alia, consist of a judge and a theologist, should be replaced by a team of farmers. [Interjections.]

The third group I wish to describe as the humanists. Their motto would be: Let it be optional to do compulsory military service. It should now be optional, so that a citizen may decide for himself whether or not he wishes to do his national service. [Interjections.] According to them, matters should simply be allowed to take their course. I do not know whether the hon. member for Wynberg and the official Opposition adopt this standpoint: Leave it to the conscience of the individual. How will one be able to gauge something like this in an expert way? The adherents to this standpoint elevate the conscience of the individual above the responsibility of the State. These people and those who support them, elevate the conscience of the individual, as they think fit and indiscriminately, above the responsibility of the State, and that we cannot tolerate. That we simply cannot tolerate.

In this country, with our unique circumstances, where we want to live in peace, we cannot allow it. That is why it is correct that this principle should be discussed now in this public debate. It is correct that we should debate this matter in this highest council chamber. It is correct that every responsible citizen in the country can expect us, who have to give guidance, to debate this matter.

The hon. member referred to the Defence Force as being a shield behind which the status quo of the régime is to be maintained.

Did he not put it in that way?

He did.

The predecessor of the hon. member as principal speaker on that side on defence matters, the hon. member for Yeoville …

Where is he?

… summarized it well in an article in Paratus dated December 1982 and expressly stated to the credit of our Defence Force—

Those are the ideas of the hon. member for Yeoville on this matter.

That is also our policy.

He did not insinuate that the Defence Force was a shield behind which a régime could hide and maintain the status quo. We are in full agreement with the idea expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville. That is why we have this Bill before us today. It was introduced with great responsibility. We can with openheartedness call upon the citizen to come and perform his task. For those who are really religious objectors, we are creating an instrument which does not compel them to beg on their bended knees, but which affords them the opportunity to state their case openheartedly. The S.A. Defence Force is not only there for supporters of the political thinking or philosophy of the Government. The Defence Force is there as the pride of our country in its entirety, as the first line of our offensive against the enemy.

Now the hon. member has said that the Defence Force should be free of racism. I want to ask him across the floor of the House to show us where racism occurs in the Defence Force.

You should rather not ask that. I do not want to embarrass you.

Look how nervous the Minister is now. [Interjections.]

If the Defence Force should merely be an instrument of a political party, it would be a pity, it would be a tragic day. What do we read about the views of the supporters of the Opposition? In the Cape Times of 17 March Chris Giffard wrote in “Student Viewpoint”—

I am therefore not the only one who says this. Here the PFP has already displayed its “angry response” to Mr. Giffard. However, I want to quote from another document.