I have to announce that, at a ceremony held in the Main Dining Room this morning, I accepted on behalf of Parliament a portrait of President Paul Kruger, which was presented by Boland Bank.

†The portrait was painted during the President’s exile by the well-known French painter René Joseph Gilbert and is, as far as is known, the last portrait painted of President Kruger. The portrait will be hung in a suitable place in the Parliamentary Building.

Mr. Chairman, when progress was reported on Monday, I was telling the hon. the Minister that while the Nieuwenhuizen Commission recommended the possible consolidation of compensation legislation, we believe that the differentiation indicated by the commission should be maintained and that compensation for mining-related diseases should in practice be maintained separately from workmen’s compensation in the industrial sector. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a specific question, the answer to which he has been evading for some time. I want to ask him whether he can tell the Committee if the beneficiaries in terms of the Occupational Diseases Act can expect an increase in benefits this year. There are three categories of which the hon. the Minister is aware. There are two categories for special awards and one category for monthly pensions. On 1 April 1983 it was exactly two years since the beneficiaries of pensions and special awards received an increase via approval of the House. In this two-year period the average inflation rate has been 14% per annum. Over a two-year period that is 28%. Those people in receipt of pensions have therefore had the purchasing power of their income reduced by at least 28%. In reply to a question I tabled in the House and on many occasions the hon. the Minister has promised us that, once his committee had reported to him, he would provide us with an answer. That committee has presumably not reported yet, despite the fact that the Nieuwenhuizen Commission’s report was tabled in March 1982. On other occasions we have been told that the hon. the Minister is going to be issuing a White Paper in this respect. We are still waiting for that White Paper to be tabled.

I believe it is an abrogation of the responsibility of the House and a dereliction of duty if we do not see to it that these pensioners receive adequate increases to keep pace with inflation in the times we live in. It is no good for the hon. the Minister to tell us that he is negotiating with the Chamber of Mines or other bodies to see what satisfactory formula can be arrived at for future payment compensation in regard to occupational diseases. While these negotiations are going on, I believe we must fulfil our responsibility to these people and ensure that their pensions are increased to offset the declining purchasing power of the rand. That means an increase which is at least the equivalent of the inflation rate every year.

The hon. the Minister, as well as hon. members of the House, will be aware of the fact that in past years increases in pensions and special awards granted in terms of the relevant sections of the Act have run as high as 15% per annum. Yet for the past two years these people have been sitting and waiting for an increase which has not been forthcoming. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us clearly whether he anticipates that recipients of benefits in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act will in fact receive increases this year. If his answer to that question is in the negative, I believe the hon. the Minister should have a very serious rethink on his attitude here. The hon. the Minister could perhaps tell us what in terms of section 101 of the Act the average pension is. Certainly, as far as widows are concerned, I doubt whether there are widows of miners who are receiving very much in excess of R300 per month. Assuming they earn that amount on pensions, it means that the purchasing power of their money has decreased by approximately R80 per month. With increasing rentals and increasing costs for foodstuffs, clothing and the education of their children I believe we have a very specific responsibility to see that these people receive increases in their pensions.

Perhaps at the same time the hon. the Minister can tell us what progress has been made with the committee’s report, when we can expect a White Paper on the Nieuwenhuizen Commission and what stage of negotiations he has reached with the Chamber of Mines and other interested parties regarding the resolution of these problems. These are three promises, three expectations, concerning which the hon. the Minister had avoided answering the question regarding these increases. We really look forward to receiving a reply to that specific question.

Then I should like to turn to the actual report of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission. We have taken note of the fact that there has been a minority report, and I believe the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation of what his attitude is to the majority recommendations and the minority reservations expressed in this report. We are dealing here with some very important principles regarding the livelihood of people and their capability to earn a living under very difficult circumstances in the mines. There is an ample stock of records of what has happened not only overseas but also locally in mines as far as miner’s phthisis is concerned and I am sure there is sufficient evidence for the hon. the Minister now to be able to give us an indication whether he agrees with the majority recommendations in the report, whether he has differences with the majority recommendations and whether he agrees with some of the minority recommendations made by Mr. Paulus of the Mineworkers’ Union amongst others. We believe that this is a very serious matter and not a matter to be taken lightly. I should like once again to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to support the principle of the amalgamation of workmen’s compensation for the two categories under one Workmen’s Compensation Act, which the report recommends should be administered by the department of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since I am following up on the hon. member for Durban North I just want to say that today he again behaved in the manner to which we have become accustomed, namely that of displaying a very balanced outlook on matters. I shall refer later to matters he touched on.

In the first place I want to say that an extremely important task has been delegated to the hon. the Minister who has been charged with this portfolio. The mineral industry and the provision of energy are key industries in this country and are definitely cornerstones of our economy. That is why the hon. the Minister and his department have such a complex and important task. If we look at the annual report of the department, we note that the department has 1 327 posts, which also gives an indication of the task being performed by it. The criticism voiced thus far by speakers of the official Opposition and other parties was not very substantial, and I interpret this as a testimonial to the success with which the hon. the Minister and his department have performed this task. I know that the hon. the Minister’s approach is such that he will handle the interest groups involved in this extremely important matter in a circumspect and balanced way.

The question can be asked: Why is the mineral industry so important? I want to quote a few figures to indicate why. Its contribution to the country’s economy amounts to a total of R14 448 million. Total mineral sales for 1982 realized that amount: Mineral exports contributed R12 065 million. Gold was responsible for 83% of that amount. In 1982 the number of workers in mines totalled 740 828, which gives one an indication of the scope of these activities.

In pursuance of what the hon. member for Durban North said I want to say that I am convinced, and the Government has proved that it considers the welfare of the workers to be important. This is proved by the fact that over the years quite a number of commissions have been appointed to investigate matters with the aim of bringing about improvements in various fields. I want to add to this that it is important for the workers to have confidence in the Government and to feel safe in their work situation. The hon. member for Geduld referred to the Nieuwenhuizen report and I support his standpoint that the Industrial Diseases in Mines and Works Act has to be retained. However, if the Workmen’s Compensation Act has to serve as the basis for compensation for occupational diseases, this may result in the existing rights of workers being prejudiced. By the way, this is also the standpoint of the hon. member for Durban North.

I want to refer briefly to pensions. I am doing so because I know that the hon. the Minister is sympathetic towards the difficult conditions in which sufferers from occupational diseases find themselves. I want to make a further appeal for an improvement in the monthly pensions and allowances paid to these people in terms of the Occupational Diseases Act. Adjustments have been made over the years which improved the circumstances of these people, but under the present circumstances there is definitely merit in bringing further relief for this group of people. As far as pensions in general are concerned, I feel the time has come for an in-depth investigation to be instituted into pensions. Frequently mine-workers go from one mining house to another to improve their position. In the process they forfeit their previous pension rights. There are people who maintain that a national pension fund will eliminate many of these problems, but at this stage all I am asking is that further investigations be made into this matter because it frequently happens that when some of these people reach retirement age they become social pensioners whereas they could have been independent if they had not broken the continuity of their pensionable service.

I think it was the hon. member for Brakpan who appealed to the hon. the Minister not to tamper with the speed limit of 100 km per hour. The hon. member approached this mainly from the point of view of safety and not from the point of view of fuel saving. It is his opinion that it would not be safe to increase the present speed limit. But, Sir, it has never been scientifically proved that a higher speed of necessity leads to a higher accident rate. Admittedly it is true that if a vehicle travelling at a high speed is involved in an accident the consequences may be more serious than in the case of an accident at a lower speed. But the fact remains that there are also disadvantages to a low speed limit. I am not advocating that the speed limit be raised, but I am merely suggesting that when circumstances arise which enable the Minister to raise the speed limit this may have many advantages in many fields. As a matter of fact, when we frequently have to travel long distances this may even contribute to road safety. But unfortunately I cannot support a summary request that the present speed limit should not be raised. I prefer to believe that when the time is ripe the hon. the Minister will discuss the matter with all interested parties and will, if possible, raise the speed limit a little. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on this first occasion on which I have been the responsible Minister in a discussion of the Vote of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, permit me to convey my thanks to all my predecessors for the contributions they have made over the years to this State department, which is one of the oldest institutions in our Government system. I also want to say on this occasion that it is a special honour and privilege to be able to occupy this financially and economically important portfolio and that I shall devote my best efforts to promoting the interests of this portfolio in the time that lies ahead.

For the hon. members who are interested in history, particularly the history of this Parliament, it is perhaps necessary to enumerate those who, in the course of history, have occupied this portfolio as Ministers of Mines. Names crop up such as that of Gen. J. C. Smuts, who, in 1910, was the very first Minister of Mines. Later, in 1938, he was again Minister of Mines. After that follow Sir Patrick Duncan, J. H. Hofmeyr, Col. Reitz, Dr. Eric Louw, Dr. Dönges, Dr. Van Rhijn, Dr. Diederichs and so on. Then, too, we find a father-son combination in this line of succession, namely the late Senator Jan de Klerk, and my Cabinet colleague and immediate predecessor, the hon. F. W. de Klerk, at present Minister of Internal Affairs. This is a father-son combination which has occurred in this Ministry. Minister F. W. de Klerk accepted responsibility for the Energy Branch on 20 June 1979, and he was the first Minister to whom the rationalized Mineral and Energy Affairs portfolio was entrusted on 1 April 1980. His sustained efforts to instil in the general public an awareness of the country’s energy requirements and accentuate the high priority of energy in the national economy is characteristic of his vision, and I wish to pay tribute to him today for this fine heritage.

The functional terrain of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs covers a very wide field, from identification of the country’s geological resources to the country’s fuel situation, electricity supply, diamond cutting, occupational diseases in mines and nuclear energy, to mention only a few facets. Apart form all the evidence of Minister De Klerk’s balanced approach and his exceptional decisions, which can be observed time and again on the operational side, his biggest single achievement, in my opinion, was to combine all this specialized knowledge and expertise into a tightly knit and formidable team. In doing so, he also succeeded brilliantly in meaningfully co-ordinating and restructuring our country’s nuclear activities, and we shall always be grateful to him for that.

I also want to take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, in particular the Director-General and the people around him, as well as to my personal private staff in the Ministry, for the help and the outstanding assistance and support I have had from them in accepting this new portfolio, particularly since they have really gone out of their way to bring me up to date on all details.

Then, too, I want to mention the fact—of which all hon. members are aware—that the discussion of this Vote has been considerably advanced. When this was announced the department made a special affort to make the annual report—or at least a number of copies of the annual report—available for the convenience of those who wanted to take part in this debate. I also wish to thank the speakers who have thanked the department for this. The department went out of its way to manage it. The only pity is that we cannot see here on the benches of Parliament the fine outer cover that the final copies of the report will boast.

We have been fortunate over the past year—and I want to thank our Creator for this—that there have been very few deaths among members of staff in this department. In the mining industry, too, there has been a decline in the accidents and death rates. To those who have lost their next of kin, I want to convey my personal sympathy. To those who have been injured in the performance of their daily task I wish a speedy and full recovery.

On this occasion I should dike to give a very brief survey of the Republic’s mineral industry, particularly in respect of the year under review. It is true that the negative influence of the international recessionary conditions in 1982 have taken their toll of the mineral industry as well. The poor performance of the world’s steel industry in particular has had a detrimental effect on the Republic’s mineral exports and the marketing of ferrous metals such as chrome, vanadium and iron, and commodities such as fluorspar and ferroalloys have as a result not come up to expectations. Moreover, the demand for the Republic’s coal has declined. In contrast, gold, on the other hand, has once again confirmed its role as a mainstay of the economy through its contribution of 73 of the total South African mineral exports. Despite the strong influence on the gold price of increased gold sales by our competitors and higher interest rates in the USA in particular, the value of the Republic’s gold sales in 1982 was 2,6% higher than in 1981. The exchange rate value of the rand as against the American dollar, and the small increase in gold production, were responsible for this increase of 2,6%.

However the weaker demand for coal certainly does not reflect a sombre picture for this vital energy raw material. The rosier side of the situation is that the value of the Republic’s coal exports increased from R977 million in 1981 to R1 178 million in 1982, despite the slack conditions prevailing in the market. The Republic’s earnings from coal have now passed the R1 billion mark for the first time. We hope that as far as the coal price is concerned, this milestone is the beginning of a road which will lead this industry to horizons of glory and prosperity.

Another very encouraging phenomenon is the recovery of the local mineral market, which reflects an equally encouraging trend of growing domestic economic activity. The value of domestic mineral sales has increased from R2 100 million to R2 400 million. Here coal was once again the biggest contributing factor. There is no doubt that despite the low phase of the business cycle and related limitations, the mineral industry has once again contributed largely towards economic stability in the Republic’s economic system. Together with the agricultural industry, the mineral industry is a primary industry. Just as we are hoping for early relief in the agricultural sector, we can only hope that the upswing in the world economy, on which the mineral industry is so dependent, will not be too long in coming.

Before reacting to what hon. members have said thus far, I wish to make an announcement which may be of importance. I should like to make a few remarks concerning the representations made by various hon. members in respect of the question of pensions for sufferers from occupational disease. In this regard I also wish to refer to the report of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission of Investigation. In reply to the very well-framed representations of the hon. member for Geduld in this regard, and in reply to the speeches by the hon. member for Welkom and the hon. member for Durban North, I should like to make a few remarks about this.

The Commission of Investigation into Compensation for Occupational Diseases, the so called Nieuwenhuizen Commission, made a whole series of recommendations, inter alia, with regard to the structural adjustments and organizational arrangements for a uniform dispensation as regards occupational disease for the total working population of the Republic. For understandable reasons the recommendations of the commission could not be taken further than the rationalization and restructuring of the existing compensation dispensations and the allocation of responsibility. Apart from employers’ and employees’ organizations with a considerable interest in this matter, there are also various Government departments, e.g. the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the Department of Health and Welfare, the Department of Manpower, the Commission for Administration, and institutions such as the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and the Compensation Commissioner for Occupational Diseases, with whom consultation has to take place. This goes a long way towards explaining why it has not been possible to react to this report at an earlier stage.

Hon. members will certainly concede that it is no easy task, in view of the widely divergent points of view and approaches of all these bodies and interest groups, to come forward with recommendations for a uniform dispensation as regards occupational disease. Reference has already been made to the question of minority reports and the question of the various standpoints adopted in this regard. Nevertheless, a sufficient degree of consensus has now been reached between the parties, so that it will shortly be possible to approach the Cabinet with final proposals concerning the creation of a uniform national dispensation for occupational disease and further action in respect of the detailed recommendations of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission. Only then, viz. after the Cabinet has given its approval in respect of the proposed organizational and structural arrangements, will it be possible to attend to rationalization of the law. This in itself is, of course, a comprehensive and time consuming task which will have to be performed in close liaison with employers’ and employees’ institutions in particular. Therefore, pending the outcome of the Nieuwenhuizen Report, and whatever the Cabinet might decide about it, the Government had to consider granting interim financial relief to sufferers from occupational disease and their dependants. As may be inferred, compensation for occupational disease is not uniform. At present there are various principles on the basis of which it is calculated and paid out. Indeed, it is these differences in the calculation and payment of compensation that were the reason for the appointment of this commission of inquiry. It therefore goes without saying that some beneficiaries must be worse off than others. Accordingly the Government has decided to afford relief where the need is greatest. It is therefore a pleasure to announce that the Cabinet has decided that the monthly pensions of widows and dependant children of deceased sufferers from occupational disease, and the pensions of those sufferers from occupational disease who suffer from a compensatable disease that has obstructed their cardiorespiratory functions by 50% and who receive a monthly pension, be increased by 16% with effect from 1 October 1983.

Hear, hear!

It has also been decided that special grants be increased by 16% and that all other monthly pensions, viz. those amounts that in general are greater, will be increased by 12%. These special grants are paid out monthly just like pensions and the increase takes effect from the same date. Since in view of the Nieuwenhuizen Report further consideration will still have to be given to the principles in terms of which lump sum benefits are payable, an adjustment of lump sum benefits is not desirable at this stage. The amending Bill necessary to effect the announced increases will be introduced during the present session. I sincerely hope that this interim increase of monthly pensions and special grants will to some extent meet the needs of sufferers from occupational disease and that at the same time they will allow sufficient time to create a national dispensation for occupational disease which can be to the benefit of the total working population of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, another point I should like to raise is the whole issue of the supply of water to Escom and the circumstances relating to this matter, which is one of great current importance. Water is essential for the generation of steam and for the cooling of turbine condensers in Escom’s coal-fired power-stations. Constant efforts are made by Escom to use water more efficiently. Over the past five years Escom has reduced water consumption in its coal-fired power-stations by as much as 16%, viz. from about 3 litres per kilowatt hour in 1977 to 2,5 litres per kilowatt hour in 1982. This is a considerable economy and an exceptional achievement. To indicate to hon. members the awareness of the importance of saving water, I may say that in 1950, for example, Escom used 4,4 litres of water to generate 1 kilowatt hour as against the present 2,5 litres that are used to generate 1 kilowatt hour. This conservation of water in Escom’s water-cooled coal-fired power-stations has for the most part been achieved by recirculating the same water up to 20 times and also due to economies of scale at Escom’s new big power-stations. Particularly since the drought of 1966 we at Escom have been profoundly conscious of our country’s limited water resources. As part of its water conservation programme Escom began as long ago as 1971 to apply the new method of dry cooling at the Grootvlei power-station near Villiers. Basically, this cooling system works in more of less the same way as the radiator of a motor vehicle. The operating experience with dry cooling gained by Escom over the years will now apply in the new series of three power-stations, viz. Matimba at Ellisras, and Kendal and Majuba in the Eastern Transvaal. Each of these power-stations, viz. Matimba, Mujuba and Kendal are ten times bigger than the biggest dry-cooled power-station in the world, the Wyodek power-station in the USA. Therefore Escom is a world leader in the field of water conservation by way of dry cooling. These power-stations will save South Africa about 336 million litres of water per day due to the use of dry cooling, and this is equal to the daily water consumption of a city like Pretoria. The conservation of water by means of a dry-cooled power-station has its disadvantages too, however, because the capital cost of a dry-cooled power-station is 3% to 5% higher than that of a water-cooled power-station. It has the further disadvantage that it causes an increase of 7% in the consumption of coal. Therefore the capital investment, as well as the coal consumption, is higher. This 7% represents about 800 000 more tons of coal per power-station per annum, and accordingly 2,4 million tons of coal per annum more will be needed for the three power-stations than in the cae of water cooling. In 1982 Escom used 251 500 megalitres of water in its power-stations, and this consumption represents a mere 1,8% of South Africa’s total waterconsumption.

From the data I have provided it is clear that an adequate water supply is essential for the generation of electrical power in South Africa. Therefore a shortage of water for power-stations gives rise to uneconomical operation and considerable cost increases. At the worst, in the case of a serious water shortage it can lead to rationing of power and even to the temporary closure of power-stations, with a resultant loss of revenue and a shortage of electricity.

As far back as August 1982, when it was perceived that the water level of dams in the Eastern Transvaal was lower than in previous years, Escom took steps to conserve water. Apart from savings by the use of more sophisticated technologies in its new power-stations, there are various other steps which Escom has already taken and can still take to conserve water. Briefly, what they amount to is a reduction in power generation at stations where water is scarce, and even the temporary closure of such power-stations. In the second place there is the shifting of power generation from power-stations in one area, to power-stations in another area where water is still relatively freely available. In the third place there is the artificial supplementing of water supplies, such as the Grootdraai dam supplementing scheme which was recently announced by the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Finally, there is the possible rationing of electrical power, so as to be able to save water.

Unfortunately it is true that the extent of the present drought means that we shall have to resort to all four of these measures if we are to get by and enable Escom to stretch the available water supply for as long as possible so as to provide electricity. It goes without saying that these steps are extremely expensive. Present indications are that if it does not rain early in the season, the dams supplying Escom’s coal-fired power-stations in the Eastern Transvaal will begin to run dry by August, and all the water resources of the Eastern Transvaal will have virtually been exhausted by the end of the year. By the partial shifting of power generation from the power-stations of the Eastern Transvaal to less efficient power-stations on or below the Vaal dam, the power-stations of Eastern Transvaal can remain in operation for approximately 20 days longer, because the amount of electricity they need generate is accordingly lower, but this will cost approximately an additional R40 million for the rest of this year, 1983. If the peak load power-stations along our coast can also be utilized to the full in replacing as much as possible of the power-station capacity of the Eastern Transvaal, altogether 35 days of water supply can be saved, but the cost involved will amount to a further R40 million, viz. an additional R80 million in all for the rest of 1983 as regards the generation of power.

Escom has already indicated that it supports the Grootdraai emergency supplementation scheme, which may cost between R10 and R20 million, and that it is prepared to contribute its share of the cost. Therefore, if it were not to rain at all during 1983 or in the beginning of 1984, this scheme would enable Escom to deliver power until approximately March 1984 without serious cutbacks. Work on this scheme has already begun. Moreover, Escom has temporarily closed the Ingagane power-station near Newcastle, and power generation at the Umgeni power-station has been drastically reduced to save water from the Midmar dam. Escom is already investigating a rationing plan in cooperation with major consumers to ensure that as little as possible disruption is caused when it appears absolutely necessary to ration electricity. If electricity rationing were to be necessary, details of the rationing plan would be made known as soon as possible.

†I also want to say something about the Koeberg nuclear power-station at this stage of the debate. The final report regarding the sabotage incident at the Koeberg nuclear power-station is not yet available. I have, however, received a report from Escom and would like to provide the House with certain information. The investigation by Escom and the French contractors of the damage which resulted from the sabotage incident at Koeberg during the nights of 18 and 19 December 1982 was recently completed. Nobody was injured as a result of the explosions; no radiological hazard arose and recovery work is well advanced. The incident has resulted in a serious set-back to the expected date of commissioning of the power-station as the two units were in an advanced stage of construction. The direct cost of the damage is relatively small in comparison with the consequential costs due to the delay in the commissioning of Koeberg and is partly covered by insurance. Every effort is being made to minimize the consequential costs and the main objective of Escom’s ongoing negotiations with the contractors and the other parties concerned is to ensure the earliest practicable power generation, the lowest additional costs and satisfactory repayment arrangements.

As far as security measures are concerned, Escom has drastically improved the original measures as foreseen in 1976 in the light of the present-day world-wide increase in terrorist activities. It was therefore necessary to develop and add to the original concepts in the course of the building and commissioning of the power-station. I want to reiterate that neither of the two units will be commissioned at the expense of safety or before the licencing authorities and the Government are convinced that security measures are at an acceptable standard and that Koeberg can be operated with safety. In this regard I want to mention that before commissioning, both reactors will be completed to such an extent that the construction workers will have left the site and only such staff of the contractor and of Escom who are involved with the commissioning will have access to the reactor buildings. In actual fact, it is the intention now to commission the second unit before the first. It is not at this juncture considered to be in the interests of security to disclose exact details regarding the financial losses incurred in the sabotage incident.

*I should now like to refer to the contributions of hon. members who have taken part in the debate thus far. Permit me, too, Mr. Chairman, to take this opportunity to convey my appreciation to the statutory and para-statutory institutions falling under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs for co-operation and assistance they have provided not only to the Minister but also to the department. Here I refer in particular to the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa, to Mintek (the Council for Mineral Technology), Soekor and Escom.

†I now want to deal with the contribution of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The hon. member referred to the shortage of staff in this department. He is quite correct. There is an acute shortage of departmental professional staff, and the hon. member suggested, inter alia, that Geological Survey should be turned into a statutory institution. In this regard I must point out that the personnel complement of the public sector, including all staff matters, such as recruitment and remuneration, is, in terms of the Public Service Act, 1957, the sole responsibility of the Commission for Administration. However, ways and means are at present being investigated by the commission to alleviate the problem experienced in the professional division of the Public Service. As the hon. member will see on page 16 of the department’s annual report, positive results have already been achieved in the case of mining engineers. The Commission for Administration will, in terms of its working programme, attend in due course to other occupational groups, with due regard to scarcity. I am confident that, as in the case of the Government Mining Engineer, the staff position at the Geological Survey will also be improved in the near future. Furthermore, I should like to point out that for obvious reasons it is not the Government’s policy to solve staff problems by turning public institutions into autonomous statutory bodies.

The hon. member also referred to the continued assistance to gold mines as announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The commission referred to by the hon. member, the so called Franzsen Commission, was appointed by the hon. the Minister of Finance and I would suggest that the hon. member refer to the hon. the Minister’s statement in that connection in his latest budget speech. For the information of the hon. member I should like to add that the mines that received State assistance during the 1982-’83 financial year were the following: East Rand (Pty.) Ltd.; Loraine Gold Mine Ltd; Durban-Roodepoort Deep Ltd.; Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd.; Balmoral Gold Mining Company Ltd.; Westrand Consolidated Mines Ltd., and Venterspost Gold Mining Company Ltd.

*If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that we should abolish this assistance to marginal mines entirely. Is that correct?

I suggested that a case could be made out for it.

I would strongly advise the hon. member not to put his foot into things like this. In the department we have a way of doing things. Before we take a decision, we usually consult with the people involved, in this case with the Chamber of Mines and other interested parties.

*If I may give the hon. member some good advice, such as a father would give his adopted son, I want to point out to him that the question of marginal mines and assistance to marginal mines is an extremely important matter. It affects the life of mines; it affects the amount of foreign exchange we are able to earn and it affects the question of whether we are able to exploit all the gold that lies under the soil. It also affects the creation of thousands, tens of thousands, of employment opportunities, and it also affects the existence of supporting industries related to the mining industry. In addition, it affects the established infrastructure which has been built at tremendous cost. It affects established communities as well. The hon. member will agree with me when I say that the mining industry is a primary industry and that we must not, therefore, lightly speak about the abolition of assistance to marginal mines. Of course, we do not say that the system as it stands at the moment is perfect. There are indeed deficiencies, but we do not simply talk about abolition; instead, we adopt the sensible course and consult with all affected bodies and organizations before embarking upon anything. May I point out to the hon. member that the question of share prices is also at issue. If the impression were to be created that the Government was going to turn its back on marginal mines, this could inflict severe losses on shareholders. The hon. member should therefore reflect a little before embarking on this sensitive terrain. He should come and speak to me in advance, or to someone with more knowledge of this matter than he possesses.

†The hon. member also made certain comments in regard to the operation of the Mining Corporation and suggested that it be taken away from the Department of Co-operation and Development. Quite frankly I think the hon. member is at the wrong address. Although my department enjoys representation in the controlling body of this corporation it is an institution which falls solely within the purview of the Department of Co-operation and Development. The hon. member will have ample opportunity to put forward his views during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

The hon. member also referred to Soekor and said the wooden spoon would go to the man who kept on regardless. Let me give the hon. member the assurance that I am not prepared to keep on regardless with the search for oil.

*We must not think that now that lower oil prices prevail, there is suddenly an ample supply of oil in the world. All that has happened is that the price of oil has been reduced. However, the quantity of oil has not increased. It would be of decisive importance and significance for South Africa if we were to find oil.

I said so.

The hon. member really must not come here and seek to present the wooden spoon to me.

†Let me quote to the hon. member what two previous Prime Ministers said about this search for oil. Both of them said that they would continue the search for oil until oil was found or until they knew there were no oil. A couple of months ago when we had a function on board the Actinia I said that we would continue our search for oil until we found it or until we knew that there is no oil. I added the first alternative seemed the likeliest of the two. Let me say today that we have found encouraging signs of oil and gas in at least three holes during the past year. A total of 56 holes have been sunk in offshore areas, costing approximately R312 million altogether. Twenty-six of these holes were found to be dry; 25 exhibited indications of oil and gas while in total five very promising signs of oil and gas were found. The drilling-ship Actinia arrived in our waters in February this year and has completed its first hole north-east of Durban. Mr. Chairman, I submit that the promising signs of oil and gas already found are a valid incentive to proceed with exploration. We should not stop now that we have found promising signs. On the contrary, now is the time for us to carry on. The search is expensive, and is becoming more so. However, I can give hon. members the assurance that the results achieved are continuously being monitored, and if no meaningful progress is made towards indications of exploitable oil resources within the next couple of years, the position will be seriously reviewed.

*The hon. member also referred again to the Salem incident and to certain newspaper reports in that regard. I want to point out to the hon. member that we had a debate on the Salem incident recently and that an investigation is in progress at present. I give hon. members the assurance that I am at all times in close contact with the investigation. Various countries and various bodies have already been visited and a considerable amount of information and evidence has already been collected. In due course, after I have received a report, and when I can come to this House with results, I shall furnish hon. members with more complete information.

So you will be reporting back?

I give the undertaking that I will do that. The hon. member also referred to the question of the auditing of the accounts of the SOF and the SFF Association. I want to tell the hon. member that I shall give my serious attention to this whole matter.

That is a positive attitude.

I am always positive. The hon. member will never find me negative.

I am very glad to hear it.

I shall discuss this matter with my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance. Should it be deemed necessary to make changes I shall then introduce the necessary legislation. First of all, however, I want to go into the whole question and apply my mind to it and then, together with my hon. colleague, we shall take a decision on the whole issue.

*I should also like to refer to the contribution of the hon. member for Geduld. I want to thank him for his congratulations on my appointment to this portfolio. Allow me, too, to say this to the hon. member for Geduld: Please accept my sincere congratulations on your election as chairman of the Mineral and Energy Affairs group of this side of the House. I also want to thank the hon. member for his co-operation during the period that I have occupied this portfolio. I also wish to thank the hon. member for his good work and the able way in which he leads that group. I wish him every success in the future. I also wish to refer to the very well-prepared, well-considered and well-presented speech the hon. member made here on behalf of sufferers from occupational disease in this country, and I also wish to tell him that it did not influence me in the slightest as regards the announcement I made this afternoon.

The hon. member for Brakpan apologized for not being able to be present today. I want to thank him, too, for his congratulations to me on my appointment to this portfolio and for the thanks he expressed in regard to the annual report of the department.

I also took cognizance of the remarks by the hon. member for Brakpan concerning surprise visits to mines. I can say to him that we take cognizance of what he said and will convey it to the Government Mining Engineer. The hon. member also referred to the question of speed limits. I just want to say to the hon. member that my department keeps a constant eye on this matter and that we are also in constant communication with the National Road Safety Council, the provinces and the agencies concerned with this. The whole issue of speed limits is a very delicate one. Moreover, it is a matter affecting not only the consumption of fuel but also the lives of people. I therefore want to give the hon. member the assurance that when we review this matter, we do so with great responsibiliby. One has to take into account many aspects of this matter. At this stage I could just inform the Committee that we are watching the situation constantly, and as soon as it is the appropriate time to do so we shall make an announcement.

The hon. member also referred to the question of the fuel prices. Indeed, he thanked me for the drop in fuel prices and asked whether we should not do something of the kind again. I just want to say that since the previous drop in prices which, please note, was announced before there was any question of a drop in crude oil prices on the world market, the world supplies of crude oil have not become more plentiful. However, the announcement of the drop in price that I did make gave a new dimension to this whole matter. As I have already indicated on previous occasions, there have been accumulative under-recoveries, and in this respect the oil companies have borne the burden of very considerable amounts. There have been changes in the exchange rate that have also contributed a considerable sum. Then, too, there was the question of term contracts, in terms of which one was bound to certain prices. All these things played a role. We achieved considerable success with the restructuring of the purchasing programme for crude oil. After we have met our financial commitments to the agencies that have also made sacrifices in this regard, and on condition that the rand does not weaken against the dollar, that major fluctuations do not take place in the exchange rate, on condition that there is stability in the oil countries of the world, on condition that price increases do not take place and on condition that the acquisition of crude oil by us is not further obstructed and that additional expenses do not have to be incurred, there is a possibility that we may be able to look at the fuel price again by the end of the year or later this year. Accordingly I want to suggest the possibility of a further drop in price. However, I want to put this very clearly to avoid being misunderstood or misreported. This is, of course, subject to the condition I have just set. I also wish to thank the oil companies for the contribution they have made by carrying their share of the cumulative unit under-recovery. They, too, have made a sacrifice in this regard, and I want to thank them for doing so. However, there is something I should like to stress. Although there has been a drop in price of 1,6 cents per litre, it must also be taken into account that we were prepared to carry an extra part ourselves. There was the 0,8 cents per litre railage increase, plus 0,7 cents per litre for the National Road Fund. That is already 1,5 cents. Then, too, there was the consequential 0,2 cents increase in the general sales tax as a result of these increases. We were therefore prepared to carry an amount of approximately 1,7 cents per litre, apart from the drop of 1,6 cents per litre in the price of petrol. This should really be borne in mind, too, because effectively it means a drop of more than 3 cents per litre. Of course, it is not correct to say that a drop of $1 per barrel means a drop of 1 cent per litre in the price of petrol. I say this because we produce a substantial percentage of our fuel within South Africa, and the fuel prices here are not directly linked to the price of imported crude oil, not directly and immediately. Accordingly, a drop in the price of crude oil has to be distributed over a greater quantity. Then, too, it must be borne in mind that an incentive is paid to the domestic producers of synthetic fuel.

This brings me to the hon. member for Geduld. He raised certain points concerning workmen’s compensation insurance and occupational diseases. I take cognizance of all the points that the hon. member raised. These matters will be taken into account in future negotiations.

I now come to the hon. member for Witbank. I take it that the hon. member will take part in this debate again at a later stage. He referred to the danger of pollution, particularly at coal mines. I agree with him that this is a serious matter. It is enjoying our attention. I take it that the hon. member will take the point further at a later stage. I shall therefore come back to it later.

He also referred to the burning mines at Witbank. I understand his concern and the concern of the city council of Witbank, and I profoundly appreciate the steps they are taking in that regard.

†I now come to the hon. member for Durban North. He made quite a number of points regarding the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In this connection I want to refer the hon. member to my reply to the hon. member for Geduld. I also want to thank the hon. member for the positive attitude which he has adopted in this regard. I think he made a very good speech.

*I now come to the hon. member for Welkom. That hon. member supports the improvement of pensions for sufferers from occupational disease. I want to tell him that we appreciate his interest. He represents a constituency with many mineworkers and I can attest to the fact that he has their interests at heart. He was in constant contact with me before I made the announcement. I thank him for having singled out the importance of mining for our country and for having referred to the significance of the mineral industry for South Africa. Indeed, one could describe the mineral industry as one of the corner-stones on which the South African economy rests.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. I should like to start by welcoming the hon. the Minister to his position in this particular department. I hope we will have good debates in future on this subject. I also want to thank him for the answers which he has already given me during this debate. However, I want to point out that there are two questions which I have asked previously which have not yet been answered. The two questions were the case where the Strategic Fuel Fund Association has possibly been taken for a ride, and the refusal of the SSF Association to deal with a respectable Johannesburg trading house which wished to do business with them on fuel.

I welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement in regard to the pensions of those suffering from occupational diseases. A colleague of mine, the hon. member for Durban Central, has prepared very extensively and will be making a speech on the subject later on during the course of this debate. However, I want to say that I feel a 16% increase over two years is actually insufficient. It does not keep pace with the rate of inflation.

I think also we should react to the situation as regards water supply because of the drought and electricity generation in the light of these water shortages. I do not believe that any blame can be apportioned anywhere in this regard. Escom has done a good job in using the minimum amount of water. The present drought is an act of God and no person is to be blamed. We must simply hope and pray that we do have rain before it becomes necessary to impose electricity black-outs, something which is a real possibility if no rain falls in the fairly near future.

The hon. the Minister also talked about Koeberg. The whole subject of Koeberg will be dealt with by the hon. member for Constantia at a later stage in this debate.

The hon. the Minister also spoke about the price of petrol. I want to join the hon. member of the CP in asking, once again, for an immediate decrease in the price of petrol. At the time we bought the oil on the Salem we considered the price of $34,50 per barrel to be a very good price. One would assume from this that on average we were paying more than $34,50 for a barrel of oil. At that stage the retail price of 98 octane petrol at the coast was 51,3 cents per litre. We know that recently Opec reduced their official price of oil per barrel to $29, $5,50 less than we were paying in 1979. We also know the prices on the spot market have dropped considerably. There are shipments on the spot market that are sold at even less than $29 per barrel. However, the retail price of 98 octane petrol at the coast today, in 1983, is 59,1 cent per litre, almost 8 cents per litre more than it was in November 1979. This petrol price is about 7,5% more. One would have to assume from that that our cost of petrol is therefore approximately 7,5% more than it was in November 1979. That being the case, one would have to make the assumption that to justify this retail price of petrol we must be paying something of the order of $40 per barrel—and I do not think we are. I do not believe we are paying $40 per barrel. The hon. the Minister has told us in a previous debate that our contracts are in fact very much more favourable than they were some time ago. I therefore believe there is scope for decreasing the price of petrol. In this regard I want to say that this would be one of the most significant things that that hon. Minister can do to fight inflation in South Africa, which is perhaps our major economic problem.

I want to quote from a statement by a USIA staff writer. It is date-lined Washington and reads—

The report goes on to say—

We are not going to have that favourable effect on inflation until such time as dropping oil prices are reflected in adequately dropping petrol prices in South Africa.

However, the major subject in regard to petrol on which I wish to speak, is the question of the presence of lead in petrol. In last year’s debate I raised this issue as a result of an overseas report that lead in the blood causes damage to unborn children. There was no response from the hon. the Minister at that stage.

Since then a thesis has been published by a Miss Yasmin von Schirnding of the University of Cape Town. I have read this very excellent work which shows that a number of children in Cape Town have lead levels in their blood that are higher than international safety limits allow. She states that evidence shows that lead absorbed by humans is potentially toxic and that the developing brain of a child is particularly vulnerable. She compared the classroom behaviour of high blood lead level children and low blood lead level children and found that those with high lead levels were hyperactive, easily distractable, unable to concentrate and less able to function well in a classroom. She believes that high lead levels may be caused by petrol fumes. Her studies show that twice as many pupils in urban industrial areas have high lead levels as children in suburban areas.

The United States of America sets a safety limit of 29 micrograms per decilitre of blood. And yet 17% of pupils at one Woodstock school exceeded this limit and one child was up to 40 micrograms. Cape Town is not the worst area for this type of pollution; that, unfortunately, is a distinction which goes to the city that I represent in the House, Port Elizabeth. At the city hall in winter in Port Elizabeth the level of lead in the air is almost four times higher than the acceptable limit in the USA which is one microgram per cubic metre of air. In Port Elizabeth at the city hall in winter it is no less than 3,98 micrograms and in Cape Town, this very city, at the town hall, it is 3,04 micrograms which is 300% higher than the acceptable limit in the USA.

Yet last year the predecessor of the hon. the Minister in reply to a question from me on 24 February, said, “the extent of lead pollution caused by fuel, even with regard to the highest levels of traffic density, presently experienced is considered to be harmless.” Against the weight of evidence to the contrary I consider that answer either ill-informed or uncaring and certainly harmful to the health of children in South Africa.

The regulations of the department of the hon. the Minister allow 0,836 of a gram per litre of petrol for all grades. This is many times higher than in other countries. I am not sure that there is any Western country that allows as much lead in petrol as we do. Russia, for example, has banned lead in petrol since 1959. In Britain and Australia the limit is 0,4, but I understand that in both those countries it is shortly to be reduced to 0,15. In West Germany the limit is 0,15 and in the USA and Japan lead-free petrol is available. It would appear, therefore, that we are out of step with the civilized world.

If we were to reduce the lead in petrol, it could cost, according to a spokesman of the oil companies, of the order of R50 million. That is a lot of money, but it is a drop in the ocean by comparison with the health of our children in South Africa. I believe that the Government owes South Africa an explanation of how they have let this situation develop.

Miss Von Schirnding recommends that (a) we should legislate for lower lead levels in petrol, preferably lead-free petrol; (b) air pollution monitoring programmes be expanded; (c) schools and crèches should not be sited on roads with heavy traffic flows; and (d) in high-density areas lead levels in children should be constantly monitored. I believe the hon. the Minister should consult with his colleagues, the hon. the Ministers of Health and Welfare and of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, with a view to implementing urgently a programme aimed at those very things.

I believe that every month that goes by means that more children are exposed. I do not think that this is a party political matter as such; it is something which seriously affects the health of our children in South Africa. Our view is that the hon. the Minister should investigate this as a matter of urgency.

I now wish to turn to the nuclear energy theme which will in the main be dealt with by a colleague. I find firstly that the difference in presentation of budget accounts this year is disturbing. In the past we have been told how much was spent on research—last year it was R106 million—and how much was spent on uranium enrichment which last year was just over R200 million. I spoke on this subject in the debate last year. I spoke about the high cost of uranium enrichment. This year the form is changed and the amount spent on the enrichment of uranium cannot be extracted from the accounts tabled in the House. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what it is. How much are we spending this year on uranium enrichment?

We know that in the field of nuclear energy there is an overall increase of R37 million—this is quite a large sum of money—but I increasingly wonder whether our expenditure on uranium enrichment is justified. The end product will be used to a minimal extent by South Africa unless we considerably expand our nuclear energy network. On every question asked the hon. the Minister’s predecessor always replied that the decision had not been taken that we are going to expand our nuclear energy network. It might in fact never be taken. One has to note the recent decision of the US Supreme Court relating to waste and the disposal thereof. The alternative to using enriched uranium ourselves is obviously to export it, to sell it abroad, but the snag here is that the biggest users of nuclear energy produce their own fuel. So the possibility, I believe, of export is reasonably limited. We are therefore left at this stage with only Koeberg as a market, and even then we, I understand, will not have the ability to fabricate the fuel inputs.

If we do not build more than one Koeberg, I believe that uranium enrichment could become South Africa’s biggest and costliest white elephant. The actual cost of supplying one unit of nuclear energy will be astronomical if one takes into account the capital cost of Ucor, which in the last three years is of the order of R600 million. I do not know how much it was before then, nor do I know how much we will spend in the future, but I believe that the likelihood is that it will cost in excess of R1 000 million.

In the time remaining to me I want to turn to the question of job reservation in the mining industry. The hon. the Minister will be aware that his particular responsibility—he is new to it—is the only area in which job reservation still exists in South Africa. Job reservation was an evil which plagued South Africa for many, many years. I think that largely due to pressure from this side of the House bit by bit the job reservation regulations have disappeared, except when it comes to the mines. Job reservation still exists in the mines and I believe that that job reservation should be dispensed with. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, particularly in view of the fact that his Government is now apparently a reform government, whether he will consider taking away job reservation, or are we to understand that this is just another one of those areas in which political doubletalk exists? While they say “We are a wonderful reform Government, look what we are doing”, back at the mines they are still utilizing the old apartheid policy of job reservation.

I also want to deal with a notice that appeared in the Government Gazette fairly recently. I refer to Notice No. 597 of 18 March, which reads—

The notice is therefore in operation as from 17 April 1983, unless there has been an amending notice which has missed my attention. From that day to this, however, we do not know what the conditions are that are to be prescribed. So far as I am aware, no conditions have been prescribed. With winter imminent, this will obviously put the coal industry in a somewhat difficult situation if they do not know the regulations in terms of which they are going to have to sell coal. We understand that at present there is some sort of investigation into this by the Competition Board. One wonders whether this is the reason why these regulations have not in fact been made available.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister three questions in this regard. First of all, how does the Government plan to protect the poorer sections of the community, who, notwithstanding electrification schemes currently under way, still depend heavily on coal for a source of heating and cooking energy, from unreasonable escalations in the price of coal? My second question is: What is actually the purpose of the notice that I have just read out from Government Notice 597? My third question is: How will Government Notice 597 affect the price of coal and the pricing structure within the coal industry over the long term? Investment decisions by the coal industry—not coal mining, but the coal-distributing industry—depends on the answers to some of these questions. I believe that the industry needs to know these answers just as soon as possible.

In the time remaining to me I believe that I should repeat the pleas that I made last year, pleas that fell on deaf ears then, the tax concessions for the use of solar energy, particularly water heating. The current cost to the man in the street of a solar-heating system does not compete with electricity. A tax concession is needed if one realizes that we create costly power-stations and coal mines at enormous capital expense, we use coal and water to produce electricity and we transmit that electricity, again at vast expense, more than 1 000 kilometres to Cape Town, during which time we lose a fair margin of that power, so that a housewife can enjoy a nice hot bath. Against this, a simple device on the roof of a house could supply that hot water most of the year. I also wish to repeat my plea for more research on solar energy generally. This is the source of supply of electricity for the future and money spent now on research into silicon cells, etc. will, I believe, be repaid one thousandfold in ten or 20 years’ time. To end on what I am sure the hon. the Minister will consider to be a positive note, I believe that the commission that has been appointed to investigate Escom is an excellent idea. The ability of the members of that commission is first class. In fact I worked very closely with one of them for many years and I have the greatest regard for his ability. In the late 1970s the Board of Trade and Industries came out with an excellent report on Escom. It made a number of recommendations, but in the main that report has been buried. I believe that the hon. the Minister should ensure that every member of this new commission that he has appointed gets a copy of the Board of Trade and Industries report and that in particular they should note the section relating to Escom’s method of funding by comparison with public utility companies in other countries. I have already reacted to the hon. the Minister’s announcement regarding the water situation. I was going to call on him to say whether we are in fact likely to have severe blackouts this winter or not, but he has replied adequately to that.

There are other subjects that I would have liked to raise during the course of this debate, but unfortunately the time available to me has run out. I leave the matter at that and I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to some of the questions that I have raised.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by just referring to the announcement by the hon. the Minister in respect of the increase in monthly pensions and the special allowances payable to mining occupational disease sufferers. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to thank the hon. the Minister very much for this positive news. We are sure that this good news will be welcomed with open arms on a very broad front.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central touched on a wide range of subjects in his speech, and the hon. the Minister will certainly come back to them. He referred once again to a reduction in the price of petrol. I do not know how the hon. the Minister could put this matter more clearly. This situation is being investigated in depth and if the factors involved at all justify it, the hon. the Minister would naturally want to reduce the fuel prices even further.

I should now like to deal with another matter which I consider to be of great importance, also in respect of this department. The interdependence of Southern African States is an irrefutable fact. In the economic field in particular there can be no doubt that the Southern African States, regardless of their domestic political viewpoints and policies need each other more and more these days. Here, far from the pious speeches on international platforms, we struggle together to achieve a common goal, which is the increase in the level of prosperity of the people of this subcontinent. Today it is no longer merely a question of increasing the level of prosperity; it is sometimes more of a struggle for survival. Against that background it is very important to take note of the constellation of states concept and the efforts being made by the NP Government to further extend the multilateral co-operation among countries. However it is not a matter of efforts and promises only. There are actions and sacrifices without an element seeking honour or furthering self-interest, but in the firm confidence and hope that our country and all its people will ultimately reap the benefit of this endeavour.

Nowadays international community is increasingly focusing on distortions of South Africa’s domestic affairs and unconditionally criticising the Republic’s domestic policies. Most of these countries which are so critical, have expertise and aids which could be utilized to stabilize peoples economically in Southern Africa, but this is not done. Instead the South African policies, which are based on our unique problems, have been used as a smokescreen so as not to put their hand to the proverbial plough. In order to promote stability in Southern Africa and help peoples to help themselves, the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, on the initiative of the South African Government, renders what I believe is an extensive economic service. I should like to mention a few examples of this. First of all, geological services are constantly being arranged for all the TBVC countries, as and when required, by the Geological Survey Division of the department. The availability of geological maps and detailed information on mineral deposits is certainly one of the cornerstones of development, and one is grateful for the work which the department is doing in this respect.

Secondly, scientific knowledge and expertise is being made available to those countries which ask for it. Co-ordinating committees are being established where necessary and they promote to the mineral activities of our neighbours. In this way a climate of goodwill is being created in which unique and common problems are being tackled and solved. The Joint Committee for Labour Relations in Mines and the Mining Policy Coordinating Committee, which were brought into being on an interstate level by the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Bophuthatswana, are examples of this. This assistance programme does not stop at making information available and giving advice. Indeed, words are backed up by actions and the staff of the department, such as geologists, mining engineers and administrative staff, armed with expert knowledge, are being made available to the governments who need the services of such people.

Furthermore, mineral legislation to take care of prospecting and mining rights is a very complex and sometimes very thorny question in any country where the free enterprise system applies. Thanks to this system, which is based on Western democratic capitalism, South Africa has been able to reap the benefits of a properous and dynamic mineral industry over the years. For that reason it wishes the same for its neighbours, which in this way could be persuaded to remain true to the principle of the free market economy of the Western world. The Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs plays a special role in this regard. It is noticeable that since the independence of the TBVC countries, entrepreneurs—local entrepreneurs, as well as those from abroad—have invested in the mineral industries of those countries with the same enthusiasm as in those of the Republic of South Africa. In the case of Bophuthatswana the department, by using the method of seconding officials, has provided assistance and training in respect of administration and mineral legislation for a number of years. There is also the assistance which the department is rendering in respect of the marketing and export of minerals to the best advantage of the producing countries. The marketing and export of tiger’s eye is a very good example of that. Arrangements on an ad hoc basis are made from time to time to promote price stability. Moreover, all South African countries also have the benefit of the stability in the diamond prices which is achieved by the central selling organization. By virtue of the State’s Alexander Bay enterprise, the department is a member of the Association of Diamond Producers, and in that way it contributes a great deal to order and stability on the diamond market. This is to the benefit of its neighbouring countries.

Furthermore, a service is rendered to our neighbours in the field of occupational diseases, and this is something which is invaluable to any developing country. South Africa is quite rightly described as a pioneer in the field of mining occupational diseases, and the medical knowledge of the Republic in respect of this matter also enjoys wide international respect. Therefore the advantages which this holds and which affects the most important asset of man—viz. his health—is also at the full disposal of the independent national States. In the same way the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act of 1973 still applies, by virtue of interstate agreements, in all these States. Moreover, services provided by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs cover the whole spectrum of this particular legislation, viz. risk determination, the levying and collection of sums of money, radiological examinations, medical examinations, with a view to the presence of compensatable occupational diseases and the incertification, as well as appeals in this regard. One could elaborate at great length on the commendable efforts of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs in support and furtherance of the concept of the constellation of States, but time does not permit me to do so. There are many other examples, too, of aid and assistence in the field of energy.

I want to conclude, however, by thanking the hon. the Minister most cordially for this practical illustration of how harmonious interstate relations and co-operation can be brought about. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this position. I think, particularly since we are dealing with workers, that it is essential to act with circumspection, and we believe that he is in fact able to do this.

I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Geduld said. The hon. member for Geduld made out a case for interstate relations. However, we have to be careful that in those far-flung places we do not become an instrument or State branch of those companies largely responsible for exploitation. I do not want to elaborate on this any further because I do not have the time, but I should like to take this matter further one day.

Today I should like to talk seriously to the hon. the Minister about the mines. A person who has never worked in a mine, who has never been underground in a mine, does not realize …

What were you doing there?

Yes, there goes the cannon of Kanoneiland again! But I had better not say anything else about him. [Interjections.] One can understand that a man from Riversdale would make disparaging remarks about the miners, because all they do there is enjoy the benefits of the tax on gold. The only thing they benefit from is the tax on gold. After all, it is nice to be a NP member and make disparaging remarks and say ridiculous things when one is far from the mines. [Interjections.] The point I want to bring home to the hon. the Minister is that a miner faces risks every day of his life in his work. There is a risk involved in the work of a miner.

Today the hon. the Minister announced an increase of 16% in the pensions of sufferers from occupational diseases. We are all glad about this. Who is not glad about the crumbs that fall from the table? We who represent miners in various constituencies realize the tremendous problems widows of miners have today to keep their heads above water. I want to put this increase of 16%, as well as the risk factor, into perspective. One should always take a look at the mouthpiece workers use to see what is advertised in it. The largest advertisement on the front page of Die Mynwerker —it takes up a quarter of the front page—has the caption “The funeral insurance scheme for members of the Mineworkers’ Union”. This emphasizes the risk factor of the mineworker. That is why I believe that the mineworker should have a special place in the labour force. We cannot get away from that.

The hon. the Minister is a person who is well acquainted with statistics. [Interjections.] According to statistics at least 800 people die in our mines every year. In recent years, there were 835 deaths in one year, namely 1981, and 807 deaths in 1982, and 18 538 accidents in 1981 and 17 406 accidents in 1982.

For all races?

Yes. The fact of the matter is that the work of a miner is dangerous work.

I now come to the following point. By October 1983 when the increase of 16% in the pensions of sufferers of occupational diseases comes into effort, if the statistics do not deviate from the normal pattern, a further 400 persons will have died. Mr. Chairman, do you realize what risk and what profession the miner is involved with and what the miner actually means for South Africa? The hon. the Minister stated categorically that our foreign exchange depended on our gold production. I agree with him. However, special attention has to be given to the miner. It is incomprehensible to me why there has been a three-year delay in the report of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission. The hon. the Minister tried to give an explanation for this, but I do not think it is necessary for us to have to wait so long for the Nieuwenhuizen Commission report. Why do we make these people wait three years and we still have not finalized matters; we are still making adjustments? Why are we engaged in what one could almost call interim patchwork? This makes the mine worker uncertain. Having studied this report, I agree 100% with the minority report of the secretary of the Mine workers’ Union, Mr. Arrie Paulus. Mr. Paulus is a man who knows the mines, the work of the miners and the situation of the miners. In this report we find that from the very first recommendation a case is made out as to why the recommendations set out in the minority report should be accepted as they stand. We on this side of the House definitely support Mr. Paulus’ recommendation.

In connection with what? After all, there are many recommendations.

Oh, the hon. member does not even know that there is a minority report. In connection with what? This afternoon the hon. member again referred to visits. I hear the hon. member makes unscheduled visits to the mines, visits of which the miners are unaware. No, when I visit a mine, the miners know about it. This is not something that happens occasionally. The people know when I am coming. The visit need not be announced because it simply happens. This happens to a man like the hon. member for Brakpan who has been working with the Mineworkers’ Union for years now, as their attorney as well. We know those people. Do not turn a deaf ear to the recommendations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to tell the hon. member for Langlaagte that the members on this side of the House are well aware of the problems of the mineworkers and that we have a history of being sympathetic towards the mineworkers.

I should now like to get to my own speech. Since the first diamond was discovered in the Northern Cape—in Kimberley, to be more specific—millions of carats have been dug out or mined and many more millions of rand have ended up in the pockets of individuals and companies and have also filled the State’s coffers by means of taxation. One is justified in saying that the profits on the diamonds of Kimberley or the Northern Cape unlocked the South African gold reefs. They led to a gold rush. Tens of thousands of people from throughout South Africa, rushed to the Rand in search of work and riches. A few individuals did become rich, but poverty, the collapse of spiritual values and resultant misery befell thousands of others. People even streamed to the goldfields from beyond the country’s borders. The discovery of diamonds was the start of everything in South Africa and led to total shifts in the population. It meant that we slowly changed from being an agricultural country into a mining country. That is why South Africa is now an industrial giant. But if we look back to what all these riches gave Kimberley and the Northern Cape in particular, then we see hectare upon hectare of dug up land, holes that are world famous today, a museum at the open mine which gives one a glimpse into the glories of the past. Then one is back in the days of Rhodes and Barney Barnato and the like. Diamonds are still mined in Kimberley and specifically in my constituency. There are also diggings at Barkly West, Gong-gong and Windsorton. Every Saturday the diggers come to Barkly West with their bright stones to sell them to buyers who come from far and near, some from the city of gold and others from the mother city.

At this point I want to pause for a moment and pay tribute to the diggers. If ever there was a person who earned his bread by the sweat of his brow, it is the digger. These are tough men, some with hard, calloused hands, who brave the elements day after day. This is where the sun is sometimes scorching hot and where the August wind blows so hard that it shrouds the sun in dust. This is where it is sometimes so biting cold that it takes one’s breath away, and the earth is as hard as stone and one has to work with a pick and shovel. This is where the digger works in the belief that one day—today, tomorrow or the next day—he will find the big sparkler. If it had not been for the diamond digger, South Africa would have been a far poorer place today. Today Kimberley is struggling to attract industrialists, while other countries like Israel, Belgium and India are world-famous as the largest and most important diamond-cutters in the world and they totally dominate the world diamond cutting industry. Israel and Belgium are countries that do not mine a single diamond, while India is only a very minor producer of diamonds. One cannot help asking oneself how it is possible that the Governments of South Africa could have adopted such a colonial policy over the years. Since I have come to this House I have on various occasions taken issue with various Ministers of Mines about the diamond-cutting industry. Today I turn to the present hon. Minister, who is seated to my right. Thanks to this hon. Minister and his department, diamond cutting licences are again being issued to bona fide qualified diamond-cutters. The last hon. Minister to award these diamond cutting licences was Mr. Jan Haak, who awarded 12 such licences in the late ’fifties. Of these licence-holders, only two still have their licences, whereas the others have sold them to larger licence-holders at a tremendous profit. Now, however, the concession has been made to approved diamond-cutters that if they purchase diamonds from diggers or from mining entrepreneurs they may cut those diamonds and build up a market for themselves to sell the diamonds. The diamond-cutter is therefore no longer dependent on De Beers for his packet of diamonds. This concession will give the small business undertaking a tremendous boost, but what is most important is that the free market principle has triumphed. We in Kimberley believe that through this concession we shall be able to persuade diamond-cutters to come to Kimberley so that it will again be possible for a tourist visiting Kimberley to be able to say that he was able to purchase diamonds in Kimberley more cheaply than anywhere else in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many applications for licences have been granted thus far since his statement on 9 December 1982.

In conclusion I want to make four requests to the hon. the Minister, which I feel are extremely urgent. In the first place, I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to abolish the 15% export tax on uncut diamonds. My second request is that all uncut diamonds should be exported through the headquarters of the State Diamond Valuer. At the moment the diamonds of all independent diamond producers are exported by the police. This leads to under invoicing, through which the State loses millions of rand. If the diamonds were exported through the State Diamond Valuer in Kimberley, this malpractice could be stopped.

I want to refer to another anomaly, particularly in connection with new licence holders. The new licence holders will be worse off than the existing diamond and diamond-cutting licence holders who are given a discount of 10% on their purchases from the Diamond Trading Company. I therefore want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that the discount of 10% be abolished, so as to place the new licence holders on an equal footing with the existing licence holder.

I now come to something which affects all of us. This is also the strongest plea I want to make to him. There is no tax on any cut diamonds that are exported. If a diamond is mined in Kimberley and cut in South Africa and then exported, no tax is payable on it, but if one wants to purchase that diamond in South Africa an excise tax of 30% plus GST is payable on it. A tax of 36% is therefore payable on our diamonds if one purchases them in South Africa. This means that one can fly to Hong Kong and purchase a South African diamond there and pay 36% less for it than one would have paid if one had purchased it in South Africa.

I make so bold as to say that if the hon. the Minister is able to comply with these four requests of mine, I believe that the South African diamond-cutting industry would be able to find its feet again, so much so that it would be able to compete with other major diamond-cutting countries in the world.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat gave an interesting talk on diamonds, but I should like to bring the debate back to the question of lead in petrol.

In my capacity as environment spokesman of the PFP I support my hon. colleague very strongly in the plea that he made. I want to go further, and take issue with the hon. the Minister in regard to comments he is reported to have made on the subject last December. I also want to refer to some of the evidence which has surfaced in South Africa about this question and then I want to call for an action plan. In December last year the hon. the Minister was reported to have said—

He further was quoted as saying there was no doubt that lead was a dangerous pollutant and he promised action “if it is proved that petrol causes high levels of lead in blood”.

I wish to take issue with the hon. the Minister on two points. The first is that it is not correct that the oil companies voluntarily kept the maximum down to 0,50 grams per litre. The facts are that the mean, the average lead content of petrol refined in the RSA last year was 0,635 grams per litre for 93 octane fuel and 0,714 grams per litre for 98 octane fuel which is 27,5% and 42,8% respectively higher than what the hon. the Minister alleged was the voluntary maximum. If these figures represent the average, then clearly the actual maximums must be much higher and closer to the totally unacceptable limit of 0,836 which is way out of step with practice throughout the Western World.

The maximum was 0,83 in 98 octane petrol.

The other aspect on which I should like to argue with the hon. the Minister is that I believe it is a completely inadequate response for him to have said “if it is proved that petrol causes high levels of lead in blood” he will then take action. In this statement he appears to be unaware of the great volume of evidence which does exist. I have just a small part of it here; there are volumes of evidence, and overseas Governments have seen fit to act upon this evidence. I can only therefore interpret the statement of the hon. the Minister as either ill-informed or he is simply foot-dragging and stalling the issue to delay taking a firm policy stand on the matter.

Could you just for my information tell me from what you are quoting now?

I will send the hon. the Minister the reference in a moment. This is not an issue that has arisen suddenly, Sir. As a colleague of mine has said, Russia took steps in respect of this as far back as 1959. The major Western countries of the world have accepted that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin which can poison the brain. They also accept—and this is critical—that a reduction in lead emission from petrol combustion should be a major lead-control strategy. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is on record as estimating that motor vehicle emissions contribute about 90% of lead in the air, and a significant proportion of lead in food. The U.S. Centre for Disease Control is on record as considering that lead poisoning has a wider impact than any other childhood disease. The Minister of the Environment in Britain announced last week, on 18 April, that they had targeted 1990 as the year in which all lead must be out of petrol and that it had to be reduced to 0,15 by the end of 1985. When that Minister spoke in the House of Commons last week, he quoted from the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution to the effect that UK average blood-level concentrations had reached about a quarter of the level of lead poisoning. He also made the point that he was not aware of any other toxin which was permitted to reach above an average of 10% in the general population. He reaffirmed that removing lead from petrol was the most effective strategy for lead control, although others were also announced.

The question is: Why are we so out of step? Why are we so far behind the times? Is the hon. the Minister really not aware of the overseas evidence or of the evidence which has been collected right here in South Africa? I will accept that South Africa has not conducted large-scale research on the matter, but there is strong evidence in respect of South Africa and I want to refer to it. As far back as the September/October 1972 issue; the S.A. Journal of Science published findings which showed that the bones of urban doves contained an average of seven times more lead per unit weight of tissue than those of their rural counterparts. It was stated in that article that it was presumed by the scientists to be the result of emissions form motor car exhausts in the urban areas. In August 1982 the S.A. Medical Journal published findings by a research group of the Stellenbosch Faculty of Dentistry relating to high levels of lead in teeth in children in Bothasig and Parowvallei.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Constantia permitted to address this House from a bench that is not his own?

Yes, it is quite in order.

The S.A. Medical Journal issued a preliminary report last November in which it was said that research done by the UCT Red Cross Hospital indicated that some children living in urban areas had accumulated lead to an extent comparable to that found in children in large Western cities. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to Miss Von Schirnding’s research which was published last October. It was comprehensive research and the weight of evidence led her to conclude that there is a correlation between average blood-levels in children and proximity of schools to heavy traffic. More recently it surfaced in answer to a question to the Minister of Health and Welfare in February that high lead levels in the air have been recorded at various centres. Cape Town, Pretoria, and Port Elizabeth produced particularly bad figures. I therefore think it is high time that there was a full-scale investigation into atmospheric lead at dense traffic locations. The British Medical Journal reported last May that average blood-lead concentrations in the U.S. population had dropped 37% over the period from 1976 to 1980 and that the most likely explanation for that was the introduction of lead-free petrol.

In the light of all this evidence, overseas and local, the hon. the Minister simply cannot remain inactive. We cannot afford to take chances with the health of the public and particularly of our children. I believe that the time for action is long overdue. I want to call for specific action to bring us into line with the thinking overseas. I believe that on the basis of the information at my disposal there are overwhelming grounds for a two-stage action plan to reduce the lead content in petrol. I take this opportunity to call for such a plan. Phase 1 should be to reduce the lead content, which could be done quite easily, to a maximum of 0,15 grams per litre by no later than the end of 1985. That can be done without major technological problems. Phase 2 should have as its aim ultimately to eliminate lead completely by a later date, but subject to practical considerations.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Ladybrand permitted to read a newspaper in this House?

Order! Is the hon. member for Ladybrand reading a newspaper?

No, Mr. Chairman.

What is the hon. member reading?

It is an information document, Sir.

The hon. member for Constantia may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, when one gets under the Government’s skin they waste one’s time. I also listened to the hon. the Minister’s comment relating to dry-cooling at Escom power-stations. My impression is that the hon. the Minister simply down played this issue. In a country such as South Africa where water is a most precious and limited resource, it is very sobering to discover that Escom’s coal-fired power-stations alone consume 50% more than the total metered water supply to the whole Western Cape by the Cape Town city council. 251,5 million cubic metres of water per annum is what Escom consumes. In the whole Western Cape, including as far afield as Wellington and Atlantis, only 168,7 million cubic metres is consumed. The hon. the Minister announced that some of the new power-stations are going to be fitted with dry-cooling and I say that this is fine, but it is too little too late. There should be a major strategy aimed at introducing dry or wet dry cooling at our major power-stations, except where sea-water is available. I think that consideration should be given to concerting the new power-stations presently under construction, namely Matla, Duvha, Lethabo and Tutuka. They have not been built yet; so it could be done. According to my information, it would result in a saving—just taking Matla as an example—of approximately 50 000 cubic metres of water per day, and that would be an advantage gained for the next few decades. I think the figures alone are a strong argument for something really urgent to be done, far more than has been done in the past with regard to this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Constantia. He touched upon two matters: Firstly, health hazards as a result of the lead content of petrol. This matter was recently raised in the public Press and I think we all share his concern in regard to this matter. Secondly, as regards the possibility of saving water by means of dry cooling, this is probably another topical aspect during the present major drought. On that as well I cannot differ with him.

However, there are other aspects of energy in regard to which I should like to differ with the hon. member for Constantia. I want to refer to the bomb blasts at Koeberg towards the end of last year, and his party’s reaction to them. I do not want to bore hon. members with the history of this matter, but I do want to emphasize a few points to place the matter in its correct perspective. During the nights of 18 and 19 December, four bomb explosions occurred at the Koeberg power-station. According to a joint statement by Escom and the S.A. Police subsequent to the blast, sophisticated explosive devices with timing mechanisms had been used. Extensive damage was done to an auxiliary building of the power-station, and in one of the explosions underground cables were also damaged. To get an idea of the extent of the damage, a figure was furnished in one of the newspaper reports of a loss to Escom of R 1,5 million per day if the power-station did not come into operation in time. The ANC, speaking from Dar es Salaam, immediately accepted responsibility for the explosions and stated that the sabotage had been committed by the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe.

A further development immediately afterwards was that Escom intensified the security measures at Koeberg in order to bring them up to the level which would apply during the commissioning phase of Koeberg. I wish to raise one more point in this connection. It goes without saying that any factory, whether a conventional or a nuclear factory, can be damaged by sabotage. As far as nuclear energy factories, and specifically nuclear power stations, are concerned, their safety is above suspicion. It has previously been argued in this House that neither the life nor the health of anyone has been threatened as a result of nuclear hazards during the more than a quarter century nuclear power stations have been in operation. In the case of Koeberg, too, there is no danger to life or health hazards as a result of nuclear radiation.

A final general point I wish to raise is that the population in the vicinity of any factory, in this case a nuclear power station, naturally has every right to ascertain by means of a civilian organization that everything possible is being done to ensure its safety. In this case a civilian organization called “Koeberg Alert” has been established. I want to emphasize that such an organization must be a civilian organization and that political parties should not, in the case of damaging sabotage, climb onto the bandwagon of sensation and then hover around like political vultures to see whether they cannot derive a little political benefit from the sensation.

This brings me to the role of political vultures which certain hon. members of the Opposition played after the bomb blasts at Koeberg. I want to illustrate this point by quoting briefly from reports which appeared in Die Burger and The Cape Times of 27 January this year. These reports deal, inter alia, with the statements made by the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Green Point at a public meeting in the St. George’s Cathedral, just round the corner here, on 26 January.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it right that the hon. the member should refer to the hon. members of the Opposition as “political vultures”?

The hon. member for Pretoria East must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, I did not say that they were political vultures. I said that they had behaved like political vultures. However, I withdraw it if you want me to withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

The meeting I am referring to was held in the St. George’s Cathedral. I just want to say that it is really a pity that the PFP used St. George’s Cathedral on more than one occasion …

The hon. member is behaving like a political hyena! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, I say it is really a pity that the official Opposition has on more than one occasion used the St. George’s Cathedral for political meetings.

Misused.

Yes, that cathedral was, to a certain extent, misused. Firstly, I want to quote from the report which appeared in Die Burger of 27 January. The report reads as follows—

That is completely fair. I think it is the function of a civilian organization to keep those people informed. The report continued—

This man went on to say—

Just imagine, Mr. Chairman! To begin such a campaign because no one else thought of doing so! “Koeberg Alert” is a civilian organization. According to this report. Mr. Hulley went on to say—

He was referring to the Coloured person—

Nevertheless it is remarkable that a young Coloured person—a member of an ethnic group that has no political rights—should stand up at a public meeting and reprimand the PFP spokesmen and give them a lesson in civics.

Yet they keep on saying that they speak on behalf of those people.

I shall quote further from the report in The Cape Times—

I should like to make a few observations with reference to the utterances of these two hon. members on this matter—as far as I am able to ascertain, they are Houghton Progs. Those hon. members may as well inform this House whether they made any further statements as well, because the Press reports are probably not complete, but what strikes me is that the main report on what they said made no mention of any statements against sabotage. Apparently they do not consider sabotage to be a crime.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon. member of this House accuse other hon. members of the House of not considering sabotage to be a crime?

Order! I listened carefully to what the hon. member said. He said that hon. members “apparently” did not consider sabotage to be a crime, but…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to refer you to a considered ruling of Mr. Speaker Loots in 1976, a ruling in which he said that any suggestion impugning the loyalty of a member of this House would not be permitted. I wish you to consider the utterance of that hon. member, which falls squarely within the ambit of that ruling.

Order! The hon. member can safely leave it to me. I wanted to go into the matter further. Did the hon. member for Pretoria East mean that the hon. members of the PFP do not consider sabotage to be a crime?

Yes, Sir. I want them to clarify a point, because in their speeches there they did not refer to sabotage at all or condemn it. Consequently I now ask: Why did they not do so? Do they not consider sabotage to be a crime? Surely I said that they could also rise in this House and say …

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw the allegation that apparently they do not consider sabotage to be a crime.

I withdraw it, Sir.

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

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

I thank the hon. member for his kindness.

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

No, Sir. [Interjections.] My time is limited. The hon. member can put questions when he is making his own speech. As I said, the ANC accepted responsibility for the explosions. The hon. member for Green Point said that the Black people of this country had no other option than to resort to “violent methods”.

At least have the courtesy to advise members beforehand of the fact that you are going to attack them.

Is it therefore correct to deduce that the hon. member for Green Point now equates the Black people of this country with members of the ANC?

Thirdly, it seems as if the remarks made by the hon. member for Green Point amounts to a condoning of sabotage as a means to political reform. This is stated here in so many words. In order to emphasize the standpoints of the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Constantia, I should like to contrast them with remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville this year in this House, in a debate on 17 February. I am quoting from col. 1169 of Hansard—

That is a very positive statement and one cannot but agree with it.

Secondly, I want to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville said in col. 1176 of the same day—

That was a Pretoria Prog speaking. If I am misinterpreting the PFP spokesmen, they must please say so, but I think it is of importance that they should state their party’s standpoint on nuclear energy very clearly in public. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East asked the official Opposition a very important question and I hope that they are going to avail themselves of the opportunity to reply to it.

What was important?

It was very important indeed. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had listened, he would have got to the kernel of the doubt which the public of South Africa has with regard to the official Opposition.

Are you going to forecast the price of gold again this year?

No. We do not go in for political expediency, unlike some parties.

I should like to take this opportunity in the short time available to me to say to the hon. the Minister that we welcome the increases announced regarding pension benefits for those covered by the Occupational Diseases Act. We certainly do welcome that, and also the attitude expressed to the reform measures and recommendations of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission. We look forward to receiving the White Paper and the decision of the Cabinet in the near future.

I want to say to the hon. member for Constantia that the one matter in which he will always find our support is the matter of reducing the lead content in petrol because we are acutely aware of the health dangers in this respect. We will therefore give the issue all the support it deserves until we reach a point where we have zero lead content in our petrol.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we appreciate the fact that his department, the Director-General and his staff, went to considerable trouble to produce the annual report for us. We appreciate the fact more because we know that the dates for the debate had been changed. I should like to compliment them on a very sound effort. With that compliment I should also like to include my party’s thanks for the excellent tour which was arranged to the Sedco oil rig off Mossel Bay, which was thoroughly enjoyed by all the members. It was certainly very informative regarding our search for oil. May I say that the attitude of the NRP has been and always will be that South Africa cannot afford not to explore for oil. It is a strategic commodity and like armaments one has to spend the necessary money on exploration and provision because without oil one cannot turn the engines of industry. We must continue to search until we reach the point where we can say definitely that there is no exploitable oil in the vicinity and geographic region of South Africa.

I should like to turn my attention in particular to the hon. the Minister regarding the sale restrictions on the selling of petrol in South Africa itself. May I, before commenting and requesting the hon. the Minister to do certain things in this respect, say that increasingly—I refer here to an hon. CP member who raised the question of speed limits—scientific evidence produced overseas and in South Africa has indicated and is continuing to indicate that the technical reasons for motor vehicle accidents are a very small portion of the input which causes an accident. In fact, the major factor—research will be coming out shortly to indicate this—is the sense of responsibility which the driver has. It does not matter what the speed limit is. Those people who reveal a sense of irresponsibility will always cause an accident, irrespective of what the speed limit is. An accident can occur at 35 kilometres per hour or at a speed of 110 kilometres per hour, because it is an irresponsible act by the driver which causes an accident and not the speed as such. The roads themselves are sufficiently well-constructed not to be a major contributor. Certainly the technical design of vehicles today has virtually eliminated mechanical failure as a cause of an accident. We will face a considerable responsibility ourselves to tackle the question of how to identify an irresponsible driver in time to prevent accidents. I believe that what we should be doing here—although it may not be the hon. the Minister’s department—is to get a grading system of points every time an individual commits a traffic offence until one reaches a point where the individual may have accumulated say 12 points, and then his licence is suspended. I believe that will be the long-term solution to the problem. Every time a driver commits an irresponsible act, he should be allocated a certain number of points and at a certain level his licence must be suspended. I say that in reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and for the information of a member of the CP who made a request on speed limits. My petition, specifically, to the hon. the Minister is that I think the time has come for him to relax the limitations on the sale of fuel to motor-car owners right through the Republic. In reply to a question that I asked the hon. the Minister some time ago, he indicated that he was not aware of how much money was collected through the R5 surcharge. It is therefore presumed that the surcharge factor itself is not an important priority in the Minister’s book. I believe the technical developments in motor vehicles today have reached a point where the savings we have been able to achieve, are largely due to technical factors rather than a pattern of purchase by the consumer. We in this party believe that we should leave it to private enterprise to decide for themselves if they wish to sell petrol all night and even over weekends. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to me, said that the profit margin of the service stations would be affected if the selling hours were extended to Saturdays, Sundays and all-night selling. I say to the hon. the Minister that if that is so, why not leave it to private enterprise themselves to decide whether they wish to sell petrol in what is currently off hours. I mention this particularly because I do not believe that a change in the selling hours will result in any significant increase in the sale of petrol domestically. Business houses today mostly operate a five-day week and a very small percentage operate on a seven-day week and an extremely small percentage operate on Saturdays. Therefore, the main consumers of petrol over week-ends will be private and domestic users. I certainly believe that the public themselves will not increase the purchase of petrol significantly just because it is available on Sundays. It can eliminate a considerable amount of inconvenience to the consumer and people who have to undertake journeys such as people who take their children to boarding-schools on Sundays and farmers. All these people may well be inconvenienced if petrol is not available in urban areas.

And all the pirate taxis.

Yes, many taxis as well, irrespective of whether they are pirate or not. If they perform a public service they will also welcome a decrease to administration and costs for themselves if they can obtain petrol after hours. Let me say to the hon. the Minister that the fuel position is very favourable at the moment. In fact, it is well-known that we export petrol and that we manufacture more petrol than we require because of the ratio between dieselene and petrol. The insignificant increase in the consumption of petrol because of the opening of petrol stations on Sundays, will in fact not aggravate the position but might well help it because we are increasing the consumption of petrol which we are presently exporting.

I also want to say to the hon. the Minister that the qualifications he prescribed for an opportunity to further reduce the price of petrol was so circumscribed that the probability that he will reduce the price of petrol seems to be almost infinitesimal. If we consider all the factors the hon. the Minister mentioned as a precondition for a reduction in the price of petrol, the chance of that happening is probably less than 10%. I think the hon. the Minister should possibly take a different view and he should examine—as was suggested to him by another hon. member here today—what is required for the public, what are the input costs and what does an increase in the price of petrol or the maintenance of a high price do to inflation in South Africa. If the hon. the Minister started from that point of reasoning, I believe he will agree with us when we say that at this very moment it is still possible for the hon. the Minister to reduce the retail price of petrol by 3 cents at the coast without significantly affecting the profit margins of the processors of petrol or the distributors.

Hear, hear!

That hon. member can reply later on why he may disagree with us because all the factors mentioned by the hon. the Minister were status quo factors. The only conditions the hon. the Minister laid down was to maintain the status quo apropos the position at the moment. The hon. the Minister said he would only consider a further reduction if the exchange rate and the price of crude oil remained the same. They were all part of the status quo position. If we have a status quo position at the moment and we still have it in December why can the hon. the Minister not do it now? That is the question. I hope the hon. member for Roodeplaat will reply to this.

You know that certain losses are still to be made good.

They may not necessarily be losses. They may be a reduction in administered prices. If we look at the tax burden which a litre of petrol is carrying today, we see that it is totally unrealistic. It is the wrong place to administer taxes. I believe we should administer taxes at the source of income and not in terms of expenditure or an input factor in the cost of manufacturing or the running of industry. It is these administered prices which mainly contribute towards the spiralling inflation. The hon. member for Roodeplaat knows that. I should like to hear his answer later on. If we compare the price of fuel in South Africa with that of our competitors overseas, we will see that our administered prices are almost the highest in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Durban North that the search for oil will have to be continued at all costs. We should not become pessimistic; other countries experienced the same problems and yet oil was found on a large scale. I also agree with him that as far as speed and motor accidents are concerned, the responsibility lies with the motorist. Matters to which I think attention should also be given are the surfaces and the construction of roads.

He also discussed the hours of trading for the sale of fuel. I think the hon. the Minister took cognizance of the fact that when he had to extend the hours of trading to 9 o’clock at night over the holiday period, there were petrol pump attendants and business firms that put the R5 levy in their pockets. The Automobile Association received many complaints in this connection. This also means that there is not much honesty in the motor trade.

As for the sale of petrol and the tax on fuel, I think that after the hon. the Minister has explained the matter to hon. members, they will find that it is not all that simple merely to make reductions. It is a very complex procedure, and I know the hon. the Minister will give attention to it.

I should like to discuss the question of whether there are sufficient energy reserves in our country for the development of our people’s needs and the country’s industries. Judging by world standards we have vast coal and uranium reserves. We are grateful that coal, after gold, has already become the greatest source of revenue for our country. Approximately 95% of Escom’s power is generated from coal. And Escom is at this stage already supplying 93% of the country’s power. Coal therefore remains the biggest supplier of our energy requirements. Coal provides 80% of our total primary energy requirements.

In 1980 it was found that South Africa’s coal reserves totalled 110 000 million tons and that 51 000 million tons of that total were exploitable with the help of modern-day technological and economic methods. These are wonderful figures. In 1981 our total coal production was 130,3 million tons, of which 97,7 million tons were consumed locally and 29,9 million tons were shipped abroad.

I should like to refer in particular to an international project called Wocol in terms of which the production and consumption of coal were studied for 18 months. Eighty persons from 16 coal-producing countries determined the world’s requirements over the next 20 years. At these proceedings 13 languages were spoken. It is interesting to see what countries participated. They included Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the USA. Although South Africa is such an important coal-producer, we were not consulted in this project. That merely goes to show again that the world does not want to take any notice of us.

For us, however, coal remains the bridge to the future. Coal is the largest satisfier of our energy requirements and will remain so in years to come. 25% of the world’s energy is already being generated from coal. It was also stated in this project that the years between 1985 and 2000 would be the most critical years for the generation of energy. It was then said by people who had made a study of the matter that during the next 20 years coal would have to provide up to two-thirds of the power. To be able to achieve this, coal production will have to increase threefold.

To return to the position in South Africa, I want to point out that between 1976 and 1981 our coal-production rose by more than 11%, our exports by approximately 39% and our local consumption by only 7%. In 1981, more than 58 million tons of coal, or approximately 60% of the total demand, was consumed in the generation of electricity. The most interesting figure of which we should take cognizance is that it is estimated that the local consumption in the year 2020 will be 740 million tons. In 1976 we exported 6 million tons and in 1981 it was already 29 million tons.

It is also interesting to look at the earnings. In 1976 our earnings were R130 million, in 1981 they were R977 million and it is estimated that in 1985 they will be R2 000 million. South Africa’s role in the international coal trade is a significant one when it comes to the generation of energy. In 1973 we produced less than 1% of the coal in international trade, but by 1981 this had increased to more than 10% of the total.

It is now necessary to establish a new energy provider on the basis of economic growth. Our coal must also help with the development of underdeveloped countries. Electricity can only be generated from coal when it can be done cheaply. Oil played an important part in the increase in the price of energy and also in the Third World. Moreover there was unemployment and recession which harmed the world economy. Pipelines cannot provide the necessary energy. It was determined that only nuclear energy and coal would ultimately be able to satisfy the demand for power. Oil supplies from the Opec countries remain uncertain, even if the price of oil drops. There is uncertainty in regard to various factors as far as this matter is concerned.

It is very interesting to note that energy generation in 1978 presented the following picture: Throughout the world 50% of the energy generated from oil, 26% from coal, 17% from gas, 4,8% from hydro-electricity and 2,4% from nuclear energy. In 1977 3 400 million metric tons of coal were mined throughout the world. It is interesting to learn how much power is needed to replace 1 million barrels of oil per day. It was found that for this purpose 76 million metric tons of coal per annum would be required.

The biggest coal consumers at present are Russia, with 490 million metric tons, China with 368 million metric tons, Poland with 127 million metric tons, India with 72 million metric tons and South Africa with 61 million metric tons. In the year 2000 a quarter of the world’s energy will still have to be derived from coal. That is why it is necessary for us to give this matter our attention.

The eyes of the world are fixed on the RS A, the Government, the hon. the Minister and the top management. The eyes of the world are fixed on the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, on the Government with its proven NP policy. The world is asking us, Africa is begging us, to stoke the fires of nationalism. Fan high the flame on the mountain tops of the Soutpansberg and Waterberg, in the dark caves of Waterkloof, in the mine tunnels of Carletonville—bring the light, the strength and energy of nationalism which is necessary to cause the NP as the strongest source, as the solver of our people’s problems, to triumph in the end.

I believe that the strength and energy which that hon. Minister and his top management generate for us, will help us to make the people of this country wide awake and burning with zeal. That is why I also say that the eyes of the world are at present fixed on South Africa. I know that the hon. the Minister, with his top management and officials, will do everything possible and will make the results of all research available to us in order to make our energy provision ultimately very important. Our costs are not too high. How much need is there worldwide for our coal? What role is our consumers play and in what markets should coal be sold? These are all questions which they will have to reply to. They will also have to decide what stumbling-blocks lie in the way of increasing consumption of coal and what should be done in this connection. That is why we say to the hon. the Minister: “Carry on. South Africa is proud of you and your top management”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville managed to bring the issue of the by-elections into even this debate. However, I should like to support him and the hon. member for Durban North in their appeal for the abandonment of the levy of R5 on petrol sales after hours. I think that that is a really stupid idea and the hon. the Minister would be well advised to start off in his new Ministry without that encumbrance.

I should like to discuss certain nuclear issues. The first issue I should like to touch on is the question of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I should like to call on the Government and the hon. the Minister to make a clear policy commitment towards signing this treaty and to take the necessary practical steps leading up to signing it without further ado. The NPT is an international agreement which imposes standards, safeguards and rights of inspection with a view to limiting the spread of nuclear weaponry. As at October 1982 121 nations of the world had signed this treaty since it was first launched 15 years ago in July 1968. Founder-signatories include the two super-powers. They include leading nations such as the UK, West and East Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the majority of the Common Market countries, and the Warsaw-Pact countries as well as Scandinavia and many leading African, Asian and Middle East countries. Only 41 nations as at last October had not signed that treaty, and South Africa was one of these. The question is: Why? What prevents our Government from joining the majority of the world’s leading nations in support of the principle of non-proliferation of nuclear weaponry, or nuclear capability? Surely it is impossible that South Africa either has, or wishes to develop, a nuclear weapon capability. That would be political lunacy. We in South Africa have enough political problems without adding world opprobrium on this issue and without adding a nuclear dimension.

A good example of the kind of opprobrium that comes our way as a result of our stance so far is a comment which was made by Mr. Carlton Thorne, Chief of the International Nuclear Affairs Division of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. He said—

Another, more recent example is an article which appeared in our local Press on 22 March this year under the heading: “South Africa’s nuclear bulge on the hip”. It starts by saying—

We could do without this kind of thing. Incidentally, this was by a respected writer, Mr. Simon Barber, writing from Washington. It seems to me that it is high time that South Africa places its good faith in this matter beyond any shadows of a doubt. The Prime Minister said publicly as long ago as 24 August 1977 that we were seriously considering accession to the NPT, but still we wait. I therefore call upon the Government to take the necessary steps to sign it and, if there are technical problems, to take deliberate steps to clear them out of the way.

The other question I should like to touch upon is the matter of nuclear energy and Koeberg in particular. If I may react very briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East, who is not in the House at the moment, I should like to say that if he thinks that the PFP is going to remain silent in the aftermath of a major national traumatic event like the Koeberg blasts, then he has another think coming. We see it as the right and the duty of the Opposition to take up issues of great public importance. And we shall do it again. There are a number of issues and questions that are hanging in the air about this whole subject, and I am not going to deal with the security aspects. There are just four pertinent questions that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister in this debate. Firstly, does it still make economic sense for South Africa to embark upon a major nuclear energy programme and extend this present situation? What is the average cost of generating electricity at Koeberg compared with the cost per unit of generating it at our coal-fired power-stations? Can the hon. the Minister still persuade the House that we are on the right track in the wake of all the unforeseen costs, problems, etc., that have been attracted to this issue?

What do you suggest? Closing it down?

I am asking the questions. These are very serious questions involving millions and millions of rand. If it makes sense to erect a whole series of nuclear power-stations, where should they be located? What criteria should be applied in choosing the sites? Should the public not be involved in the choice? This is the standard procedure overseas. Why not here? The third question is: Can these power-stations be operated with complete safety? Can the danger of radiation leaks be totally eliminated? Other countries and other parts of the world do not seem to think so. A fourth question is: What is to be done with the highly toxic wastes which such stations produce? I know that a part of Namaqualand has been set aside for this purpose. We all know that. It is interesting to note that the hon. member for Namaqualand last year said that there is no room in his constituency for such a thing. Now that he is a Deputy Minister he does not have anything further to say about the matters. However, I understand that such wastes, and they can be described as poisonous garbage, need a safe, dry, geologically stable, waterless home in non-degradable containers, apparently for up to 10 000 years. Thousands of tons of this deadly garbage have accumulated alongside nuclear power-stations in other parts of the world while the problems of storing, transporting and finding a permanent home for these toxic wastes have not been solved. It has led to major controversy during only the last few week in the USA. I think the hon. the Minister owes the House a clear policy statement on the whole question of nuclear wastes—high level, low level and medium level—and must let us know where we stand in this matter.

Another disturbing question that relates to Koeberg and the nuclear energy programme is that we in South Africa are faced with a special structural problem in that the agency which promotes nuclear power and the body which is supposed to regulate its operation, namely the Council for Nuclear Safety, both fall under one ministry. Overseas, there are separate ministries to handle the different aspects such as licensing, operating, safety measures, etc. This creates a potential problem. It is the very serious potential problem of the fox guarding the hen house. What does the public make of the fact that the chairman of the Watchdog Committee was interviewed in the Financial Mail of October last year and he said he would rate the safety precautions of Koeberg, compared with nuclear power-plants operating overseas, most favourably with the best in operation today. He also said that a tremendous amount of meticulous effort had been put into all aspects of safety. Only a few weeks later we had the blasts. Now the hon. the Minister tells us that he has multiplied the security efforts there umpteen fold. But in October last year the Watchdog Committee was quite happy. It is a problem. I believe that we should split these functions so that there is a proper separation of responsibility. One does not have to be anti-nuclear to have important environmental and other reservations about a major commitment and extension of the programme at this stage while other alternatives exist. The hon. member for Pretoria East poured scorn on what the hon. member for Green Point had to say. However, my hon. colleague for Green Point raised a serious question. Can a society in serious conflict afford the risk of a sabotage target as inviting and dramatic as a nuclear power-station? I do not want to say any more than that. I shall leave the matter there. However, before leaving the question of Koeberg, I should like to commend the hon. the Minister on his reply—he reaffirmed this today during the debate—to the effect that the Koeberg contractor has been instructed to complete all construction work more or less simultaneously so that the workers involved in the construction of the two units will be off the site when the first unit is commissioned as were there when they were proposing to activate the first unit early this year. The announcement means that the main thrust of the PFP’s “Delay Koeberg” campaign which was our call for no activation to take place until construction was completed, has been satisfied. This will help to reassure the public of Cape Town that a greater degree of the necessary security consciousness has taken root since the December blasts. We do however remain concerned that independent safety and security assurances must be provided to the public before that plant is finally commissioned. During the time that now remains available to complete the construction, these matters should be resolved and a Select Committee perhaps could do it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the announcement he has made, in the first place as regards the increase and the benefits payable to dependants of workers receiving benefits because they are suffering from occupational diseases. I have a great deal of sympathy with those people, particularly in the light of the high cost of living nowadays, and because I am aware that many of these people are living below the breadline. For that reason I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his announcement this afternoon.

I was also extremely grateful for the hon. the Minister’s announcement in connection with the saving of water by Escom. In view of the report we had from the President’s Council and in view of the water position in our country, I feel that we should not only apply these water saving measures for as long as the present drought lasts. I should say that even if we get good rains—and we are all hoping and praying that this will happen soon—I feel that we should nevertheless continue with those conservation measures.

When I participated in this debate a few days ago, I referred to the importance of the minerals of our country and referred in particular to coal and the mining of coal. Coal is a very important earner of foreign exchange. I should like to mention the problems which arise as a result of pollution at worked-out mines. I referred, for example, to air pollution, and the question may arise why I raise the matter of air pollution under this Vote and not under the Health Vote where it actually belongs. I also referred to water pollution, and here again the question may arise as to why I am referring to this under this Vote and not under the Environment Affairs Vote. But pollution is definitely an important facet of this Vote. As far as I am concerned it is the root of all evil. I read through the Mines and Works Act and the regulations that have been promulgated and it is a fact that the Government Mining Engineer is required to issue a certificate after he has satisfied himself that the arrangements in connection with worked-out mines are satisfactory. If we now think of pollution resulting from acidification, for which we have not yet found solution, in the first place I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to approach the mining groups to make a contribution for research to combat this type of pollution, to a sufficiently extent so that the water there is usable.

When it comes to the regulations, however, there is a problem. This applies in particular where we are now deviating to a large extent from the old conventional mining methods. As a matter of fact, the mining groups are making a great effort to restore the topsoil so that it can be used, but the subterranean problems which result from this should at all times remain the responsibility of the owners of those underground rights and they should never be relieved of that responsibility. I can understand the problems involved, but I ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that this matter be throughly investigated, because it is really causing grave concern.

I should now like to mention another point. The Government has now announced its housing strategy. I represent a constituency with many mineworkers and also many people who work for Escom. I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister in this connection. I ask that home ownership also be promoted among officials of the mines and of Escom. We are extremely grateful for and appreciate the fact that Escom provides housing for 72% of all its officials. They have more than 20 000 dwelling units, of which only 8 000 are owned by employees. I feel that all the groups of people working for such institutions should be encouraged—in the case of the mines as well—to purchase their own homes. There are certain towns I should like to draw attention to, and here I am referring to the Western Transvaal in particular. I am thinking, for example, of places like Oberholzer, Carletonville and Westonaria. There are a large number of houses in those towns that belong to the mining companies. They lease those houses to mining officials at a very low rental. However, when the mineworkers have given their best years to the mining companies they are no longer assured of a roof over their heads. In this connection I should also like to ask for the necessary co-operation from Escom and the mining companies. I can understand that certain of our key members of staff are locality bound, but this definitely does not apply to all mining officials.

This brings me to the mineworkers themselves. The hon. member for Langlaagte also referred to the mineworkers. If one has an opportunity to go underground—as I frequently do—and look at the conditions under which the mineworkers must work, one realizes that it is certainly not one of the easiest or most pleasant places in which to work. However, those people work there of their own free will. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the interests of the mineworkers and the officials of the mining companies are taken care of at all times. I took cognizance in the annual report of the number of underground and surface visits to mines. I took cognizance of the large number of surprise visits, namely 1 295. Miners inform one that when an official visit is made by a group of people, the conditions which the visitors see differ from those experienced by the miners every day. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look after the interests of the miners at all times.

We are at present engaged in an election struggle. It is a fact that certain political parties are going out of their way to sow confusion among many of our minerworkers. All the political parties in this House are engaged in elections in constituencies in which miners live, and I want to appeal to them not to drag the miners into this. We must not use the miners and the mining officials as a political football in the election struggle. The Government’s standpoint in connection with the benefits and facilities of the mineworkers and the mining officials has been spelt out clearly. I therefore want to make a friendly but earnest appeal to all the political parties to look after the interests of the mineworkers at all times.

In conclusion, I want to say that I mentioned air pollution and water pollution at the beginning of my speech. In consequence of the debate this afternoon it seems to me as if we are polluting South African politics. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that we have been discussing mineworkers in this debate. Mr. Chairman, when you put the question, we in the CP were in fact discussing Carletonville among ourselves, and as you will understand, that is something which requires one’s attention. That is the reason why I may not have been listening attentively to the debate. [Interjections.]

This evening I wish to make a plea to the Government in respect of the rights and privileges of those who have over the years as taxpayers assisted, in the form of vast capital, in building up organizations such as Sasol, for example. What has happened? We have recently seen how the Government has attempted to allow companies to have a share in organizations such as Sasol. Since 1938 Sasol has been this nation’s legacy. All taxpayers have contributed to the establishment of Sasol. However, when Sasol’s shares were made available, there was a problem. In fact, only the larger companies acquired shares and the man in the street was able to acquire only 17 million shares. This share issue was oversubscribed 17 times. In other words, the private individual, the smaller purchaser, would have been able to take up the total share issue of Sasol. What actually happened? Sasol had 375 million shares. The Industrial Development Corporation—or IDC, as we know it—acquired 30% of the shares. 245 million shares were sold to pension schemes, insurance companies and large financially powerful organizations. Only 17,5 million shares were allotted to the man in the street, the direct taxpayer.

†Mr. Chairman, this allotment of 17,5 million shares was 17 times oversubscribed. And what does it mean? The people of South Africa felt that they were entitled to part of their inheritance. The working man felt that he was entitled to part of his inheritance and that he had paid for Sasol. He was one of the people who created the capital for Sasol. Why then should these people be left out in the cold and only be allowed one seventeenth of the shares that they could have subscribed for the Sasol issue?

He is probably one of the Lords Seventeen. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, what is notable, is that even today we are paying for Sasol—we are paying for Sasol 2. What is going to happen? Are we once again going to hand over all those shares to the big companies? It is impossible for this Government to bring down the price of petrol today. I shall tell you why. It is because they have a new group of shareholders and this group is strong enough to stop the Government from bringing down the price of petrol. It is important to note that the new pressure group in the petrol field is so strong that the Government will eventually yield to more and more pressure and, even if the Arab States bring the price of oil down to $5 below the present price, our Government will not reduce the price here. The reason for this can clearly be seen in what the hon. the Minister said today. He said that it is not only the Arab world that is important in the bringing down of the price, but the producers of petrol in South Africa also have an important role in this respect. However, I say that, in this instance, it is the shareholders who are much more important, because they have become a pressure group. I want to warn the Government today on this issue. Take Escom for instance. Today we have the question of whether Escom should be investigated or not. It has now been decided by the Government that it should be investigated. I want to make a prediction that in another few months, or maybe a few years, you will find that we are selling off Escom. First we give it a bad name and then we sell it.

On 3 March this year, some discussions about Iscor took place. Just take a look at the price of Highveld Steel over the last few months. There has been a fantastic rise in the shares of Highveld Steel. I think it is important to note it and I think that the Government is at a disadvantage, because—I am not talking of this hon. Minister, because present company is always excluded—the present Ministers are not capable of going on to the same platform with the businessmen of this country. They are at a complete disadvantage. Therefore I think the Government must go slow in getting into the field of free enterprise before they have trained the different hon. Ministers in the field of business. It is very important, Mr. Chairman. We are losing out. We have wonderful staff but the staff does not have the final say.

I was present at a meeting where certain people in the liquor industry had to make recommendations and during which discussions with a certain hon. Minister took place. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I was really despondent and a little upset. In the field of business, the field into which the Government has moved now, they are babies. They are young men and hon. Ministers with short pants. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not like speaking after the hon. member for Langlaagte, since the slightest thing makes him excited, sometimes even the hon. member sitting behind him. However, I just want to say this: No Government institution has ever been bankrupt, and that is more than I can say for Corlett Drive Estates.

How many mineworkers did he cheat with Corlett Drive?

You are an ape.

Order! Did the hon. member for Jeppe say that another hon. member was an ape?

I said that the hon. member for Swellendam was an ape, and I withdraw it.

You are a gorilla.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Brits allowed to say that I am a gorilla? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Brits must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Stilfontein allowed to tell a lie in this House? He said that Corlett Drive Estates had become bankrupt, and nothing of the kind happened.

Order! That has nothing to do with this debate. The hon. member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask those two hon. members opposite whether they are aware of the fact that they are, in fact, members of the order Primates? Nevertheless, I shall continue.

Mr. Chairman, I request the hon. member to withdraw those words in respect of my hon. colleagues.

Order! What did the hon. member mean by those words?

Mr. Chairman, it does not surprise me that those hon. members do not know what it means when one says that they are a member of the order Primates, since everyone sitting here falls into that category. Therefore I do not know why that hon. member is being so sensitive.

Mr. Chairman, what is your ruling in that regard?

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein explained that he included people in that concept. There is no reason for the hon. member to withdraw that. The hon. member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I should like to continue by congratulating the hon. the Minister most sincerely on behalf of the mining communities of Orkney and Stilfontein on his first Vote in this capacity. We should very much like to wish him everything of the best. He started off energetically … [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. He started off very energetically in this Vote and we wish him everything of the best for the future.

The former hon. Minister had the following to say during the discussion of this Vote in 1981 (Hansard, 1981, col. 2984)—

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Stilfontein allowed to read his speech?

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would only open his ears and listen for once, he would know that I was quoting a speech of the former hon. Minister from Hansard. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Jeppe is taking over Thomas Langley’s job.

It seems to me that some hon. members opposite have caught the disease a former member of this House suffered from. Sir, earlier you had to say that you were putting the Vote five times before an hon. member of the Conservative Party rose to speak, and now there is another hon. member who is not paying attention. Then he has the audacity to ask me whether I am reading my speech.

You usually do.

All I can say is: “Shame, try again”.

I continue to quote the former Minister—

For the edification of the hon. member for Jeppe, I am saying that I have now finished quoting from Hansard.

I think this appeal by the hon. the Minister has unfortunately fallen on deaf ears. In certain respects there has been fine co-operation between the employer and the employee, and we praise both groups for this. However, in certain cases, problems have arisen and some of these problems came from the employers. I feel that they have not shown sufficient understanding for the protection of the vested interests of the White worker in the mines.

Put down those sheets of paper so that we can see if you are reading.

I shall give reasons for saying this.

On the other hand, I just want to add that I do not think the employees, in turn, have shown an understanding of the problems of the mining managements. On the part of the employer, I am thinking here particularly of problems which have arisen with regard to shower facilities, dressing room facilities and other facilities in certain mines. I am being cautious by saying “in certain mines”, and not in all of them. There are certain companies who are trying to force mixed facilities on Whites and on people of colour.

But that is your policy.

If the worker, the White worker in particular, does not wish to accept this, they are told in a subtle way that either they accept it, or else. That is what I am concerned about. This Government has no objection to different race groups sharing certain facilities. However, there is one proviso which has been stated very clearly by this Government, and that is that the owners, particularly those who are not members of the Chamber, should allow their workers to choose whether or not they want separate facilities and that these owners should not remove these separate facilities unless they have held talks with their workers. I want to issue a warning to those mines that are guilty of this. We in these benches are aware of the fact that certain workers are being psychologically indoctrinated in a subtle way.

Are they despondent too?

Sir, that man is so despondent that, in fact, he is lolling over backwards. It is not necessary for me to make him even more despondent.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to refer to another hon. member as “that man”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein must refer to other hon. members as “hon. members”.

Sir, I shall refer to that hon. member as “hon. member”. I did not want to cast doubts on his gender by calling him a man. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting to see how members of both the CP and the NP are scurrying and running around in an attempt to win the favour of mineworkers. We have the ironic situation that the hon. member for Langlaagte, referred to by one of his colleagues as a millionaire, stands up and makes speeches as the spokesman for the workers in South Africa, as one who fights the capitalists and is against “big money”, as one who wants the small investor to have a right in Sasol investments, etc. On the other hand we have an ex-Anglo American employee, a man referred to by the CP as an Oppenheimer lackey, getting up and contradicting directly what I assume would be Anglo American policy on labour and creeping and running after mineworkers trying to assure them that they will be able to retain all their vested interests.

That was an eye on Carletonville.

He was saying job reservation would remain and the NP would ensure that the mineworker would be safe under job reservation. We therefore have the situation that the CP members and the NP members are outdoing each other in that area. Unfortunately the NP finds itself in the situation that it is again busy with double-talk.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

In the normal industrial area a lot of progress has been made as far as labour relations are concerned, but in order to make political capital and for political expediency …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member who looked after the interests of all the workers in this country for the least 35 years and made them prosperous? [Interjections.]

I will answer it by quoting from Hansard what a previous member for Welkom said in this House in 1980 with reference to mineworkers and exmineworkers and what is being done to them by the NP. I quote (Hansard, 16 May 1980; col. 6495)—

It is a Nationalist who said this, and he knew more about mineworkers than most of us—

This is what the mineworkers want and this is something which the sufferers from occupational diseases have been asking the Government for the last two years. Lip-service is being paid to them. For two years, since 1981, those people, who for years toiled in the mines and as a result suffer from occupational diseases, have not had an increase. Today the hon. the Minister—and we welcome the announcement—announced an increase of 16%. The hon. member for Geduld said that he was sure that it would be welcomed with open arms, but I am not so sure that it will be welcomed with open arms. Obviously they will be pleased that there is an improvement, but what is the real situation as far as these people are concerned? Since 1981 there has been no improvement. Now there is to be an increase of only 16% from October this year when the inflation rate over the last two years has been approximately 15% per annum. The increases, therefore, are far less than even the inflation rate during that period. An increase of 30% would only have gone as far as keeping pace with the inflation rate. That would have been an increase which in our present circumstances one could have found acceptable. However, what is interesting is that if one looks at the annual report of the Commissioner one sees that the number of pneumoconiosis pensioners whose pensions are payable from the State Account is decreasing every year. As far as the Whites are concerned, during the year ended March 1980 there were 6 736, the next year there were 6 214 and, according to the latest annual report, there were only 5 606 for the year ended March 1982. That is a drop of 17% over three years.

Do you know why?

One is therefore not dealing with an ever-increasing mass of pneumoconiosis pensioners. What is even more interesting, is that the amount that Parliament has voted for compensationable disease sufferers has decreased over the last two years. For the year ended March 1982 Parliament appropriated R9,68 million to supplement the funds in the State Account. For the year ended March 1983 a sum of only R9,1 million was appropriated. During that year this hon. Minister found that he actually over-budgeted and that he in fact only required R5,9 million. So the amount was reduced to R5,9 million. Therefore from 1982 to 1983 the State’s contribution towards the State Account dropped by 39%. Even more surprising is that in the present estimates before us not a single cent is allocated for this purpose. I would ask the hon. the Minister how the increase is going to be financed. The hon. the Minister does refer in an explanatory statement dealing with estimates of expenditure for the next year to the fact that no appropriation will be made, but that certain securities will be sold in order to compensate for the appropriation which was normally made. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us what the balance in the fund is and how he will finance the increase. In 1982 Parliament appropriated R9,68 million and pensioners received a 12% increase. In 1983 Parliament appropriated only R5,9 million and the pensioners received no increase. For 1984 Parliament is not asked to appropriate anything, but fortunately, and we thank the hon. the Minister for that, the pensioners get a 16% increase. We are also pleased that the Nieuwenhuizen Commission report will very soon be placed before the Cabinet for consideration because the fact that a White Paper has not been ready has been used as a reason over the last two years for not increasing the pensions and allowances for the sufferers of occupational compensationable diseases. 16% is welcome, but it is not a tangible amount that will in any way alleviate the burden that these people have been suffering over the last two years specifically.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central will pardon me for not reacting to his speech. I should like to refer to a few other PFP speakers.

Firstly, I wish to make a few remarks with regard to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said about the exporting of fuel from South Africa in 1979 and the fact that he does not believe that such a problem existed at that time with regard to crude oil, since at that stage we were exporting petrol. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware that in the cracking processes at the refineries there is usually a cracking ratio of 1:1 between diesel and petrol. However, it was almost impossible to obtain any diesel at Sasol itself. Only very recently has a cracking process been developed at Sasol 3 whereby the ratio 1:1 could be attained. At that stage the consumption of diesel in this country was much higher than that of petrol. In the cracking process all the diesel is used up and the petrol remains behind. What should we have done with the petrol? Did this mean that because we had a surplus of petrol because more diesel was being used, we did not have a shortage of diesel? Does that hon. member know how urgently we needed it at that stage? Does he realize that at that stage we only had a few days’ crude oil supply which could be cracked by the refineries? Does that not matter to him at all? [Interjections.] Does that not bother him? If I make use of wind power to propel my farming equipment, then the diesel and oil supplies do not matter to me, since I should be making use of the wind. However, on behalf of the farmers of this country, the grain farmers in particular, I wish to say today that if this Government had not taken the risk in supplying our farmers with fuel so that they could harvest their crops, regardless of the risk, I would have taken it amiss of the Government today if it had allowed that opportunity to pass. Today it is easy for us to speak about this whole situation, but in 1979 Opec was at its peak. It was unassailable. Having made those few remarks, I shall leave the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central at that.

During this discussion today the PFP have assumed the right—they will probably do so in the years ahead as well—to speak on behalf of the conservationists. [Interjections.] I shall come to the hon. member for Constantia. He must just be a little patient. I wish to give a few examples of the level of knowledge of these people who have assumed this right. I take it hon. members opposite regularly read the articles of the journalist Bob Molloy in The Cape Times. They would do well to read what he had to say on Monday. This gentleman stated the following so-called truth. He asked: What is the difference whether the power comes from Koeberg or whether it comes from the North? All the power is pumped into a central network and there is therefore no greater loss of electricity coming to Cape Town from the North, over and above that coming from Koeberg. I do not know whether those hon. gentlemen are aware of this. In fact, they have an engineer in their midst, Mr. Savage. He would be able to tell them. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. member as “the hon. member for Walmer”.

Mr. Chairman, it was by no means my intention to slight the hon. member for Walmer. Unfortunately, I had forgotten the name of his constituency. [Interjections.] If it is not complete foolishness to think that power can pass along power lines without loss, then I do not know what foolishness is. There is a further point. They were speaking about radio-activity from Koeberg. However, surely they must be aware that the power in high tension power-lines could also give rise to the increasing incidence of cancer among people who live in the vicinity of those lines. Can it therefore, be expected of us to use cable feeds? Those hon. members ought to know that the planning of the world’s power supply envisages—regardless of what they say—that the whole world will have to make extensive use of nuclear energy between the years 2020 and 2050. These are the predictions of people whose planning may be regarded as wrong in the short term, but who are always right in the long term. Those hon. members know just as well as I do that we are denied all information about nuclear matters from abroad. Do those hon. members want us to enter the future without any knowledge? Is that what they are demanding of us? Do they expect us to enter a nuclear future without having acquired any knowledge for ourselves? How are we to acquire knowledge if we do not have the necessary facilities? Do those hon. members want people to die of poverty rather than take the risk of becoming irradiated? What do those hon. members really want? Must we live, or, because we are afraid, must we rather say that we are simply going to die?

Are you still talking about Molloy?

I do not know what that hon. member means. I asked in advance whether I could refer to such a gentleman. We should praise the Government for the way they have acted in supplying electricity, for the responsible steps they have taken, under the severest pressure, to build Koeberg. I wish to assure hon. members today that those gentlemen will continue to make a fuss and complain, but for one reason only, and that is for political gain.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Once again the hon. member has referred to hon. members in these benches as “daardie here”. I would suggest that he refer to us as “agb. lede”.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

It is the first time in my life I have found that someone was not prepared to be addressed as a “gentleman”. I shall therefore with the greatest pleasure refer to them as “hon. members”.

I wish to conclude by asking those hon. members whether they do not want to dispense with their politicking. Should we not rather accept Koeberg? The hon. member for Constantia spoke about waste and compared us with America. However, is he aware that the rock strata in America are totally different to the rock strata in Namaqualand, since the rock strata in Namaqualand are thousands of millions of years younger than those in America? Is he aware of that fact? Is he aware that much of the strata in America are spongy, completely porous? That is why they have those large irrigation schemes in Nevada. Is he aware of that? Does he not perhaps just want to mention that fact? Does he simply not want to realize that we have a safe storage place for our waste? What does that hon. member want to do? Or is he deliberately concealing the truth? That is the question I wish to put to that side of the House.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, since we have had a very welcome rest of some 1¼ hours from this rather sordid debate so far, I do not intend to follow up any speech made so far. I want to introduce a new subject or two. I do think that later in the course of my speech I will be addressing some remarks to those hon. members of the CP who belong to the genus homo sapiens of the order of primates. [Interjections.]

Where are the Government members? If we walked out, there would be no quorum. [Interjections.]

I think everybody in this House will agree with me that South Africa is one of the most important mineral-producing countries in the world. We are the only country that produces 54 different minerals, and by a geological quirk we are one of only two areas in the world that are thus endowed, the other one being on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Because of this South Africa is not only a country of internal importance, strategically speaking, but also one of international importance. This is something on which most hon. members in the House will agree with me, including our side, certainly the NRP, certainly the CP and of course the Pretoria Progs, but perhaps not…

There are not many on your side to agree with you tonight.

They will be coming. The Houghton Progs will possibly not agree.

Are they in Waterberg?

Where are your people?

Those hon. members should wait a while before starting their tomfoolery, because they are illustrating what fools they indeed are. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must afford the hon. member for Benoni the opportunity to make his speech.

But there is no one on that side to listen to him.

Order! The hon. member need not argue with the Chair on that score.

Perhaps I might be given some injury time towards the end of my speech because of these interruptions.

†What we are all agreed upon is that South Africa is also, because of its mineral wealth and riches, the target of international interest both on the part of the Soviet Union because it wishes to deprive the West of a reliable source of a variety of strategic minerals and on the part of the West because it is of course interested in ensuring, as we are interested in ensuring, that the Soviet Union does not succeed in these aims. These facts are well-known and they are not disputed. I mention them simply to illustrate that because one does have this interest, particularly on the part of the Soviet Union, in our strategic mineral importance it is natural that we should also think in terms of developing a comprehensive mineral strategy as part of our defence against the total onslaught against this country.

Secondly, we should not indulge in pettifogging little myths and fancies when we debate such an important subject as this.

*The first myth we should expose to public contempt is one which the hon. the leader of the CP is the author. Dr. A. P. Treurnicht, when he was still a member of this House, said in the no-confidence debate … [Interjections.]

Chris, tell us about the way you complained to him about Jan Trollip. [Interjections.]

Dr. Treurnicht is telling so many lies in Waterberg that those hon. members will believe this lie of his too.

You also came to me to complain.

I did not complain to the hon. member. He knows it. [Interjections.] The leader of the CP said while describing his envisaged heartland policy in the no-confidence debate, during which he also refused to say where they envisaged creating the heartland—

Because South Africa is such an important mineral-producing part of the world, it is also one of the countries in the world which, geologically speaking, have been investigated most thoroughly. A thorough geological investigation has been conducted in virtually every part of the country. Consequently we know where there are mineral deposits and where not. When the hon. the leader of the CP speaks of the fantastic mining potential of the envisaged, imaginary Coloured heartland—no one can tell us where it is—then they should produce facts. They must tell us where this mineral potential is. In Waterberg and in Soutpansberg, where the CP is fighting an election, they are spreading the story that the mining industry, an imaginary mining industry, is the economic backbone of their imaginary Coloured heartland. At their founders’ congress in the Skilpadsaal they said this heartland for the Coloureds would be on the Cape Flats.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May we reply to the hon. member in the same vein and turn this discussion into a party-political debate?

Order! I am keeping a close watch on the hon. member for Benoni. If he goes too far, I shall call him to order.

I am discussing mineral and energy affairs. The Coloured heartland forms part of South Africa, also the imaginary heartland. That is why we have to investigate where these minerals in South Africa can be mined. [Interjections.] The one area that was identified is the Cape Flats. According to all geological surveys which have been undertaken, there is no mining potential, nor any mineral potential whatsoever, on the Cape Flats. It is true that the hon. leader of that party did say that the Cape Flats would be a component only and that they were thinking in terms of the West Coast. The only exploitable minerals on the West Coast are diamonds. They are, however, to be found in an area of total desert. Ten years ago the Department of Water Affairs carried out a survey in which it was found that it would cost R4 000 per annum per morgen to irrigate that desert area. Where they are going to find the water to develop a viable mining oriented State is not clear to me. Then the North-Western Cape was considered. It is a fact that there are minerals in the North-Western Cape. Of course, I do not know whether it is to be in Gordonia, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg said, or in the North-Western Cape in general or, according to the latest announcement of that party’s survey of South Africa was made by the ore satellite in 1973, geological surveys have been made of all the potential mineral deposits in the North-Western Cape, and we know where the exploitable deposits are. There is no mineral potential in any of the existing rural Coloured areas in the North-Western Cape. Consequently I am of the opinion that when one participates in a serious debate, even outside this House, on an imaginary future State which is to have mineral as an economic basis for development, one should be able to identify the situation of that State and its mineral basis. I think it is blatantly dishonest of the leader of that party to deceive the voters of South Africa in this way. I think that kind of deception should be exposed to public contempt. [Interjections.] This kind of dishonest politics should totally be exposed to public contempt.

†There is a second myth that also has to do with the distribution of minerals and the country’s mineral wealth. This is the myth that does not come so much from the CP as from workers and supporters of the PFP. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to all hon. members who have participated in the debate. In the short time available to me, I shall try to reply to all the arguments. If I am unable to do so, the department will reply to them in writing.

I want to begin with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. This hon. member compared the retail price of petrol in 1979 with the current retail price. If I remember correctly, he said that there was a difference of about 8 cents a litre.

7,8 cents a litre.

The hon. member went on to say that if one compared the price of crude oil in 1979 with the price of oil today, one would find that the price of petrol is far too high at the moment. I should like to reply very clearly to the hon. member’s argument. If he compares the rate of exchange between the rand and the dollar in 1979 with the rate of today, he will see that the difference should not have been 8 cents, but 13 cents. There he has the full answer. I know he finds it difficult to understand, but I shall be prepared to explain it to him after the debate.

What are you paying now for oil?

That is the answer. Anyone who knows anything about the matter could work it out for him. Then he might understand it.

The hon. member also spoke about lead in petrol. Since there is a world-wide movement away from lead in petrol, for several reasons, and since there is too little information available on this topical subject within the South African context, the Energy Planning Division of my department undertook a study of the literature available on this subject. On the basis of this study, a recommendation was made, from an energy point of view, that a detailed study be made of the effect which a reduction of the maximum lead content of petrol would have on motor vehicle engines, the octane rating of petrol, the refining industry, cost and crude oil consumption.

Meanwhile, the South African oil industry has undertaken a comprehensive study and has kindly undertaken to provide the Government with information in this connection on a regular basis. It is envisaged that upon completion of the study, it will be possible to make a recommendation, in consultation with other interested departments and organizations, concerning the possibility of reducing the maximum lead content of petrol, which is 0,836 grammes a litre at the moment. A preliminary report on this investigation is expected by the end of April. I also want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the health and pollution aspects are actually medical matters which he should bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Health.

Do not duck your responsibilities that way. You allow lead in petrol.

The hon. member also asked a question about the cost of our nuclear development programme and about the question of uranium enrichment in particular. He asked my predecessor the same question last year during the Second Reading debate on the Nuclear Energy Bill. I refer the hon. member to col. 8358 of Hansard, 4 June 1982, where my predecessor dealt with this matter at length.

I should like to make several additional remarks by way of amplifying the comments of my predecessor. Because of the restructuring of nuclear activities in South Africa, all activities of this nature, including uranium enrichment, have now been combined under the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa. The budget of this corporation is presented in a consolidated form. The ratio between the expenditures of the two subsidiary companies is more or less the same as in the past. The cost of uranium enrichment form only 10% of the unit cost of electricity. In the times in which we live, where boycotts against us are the order of the day, enriched uranium, even at double the price, is cheaper than no enriched uranium. The Commission of Inquiry into Electricity Supplies in the Republic of South Africa, which I recently announced, will also investigate the future role of nuclear power in South Africa, and the Government will consider any further steps in the nuclear energy cycle, such as nuclear fuel manufacture, in the light of the recommendations made to the Government by that commission.

†The hon. member referred to the question of job reservation in the mining industry. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the Government’s White Paper on Part VI of the Wiehahn Report. It will be of no use to quote that White Paper on the report in this debate.

What is the date of that report?

The hon. member can establish that for himself. I am not his computer.

I want to add that as long as negotiations between employer and employee in the mining industry are possible—the Government believes it is possible—the Government will not interfere unduly.

*The hon. member for Stilfontein raised a point concerning the whole question of labour relations in the mining industry. I want to make a very clear and unequivocal statement tonight and to adopt a very clear standpoint concerning the Government’s labour policy with regard to the mining industry. In the first place, I want to say that the mining industry is the most important primary producer in South Africa. The welfare of South Africa depends on what happens in the mining industry. Therefore I say that agriculture is supplementary to this, but the mining industry is the biggest primary producer in the country. Does the hon. member for Barberton have a problem? [Interjections.] From the nature of the case, the hon. members of the CP have many problems.

Herkie Roets has also deserted you.

Oh, I shall bring that Roets back to the NP. I know the hon. members are very worried about him.

In the light of the importance of the mining industry in South Africa, and in the light of the fact that we have various interest groups in that industry—the mine workers, the shareholders in the mines, the mining houses, the Government, the national interest, the earning of exchange; all those factors are relevant—I say tonight that anyone who tries to make cheap political capital and to create unrest in the mining industry is harming the national interest. There must be peace and calm in this industry and there must be mutual trust among the various elements in the mining industry.

I regard my role and the Government’s role as being that of a catalyst, a channel through which talks can be held and negotiations can be conducted, because I do not believe in the politics of threats. I believe that any dispute between people, any dispute between interest groups, can be solved by means of sensible negotiation, but political exploitation of such disputes amounts to irresponsible conduct towards South Africa and is not in the national interest.

Consequently I wish to make the following statement. I want to summarize the Government’s labour policy with regard to the mineral industry under the following points: In the first place, it is primarily the responsibility of the employer to ensure labour peace and contentment among his workers. By that I mean all workers, irrespective of colour, language, culture or creed. The second point is that there must be no change or disturbance of practices without negotiation with the workers and without their consent. This is the position, irrespective of colour, language or creed. The third point is that in addition to labour practices, no worker must be forced to share facilities with people of a different colour. That is to say, he must not be expected to accept the sharing of facilities against his will.

Carletonville!

This applies to all workers, whether they be White, Black, Yellow or Brown. The fourth point is that if, for any reason, any worker or group of workers expresses the wish to have their own separate facilities or to retain those facilities which they have, that request must be respected and complied with.

Carletonville!

Order!

However, it appears that there are differences of opinion between mining trade unions about the approach to be followed in the process of negotiation with employers and that a certain trade union or trade unions have already entered into agreements with regard to the sharing of facilities, agreements based on principles which are not endorsed by other mining trade unions. This source of friction was not created by the Government…

You are a great Reformer!

… but the Government nevertheless wishes, as a result of this situation, to establish beyond all doubt what its policy is with regard to the provision of social facilities to workers in the mineral industry. In the spirit of the Government’s policy …

What policy?

… that any change in existing practices should preferably be brought about by way of negotiation and consensus between employers and employees, as emphasized in the White Paper on part 6 of the Wiehahn report, and since the Government therefore advocates a policy of non-intervention, the Government cannot simply be expected to intervene where consensus is in fact achieved between an employer and an employees’ organization which has a direct interest in a specific matter, providing, of course, that it falls within the framework of the guidelines I have laid down here …

Apartheid irrespective of race or colour.

… and the other requirements laid down by the Government in respect of an orderly community life.

Job reservation is in!

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members wish to make cheap political capital while I am discussing the interests of the workers of this country. When I state the Government’s labour policy unequivocally, so that the worker may know where he stands—and he has the right to know where he stands—I am accused of engaging in politics and those hon. members try to introduce party politics into this matter, which ought to be above party politics. [Interjections.] Even if they do not find my remarks in this House politically expedient, they should nevertheless try, for the sake of the workers of this country, to keep this matter out of the political arena. Since I became the Minister in charge of this portfolio, I have spoken and negotiated in a spirit of great sacrifice and with a great deal of patience…

Would you like a handkerchief?

… with various organizations in an attempt to bring about peace in the industry. Sir, I shall need a handkerchief for that spitting machine opposite. [Interjections.]

And you are nothing but a “vleipadda” (marsh frog). [Interjections.]

Koos, you are a “varkpadda” (pig frog).

Order! The hon. member for Kimberley South must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe said the hon. the Minister was a “vleipadda”, and then I said the hon. member was a “varkpadda”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! Did the hon. member for Jeppe say the hon. the Minister was a “vleipadda”?

Sir, I understand that the hon. the Minister’s nickname is “vleipadda”.

Order! I asked what the hon. member had said.

I said he was a “vleipadda”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Sir, may I address you on that?

No the hon. member may not address me on that—he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I undertake to do my best not to sink to the level of that hon. member. In accordance with the principle of trade union autonomy to which the Government subscribes, trade unions should conduct their own affairs without embarrassing one another and they should also ensure that the arrangements of any particular trade union do not interfere with the rights and privileges of members of other trade unions. I wish to emphasize, however, that although the Government places a high premium on the principle of trade union autonomy, free negotiation and consensus, it will not allow the guidelines which have been laid down with regard to the sharing of social facilities and an orderly community, and which, it believes, afford both employers and employees a very reasonable opportunity to maintain labour peace, to be ignored. The social norms set by every person for himself in this country in respect of community life and specifically with regard to residential facilities have always been and will continue to be a matter of great importance to the Government. Therefore it would not hesitate to intervene if employers and employees were to exceed the limits of the guidelines and other requirements laid down by the Government, thereby endangering the maintenance and development of sound and stable labour relations between employers and employees. On the other hand, however, there is a serious responsibility on employees not to make unreasonable demands of employers. At the same time, employers should not behave unreasonably towards their employees, because unreasonable behaviour and a lack of respect for the social values of their employees, of whatever race or colour, would leave any responsible Government no alternative but to intervene in the interests of good order.

I now want to deal with the point referred to by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, namely the question of coal distribution and coal dealers. He asked various questions in that connection. Because of my very limited time, I shall not reply to them in every detail.

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

I am very sorry, but I have to finish in a couple of minutes. I shall allow the hon. member a question if there is time at the end of my speech.

Do you think you have answered the question on job reservation?

Yes, I have already answered that question. I referred the hon. member to the Wiehahn report, if he listened carefully to what I had to say.

I should like now to deal with the whole question of coal dealers. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to coal distribution and in reply to that hon. member’s question regarding this issue and in particular his request as far as Government Notice No. R.597 of 18 March 1983 is concerned, I wish to inform him that the guidelines in question involve mainly the following: (a) The supply of the total demand of coal in a particular area; (b) prescribing a minimum stockpiling to avoid shortages; and (c) consideration of all producers’ coal on the basis of price. Therefore these guidelines favour the consumer. This regulation has been promulgated in consultation with the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, which department referred the matter to the Competition Board. The board did not object to the regulation. Considering the hon. member’s further questions, I wish to advise him that through the utilizing of the infrastructure of coal distributors to the maximum the unit price of coal sales will be reduced by the normal practice of economics of scale. Furthermore, equal competition will be obtained from the guidelines I have already stated and over the long term the cost of coal distribution can be stabilized to the advantage of all consumers. The whole purpose of the regulation is therefore also to ensure coal sales in bags, avoiding seasonal shortages and minimizing cost increases to the consumer.

*The hon. member also asked a question about solar energy, and I want to react to it briefly.

Are you going to take away job reservation, yes or no?

When the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was speaking, I kept quiet. I know it is difficult for the hon. member, but he should just do me the courtesy of allowing me to reply. I have told him that I have a problem with time. I am not afraid of his questions. I could spend a whole afternoon on him. [Interjections.] As far as the use of solar energy is concerned, this possibility is monitored on an on-going basis, especially because it is a renewable source of energy. A contract has been entered into with a coal techno-economic consulting company to investigate the viability of supplying alternative sources of energy to the remote rural communities in particular, with special emphasis on solar energy and its use, whether as an independent source or linked to a diesel generating system. The final report was studied in detail by a committee consisting of representatives of Escom, the National Building Research Institute and Co-operative Scientific Programmes of the CSIR and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The following conclusions concerning the supply of electricity to Loxton in the Karoo have resulted from this investigation. Diesel-generated electricity is considerably cheaper over a period of 15 years than Escom or solar energy in that particular case. A solar energy system designed to meet the total projected electricity needs of the town of Loxton in the case of high growth is considerably more expensive than Escom power. However, if a diesel-assisted solar power-station were to be provided, and only a moderate increase in demand were to be experienced, the cost of this, depending on the exchange rate between the rand and the dollar, would be more or less the same as that of Escom power. The cost of supplying electricity to farmers in remote rural areas is very high and imposes a great burden on the manpower and resources of Escom required for the provision of new connections. Since solar energy could play a role in this connection, the Energy Planning Division is investigating this possibility at the moment.

I want to come back now to the hon. member for Geduld. I am very grateful to the hon. member for drawing attention to the co-operation given to neighbouring States by this department and to the guidance it provides in respect of occupational diseases. I sincerely thank the hon. member for doing this.

I come now to the hon. member for Langlaagte, he hon. member congratulated me on my appointment, and I thank him for his good wishes. The hon. member spoke about the question of the mine-worker. I also want to say that I regard the mine-workers as a special person and as a person who has to earn his daily bread under extremely difficult circumstances, under absolutely unnatural circumstances, in fact. That is why, having lived in a mining town for a long time in my youth, I sympathize very strongly with our mine-workers.

I come now to the hon. member for Kimberley North. I just want to say that the hon. member made a plea on behalf of the people in the diamond industry who have lost their jobs as a result of the economic recession. I also want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. Wessel van Wyk, the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the so-called Van Wyk Committee—they tell me that I should call it the Wessel van Wyk Committee—recommended that we should establish individual small diamond cutters in South Africa. I think this is a splendid idea, for in this way, a new group of entrepreneurs will come into being in our country. I wish them every success. I hope they will be just as successful as the small diamond cutters have been overseas. We have already granted ten licences and we are presently considering another 30. The hon. member also asked a few questions concerning export tax, customs duty and the general sales tax. Mention was made of the 10% discount offered by the Diamond Traders’ Association. The Van Wyk Committee is investigating that aspect as well. The other questions are purely in the sphere of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

The hon. member for Constantia spoke about the lead content of petrol and the question of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

†This is a very sensitive issue, one which must be handled with care. The hon. member called upon the Government to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. South Africa has declared that it will conduct its nuclear affairs according to the spirit and the intent of the non-proliferation treaty, but that it can only do this if certain other requirements are met. Discussions on this question are still proceeding under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information.

The hon. member also asked whether it made economic sense to embark on a major nuclear energy programme. I can inform the hon. member that the Commission of Inquiry into Electricity supplies in the Republic will also investigate the future role of nuclear energy in the production of electricity, and we shall have to await its findings.

When it comes to the criteria that should apply in the choice of nuclear sites, and the question of whether the public should be involved in the choice of such sites, let me just say that I think that we should leave the choice of sites to the expert organizations that have been appointed to determine the criteria.

Regardless of the public?

No, not regardless of the public, but I think we should leave it to the experts. [Interjections.] I can assure hon. members that the criteria being applied in South Africa are in accordance with international standards.

This brings me to the question of the cost of power from Koeberg as compared to the cost of electricity from coal. Let me state that the cost in the Western Cape is approximately the same because of the much higher cost of coal, when delivered to the Western Cape, as against that of the coal obtainable in the Eastern Transvaal.

The hon. member also expressed concern about what would be done with high-level nuclear waste. Intermediate-level waste will be stored at the site in Namaqualand. This waste will decay to harmless levels in approximately 60 years.

That is medium-level waste?

Yes, medium-level waste. High-level waste only has to be stored for a period of approximately 700 years, after which the waste will have decayed to the same level as the original uranium ore.

Where will it remain for so long?

There is no reason why any waste cannot be stored safely for such a period in view of the fact that the pyramids and other structures, which are very much older, are still in existence. In any event, our international agreement stipulates that the fuel from Koeberg can only be reprocessed outside Southern Africa. So long-life plutonium and other trans-uranium elements will have to be stored outside South Africa.

That conflicts with the previous answer.

The hon. member also objected to the same ministry controlling the promotional as well as the regulatory aspects of nuclear energy. The PFP has, in the past, objected to the same organization, i.e. the Atomic Energy Board conducting both these functions. Now that a completely independent Council for Nuclear Safety has been established to adjudicate on the safety aspects, they object to the same Minister controlling both these functions. My question is whether they will not also object to the same Cabinet controlling these functions if they should fall under separate departments.

Probably, when I look at the Cabinet.

Finally, the hon. member has called for an independent investigation into the safety of Koeberg before it is commissioned. Escom as well as the Atomic Energy Corporation have employed reputable overseas consultants to advise them on nuclear safety aspects. Which other independent organization has the hon. member in mind for such an investigation?

Try a Select Committee.

Do not talk nonsense. The knowledge of and expertise on these matters are available to responsible organizations and should be left with these organizations. They are best equipped to deal with it.

*The hon. member for Pretoria East apologized for not being able to be present tonight. However, I want to thank him for his contribution.

I come now to the hon. member for Durban North. He referred to the question of the R5 levy.

†The R5 levy system for after-hours fuel purchases has been in force since 18 June 1982. Although criticism has been expressed, especially over holiday periods, the system works well, indeed better than expected and helped to ensure that no general price increase was needed to compensate service stations for the longer trading hours. The R5 levy system has been kept under close scrutiny by both the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Motor Industries Federation and it has been found that motorists have widely accepted it. No problem is foreseen in the distinction between normal selling hours and the time when the levy is payable. I have therefore decided to limit the present compulsory closing time of one hour, between 18h00 and 19h00, to a quarter of an hour, 15 minutes. This will assist in lessening any inconvenience to motorists and ensure that fuel will be available almost 24 hours per day for any possible emergency. For the rest the system remains unchanged. Service station owners and managers still enjoy the discretion whether to render an after-hours service or not. A Government notice to affect the necessary amendment to the regulations in respect of the saving of petroleum products will be published in the Government Gazette of 6 May 1983.

Mr. Chairman, the choice is to open up and pay up. The sad thing is that those who do not make use of this service will have to pay up. It is an emergency service. It is only fair, as in the case of all emergency services, that those making use thereof must be prepared to compensate those rendering the service.

What is the emergency now?

The hon. member for Durban North also referred to the increase in pensions as far as occupational diseases are concerned. I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the announced increase is an interim arrangement until such time as a final decision regarding a national occupational diseases dispensation is taken by the Cabinet and approved by this House by way of legislation. This is therefore only an interim increase.

Cannot it then be made effective earlier than October?

We need legislation before the increase can be implemented. However, I will consider the hon. member’s suggestion.

It is disgraceful the way it is now.

It would be more appropriate for you to say thank you.

You should come to my constituency and see how they have been suffering for two years.

This hon. member is not being fair now.

I want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that he made a fine contribution on our coal reserves and coal consumption in South Africa. He also referred to important statistics on various aspects in the energy field. I want to give the hon. member the good news that the reserves of our recoverable coal have recently been re-assessed. The latest assessment is 57 000 million tons. So it is almost 12% higher than the figure quoted by the hon. member. This is good news indeed.

I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Witbank when he had his second turn to speak. In it he suggested that the holder of underground rights should always remain responsible for the prevention of pollution or fires which may arise after production has been discontinued. This is a complex problem, but I believe that it can be dealt with under the provision: of the Mines and Works Act. I want to assure the hon. member that I shall consider his request and that I shall see whether the problem can be dealt with in terms of the provisions of that Act.

The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to the question of Sasol shares. I want to tell him that I take cognizance of his point My standpoint, however, is that Sasol belongs to the nation. I want to point out to the hon. member that the shares that have been sold and the funds that have been collected have been used mainly for the further expansion of Sasol 2 and 3. It is true that some of those funds were used for decentralization but the point is that further use was made of those funds. The investment made by the public and the State was quadrupled when the shares were sold. I want to tell the hon. member—and this is my standpoint which I wish to place on record today—that the next time Sasol shares are issued, it is my ideal that every member of our population, irrespective of colour, should hold shares in Sasol. Does the hon. member agree with me? The last time there were exceptional circumstances, because there was a risk and one had to have an underwriter. It was a risk, for if one cannot dispose of those shares, the business acquires a very bad reputation.

But it was oversubscribed seventeen times.

The point is, however, that no one could have anticipated that. The hon. member also made the point that the Sasol petrol prices could not be reduced. That is not true. The price which Sasol gets for its petrol is linked to the international petrol price. The international petrol price is calculated in terms of a formula based on the price of white products at certain places and this is adjusted on the basis of transport and refining costs. The prices which Sasol gets for its petrol—although there is a time lag of a few months—follows the graph of crude oil on the world market. In other words, when crude oil prices drop, the price which Sasol gets for its petrol goes down. When crude oil prices rise, Sasol’s prices rise too. The point is that the two are linked, so this is an inescapable situation. So the price is determined by a formula and not by the Government or anyone else. It follows the market trends.

Mr. Chairman, I should really appreciate it if the hon. member for Constantia in particular would try to behave like a gentleman in this House. I listened to the hon. member without interrupting him once. I also want to tell the hon. member that besides being irritating, he is ill-mannered as well.

I want to come to the hon. member for Stilfontein. This hon. member made his point in this House and I have reacted to it. I thank him very sincerely for his contribution.

Then I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central. This hon. young member referred to the question of occupational pensions. He does not quite understand how that account works. Explaining the whole matter would take up a lot of time, and therefore I ask the hon. member to come to my department so that they—or I myself—may explain the matter to him, since time does not allow me to do so now.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Heilbron very sincerely for his contribution. This is a lively young hon. member and he always makes an interesting contribution.

The hon. member for Benoni spoke about the heartland minerals, and I agree with the hon. member that if heartland minerals have to provide the solution to the Coloured problem, that problem will never be solved.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether his department has done any research with regard to the mineral resources in those regions that are known as the Coloured areas in South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, I shall make detailed inquiries about that. Geological Survey covers the entire country, of course, and if that information is available, I shall let that hon. member have it with the greatest pleasure, so that the hon. member may realize that his heartland policy cannot work.

Mr. Chairman, earlier on the hon. Minister refused to take a question from me. May I now ask that question?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I understand that in terms of the arrangements made by the Whips …

Order! The Chair is not aware of any arrangements made by the Whips, but is obliged to act in terms of the Standing Orders. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central may proceed.

As I have said, I wish simply to ask a question of the hon. the Minister. In his reply he hedged and dodged the issue but he did not actually get to grips with the issue of job reservation on the mines. He gave us a long and rambling dissertation on that particular issue. He said, in response to an interjection, that he thought he had given a full answer. However, I want to ask him this question across the floor and he must answer it with either a “yes” or a “no”: Will the Government show a lead in respect of job reservation on the mines?

Read the Wiehahn report.

That was three years ago. Will they show a lead and will he do away with job reservation on the mines? It is a very simple question to which there is a “yes” or a “no” answer.

Mr. Chairman, when the sixth part of the Wiehahn report appeared, the Government published a White Paper on it. In that White Paper, the Government made it very clear that a labour practice …

You said that before. Tell me whether the reply to my question is “yes” or “no”.

… could only be changed after an agreement had been reached between employer and employee. The conditions are spelt out in the Wiehahn report. The conditions are also spelt out in the White Paper published by the Government in response to the Wiehahn report. The Government still stands by the White Paper which it published in response to the Part VI of the Wiehahn report. The Government also stands by what I have announced in the Committee tonight. If the hon. member has the intelligence to do so, he has only to read that White Paper, and it is possible that he may understand it. Then he will not have to ask me such a foolish question, for no person with any sense at all would ask such a question.

The question asked by the hon. member is being asked with a view to exploiting the position of the workers in this country. It is quite clear that the Government stands by those guidelines. If the hon. members finds it difficult to understand this, I shall get a skilled person trained in special education to explain it to the hon. member.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Order! The House is already in Committee.

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister for his farcical behaviour tonight. I should also like to know why the hon. the Minister delayed the Bill last week when we could have passed the Bill through all its stages. Why do we have a Committee Stage now?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is obviously in a bad mood tonight. I am very disappointed that he used the very valuable time of the House to discuss a matter which should be very obvious. It is quite obvious that the Bill does not require any further attention by the Committee. If the hon. member differs from me on this issue, he should have said so. I think he has displayed disregard for the very valuable time of the Committee by raising this matter. I think he should be reprimanded for such conduct. I think it is without precedent in the history of the Committee.

Order! I did not want to interrupt the hon. the Minister, but it was not necessary for him to reply to the hon. member. The hon. member for Sandton was out of order; he did not speak to clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: If I was out of order, why did you not rule me out of order?

Order! Is the hon. member questioning my ruling?

No, Sir. I question only that you did not make a ruling.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill stems from the report by the South African Law Commission on the Admissibility in Civil Proceedings of Evidence Generated by Computers, a report which was tabled on 7 March 1983. Section 34 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, 1965 (Act 25 of 1965) provides that in any civil proceedings where direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible, any statement made by a person in a document and tending to establish that fact shall on production of the original document be admissible as evidence of that fact. The Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa has ruled, however, that computerized records are not admissible in terms of this section. Computers are in general use in the business world and in the public sector and a need exists for legislation regulating the admissibility of computerized records. In the Bill provision is being made for authenticated computer print-outs to be admissible on their production as evidence of any facts recorded in them of which direct oral evidence would be admissible.

† Although simple measures regarding the admissibility of computerized records and the assessment of their probative value are proposed, the legislation is not devoid of any safeguards. Computers are the object of deep public suspicion. In clause 2 certain safeguards are provided for, safeguards which are designed to ensure that authenticity and accuracy of computerized records and also to afford protection to persons against whom such evidence may be tendered. It will be noted that computer print-outs, emanating from public institutions, are treated differently from those emanating from other computer users. The institutions in question are large concerns having records all over the country. It will not be possible for them to comply with all the requirements of clause 2. The severe penalty provided for in clause 5 for the making of a false or misleading statement in an authenticating affidavit is intended to discourage deponents from making careless statements and also serves as a safeguard. Perhaps we should impose the same safeguards in respect of the hon. member for Sandton at times.

*The Bill is only applicable to civil proceedings. Consideration has been given to making it applicable to criminal proceedings as well. For the reasons which the Law Commission refers to in its report it was decided to hold the extension of these measures in abeyance until they have been thoroughly evaluated and tested in civil proceedings.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. Mr. Justice J. M. Didcott for his share in this measure. In this connection I associate myself with the comment made by the South African Law Commission in paragraph 5.1 of its report—

I should just like to add the name of the Chief State Law Adviser, Mr. Fölscher, who in the final preparation of the Bill for Parliament, co-operated very closely with Mr. Justice Didcott to get the Bill before Parliament in this form. These two gentlemen reached full consensus on the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with this Bill our rules of evidence in civil proceedings have finally caught up with the computer age. We on this side of the House welcome this Bill. It reflects the latest development in the law relating to the admissibility of documents. Many people, including lawyers, as the hon. the Minister has also indicated, look upon computers and computerized records with suspicion. Computers are seen as an overpowering electronic brain producing print-outs the content of which the average man is unable to challenge. A computer cannot be cross-examined. Consequently, many lawyers have regarded the possibility of admitting computer print-outs as evidence of the facts recorded there as something that ought to be handled with the utmost caution. This Bill tackles this whole aspect with confidence and in a surprisingly uncomplicated manner, uncomplicated in the sense that it is easily readable, it is concise and it appears to the workable. The subject-matter of the Bill, i.e. the admissibility in civil proceedings of computer evidence, is such a complicated and technical aspect of our modern law of evidence that virtually every Western country is still grappling with the problem of confining the whole subject matter into a concise and workable statute like the one we have before us.

Without reflecting on any hon. member’s knowledge of the law, there is probably not a single member of this House who can with confidence claim to have a full understanding of the finer nuances contained in this Bill. The research that has gone into it and the sifting process that the Bill has passed through suggest that it is a very finely tuned Bill. The author of the Bill to whom the hon. the Minister has referred, Mr. Justice Didcott, not only visited a number of Western countries where he went to universities, research institutions etc., but he also studied every single statute that exists in the English speaking world on this topic in order to make a detailed, comprehensive, comparative study. In South Africa itself this Bill has been commented upon by law societies, the bar council, the banking world universities, attorneys-general and judges, and virtually every authoritative source which could improve or assist in the drafting of this Bill was approached. One can probably correctly say that this Bill ought to be called the Didcott Bill.

We support the Bill and we hope that the high expectations that everyone has of this excellent piece of legislation will be realized and we also hope that it will not be too long before in the law of evidence relating to criminal cases the aspect of computer evidence will also be cleared up so that we do not continue to have problems in that regard. World authorities on this subject, I am informed, have commented favourably on this Bill and there are even some who suggest that this may be the finest piece of legislation on this specific topic that exists at this stage. We hope that that will prove to be correct and we are happy to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the official Opposition, through the hon. member for Durban Central, supports this legislation. When one reads through this legislation for the first time, one realizes immediately that this is extremely complex legislation but that it is also extremely effective legislation. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know from the hon. the Minister which Acts would be amended in order to implement reform, I was pleased to find the following words on page 2 of the commission’s report—

The hon. the Minister of Justice has, therefore, now become a part of the reform process, and I assume that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been profoundly gratified to take cognizance of this legislation, and that is the reason why his party, through the hon. member for Durban Central, has undertaken to support the legislation.

The word “rekenaar”, which is the Afrikaans translation of the English word “computer”, may cause a little confusion. The word at least suggests that this is an instrument, article or device that performs calculations; in other words, that it subtracts, adds, multiplies and divides. However, the computer discussed here does far more than that. This appliance is able to perform the most astounding feats. It is not only able to give the answers to complex arithmetical questions, but can also give answers to the most complex questions. If correctly programmed, it can provide answers which are defined in the legislation as follows—

The legislation refers to logical answers and that, of course, is what is lacking in the official Opposition—logical answers to the questions that are put to them and a logical policy announcement. In that respect we do hope that the computer can also be of use to them.

When one reads the definition of “computer” from which I have just quoted an extract, one realizes the extent of the functions of such a computer. In clause 2(l)(b) it is stated how the evidence produced by the computer has to be submitted to the court. In this regard we feel that this legislation is an absolute gem.

The previous speaker and the hon. the Minister of Justice have already paid tribute to Mr. Justice Didcott in this connection. When one reads the report of the Law Commission, and one sees the result of this in this specific clause, one cannot help being impressed and one can only pay tribute to the author of this provision. When one reads through clause 2 one can only have praise, in the first place, for the conciseness and, in the second place, for the effectiveness of the definitions contained in this legislation.

Clauses 2 and 3 of the legislation describe in more detail what qualifications the person who furnishes this evidence must have. Provision is also made for the methods used to be submitted to the court as well. Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, the judge who as to pass judgment has to consider that evidence to which reference is made in the legislation in the ordinary way that evidence has to be considered by the presiding officer.

I want to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for Durban Central. I think this evidence should also be extended to criminal cases. I read the report and I thought it might be sensible to test this evidence in civil cases first, but having now read through the legislation I cannot imagine that any problems will crop up in practice which will not be covered by the legislation. I think it would also greatly facilitate the task of the presiding officers and the criminal law if this evidence were also admitted in criminal cases.

In this connection it is perhaps important to note that in the case of computer printouts of public bodies placed before the courts, the same formalities need not be complied with as apply when the evidence of private bodies is placed before the courts. I think this is also in accordance with what is practical under the circumstances, without any party being prejudiced.

It is a privilege to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North for having taken a closer look at and explained the various clauses of the legislation. As the hon. the Minister has already stated, this legislation is the outcome of a recommendation in a report of the South African Law Commission regarding the admissibility in civil proceedings of evidence generated by computers.

Basically the legislation makes provision for an authenticated computer print-out to be admissible in a civil case—but not in a criminal case—as evidence of any fact recorded in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible.

Our Appeal Court ruled—as the hon. the Minister has also indicated—that computer print-outs were not admissible in civil cases in terms of section 34 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act. The South African Law Commission made further remarks in this report, inter alia, that a computer is not a person. For that reason a computer print-out cannot be considered a document containing a statement made by a person. Following in the footsteps of British Law, the admissibility of evidence by computers is being regulated by the legislation before us. The commission said, inter alia, in its report (paragraph 2.1)—

One of our colleagues has just referred to this. As hon. members know, it is, inter alia, one of the most important tasks of the South African Law Commission to introduce law reforms and improvements, as well as constantly to revise the law of evidence.

Do you believe in reform, Louis?

Reform, yes; not deformation.

The Law Commission also said the following—

and—

I should also like to quote a further excerpt from this report, because it is possible that only a few hon. members in this House will read through the report, and it may be as well to have this place on record. The commission said the following (paragraph 2.2)—

The S.A. Law Commission has decided that the Bill at present before this House will only apply to civil cases. I shall only mention one of the reasons why the commission does not want this legislation to be applicable to criminal cases as well at this stage. The consequences of criminal proceedings are far more serious and far graver than those of civil cases, inter alia, because the freedom of the individual may be at stake. Computers also make mistakes and can be fallible. Print-outs can even be forged. That is why the legislation expressly prescribes that a computer print-out has to be authenticated by means of an affidavit, which affidavit has to comply with certain requirements, which are set out in clause 2 of the Bill.

Clause 5 of the Bill lays down heavy fines in cases of misleading or false evidence, to which the hon. the Minister has also referred.

I think we can all say that we welcome and support this legislation. This legislation is definitely pioneering legislation in the field of the law of evidence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for his support of this Bill. The merits of this Bill have already been stated fully by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North and are also dealt with fully in the report of the S.A. Law Commission. This is an extremely technical piece of legislation and I do not think it is necessary for me to take up this House’s time with the details.

As other hon. members have done, I, too, want to mention the tremendous contribution made by Mr. Justice Didcott in the drafting of this Bill. At the request of the Clearing Bankers Association of South Africa, he wrote reports to indicate the necessity for legislation which made computer printouts admissible. However, he did not leave it at that, but also drew up the draft legislation. He also attended a meeting of the S.A. Law Commission where the matter was investigated in depth. I think we should be grateful that a judge of the Supreme Court shows so much interest in statutory law established by legislation. This sets a wonderful example. A judge is supposed to take an interest in the law. But not all judges take an interest in the drafting of laws.

I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP supports this legislation. The report on the admissibility in civil proceedings of evidence generated by computers by the S.A. Law Commission sets the whole matter out very clearly. The introduction to the report indicates the necessity for this legislation and the fact that it was not considered possible to include it under section 34 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act. The second paragraph of the introduction deals with the need for reform and the fact that the advent of the computer poses new and exciting challenges for law reform. Paragraph 2.2 reads—

Paragraph 3 deals with the extent of the reform that is necessary. It is interesting to note that by this stage the commission had finally decided that the computer was not a person. This is good news in the light of man having been threatened first by women’s lib and now by the computer. At least we know that they will not be getting the vote and taking over the country entirely, despite the computer that exists in the Knight Rider’s car on television. We appear to be safe. The computer is not a person and we will be able to continue to dominate this particular specie.

Time Magazine voted it man of the year last year.

Yes, also despite Time Magazine voting it man of the year, we still have the upper hand.

The third paragraph in this report, dealing with the extent of reform and the fact that it applies to civil litigation only, is very explicit and starts dealing with the English Evidence Act of 1968. Then it goes on to point out various problems associated with that Act. Through the efforts of the commission and particularly as a result of the work done by Mr. Justice Didcott, we have been able to avoid the pitfalls of that legislation. By virtue of the research that has been done in connection with this Bill, it would appear that we have, as mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Central, come up with something which is not only abreast of the time, but which is considered a very fine piece of legislation. I think one of the most important points here is the fact that what we are legislating for, is purely, and with the emphasis entirely on, the admissibility of evidence and not the cogency of evidence. A particular sentence in the report (par. 4.8) states it very clearly—

I think that this, in effect, is the field that we are dealing with here, i.e. purely the admissibility of it. In fact, when Mr. Justice Didcott reviewed the English law and other laws concerning the possibility that computer print-outs should be elevated to prima facie proof of their contents, he stated his views very clearly—they are contained in this report—that he remained “implacably opposed to the suggestion”. He also said—

I think that this report by the S.A. Law Commission gives a very clear enunciation of the field of investigation, of the need for the reform and of the contents of the Bill. It relates purely to the admissibility and not to cogency. We have much pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the remarks which have been made about Mr. Justice Didcott. However, I would actually like to also stress the important function of the S.A. Law Commission, because I think that this particular report once again demonstrates what an important role that commission plays in South Africa in regard to law reform. I think that if we look at the functions of this commission over the last few years, there is little doubt that the law of South Africa has benefited very substantially from the functioning of this commission. I would like to pay my tribute to them this evening for what they have done to improve the law of South Africa, to make it more acceptable to the public and more up to date with developments which have taken place.

In so far as this particular Bill is concerned, there are a number of things which I would like to refer to which do not detract from the value of the Bill, but which perhaps throw a different light on some parts of it. Firstly I want to refer to the definition of “public institution”. Financial institutions are included in this definition, as defined in section 1 of the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act. By no stretch of the imagination can a “financial institution” in terms of that Act in fact be regarded as a public institution. This says much for the confidence which is being shown in South Africa in respect of banks, insurance companies and the like, that they, for the first time as far as I know, are classified as public institutions. I think it is a very substantial compliment to the people who run this. However, I want to remind the hon. the Minister—and I think you, Mr. Speaker, will remember—that we have had financial institutions in South Africa which have let us down. We have had very serious problems with some financial institutions which fall under this definition. I think we have to watch very carefully that the trust which is being shown in financial institutions here is not abused by the odd one which may come up in future. I think it is important that we draw attention to this because normally when we talk about public institutions we do not include companies of the nature referred to in this definition. I should like to express a word of caution in respect of that particular matter.

Secondly, I must say that whereas in the modern age in which we live this type of legislation obviously had to come about eventually, one has to realize that this again gives some assistance to the big battalions, if I may use the term, because it is the big institutions, the people of substance, who in the main will be using this type of computer record. It is true that with the developments in regard to mini-computers and so on, computers are now within the financial range of even comparatively small businessmen. We have to bear in mind, therefore, that substantial and involved computer records are likely to be available in a civil action to the big corporations, the substantial people, whereas sometimes one will find that the poorer litigant will be faced with having to meet the challenge of a kind of baffling situation in which he will have to engage experts and incur additional expenses in order to deal with that situation. Again we have to guard against a position developing where we find that this is an advantage which the big man has over the small man.

Like the Oppenheimers?

I think that is fair enough. May I say: Or perhaps like the hon. member who is interjecting against a poor chap like me? It is that kind of comparison that we are talking about. I think we have to consider this because judging from the whole way in which modern development takes place, it does seem as if the substantial people generally gain an advantage over the small man even though on the face of it everybody is equal and has the same access to the law and all facilities.

Especially where litigation is concerned.

Yes, as far as litigation is concerned it is a very important matter, because in very many court cases the small man is already at a disadvantage when he is faced by big battalions and the resources which they have. I think we have to bear that in mind because we here are the people who have to safeguard the small man, the ordinary man in South Africa, so that he can get his fair break.

The other matter to which I should like to draw attention is that to some extent we are assuming here, within limits, the infallibility of computers. If that is what is assumed by the public, I must say that we are making a tremendous mistake because a computer print-out is only as good as what is fed into it. One thing with which I have a problem is that a computer print-out may be authenticated by means of an affidavit which shall—and I quote—

1. (i) correctly and completely supplied with data and instructions appropriate to and sufficient for the purpose for which the information recorded in the computer print-out was produced.

This is what clause 2(l)(d) of the Bill says, but the reality is that it is going to be very difficult in regard to a major computer operation for anybody to certify that, because if there is a whole mass of input operators who insert information into a computer, there is no person who can actually certify that the information has been correctly put in. This is a major problem, because when we see the information all beautifully printed out by the computer in its magical form we assume its accuracy, but we forget that there is some person who is a human being, an ordinary person who like all others can make mistakes, who has actually put the information into the computer. I think we have to watch that as well. One of the problems which exist on a world-wide basis is that computers are a great advantage to mankind but are also subject to abuse, fraud and all sorts of manipulations in order to produce results which on the face of it seem beautiful, attractive and accurate, but which in reality are the product of massive frauds and sometimes just the product of negligence. So, the fallibility of human beings still exists in relation to these things, and I think we have to look at them in that light.

In clause 2(l)(d)(ii) provision is made that one has to certify that the computer was—

Anybody who has had experience of computers, of the problems which one has with them and of the bugs which come into programming will tell one that there is hardly an operation which one can say is bug-free indefinitely. One has to bear in mind that there will be people who are going to say: Well, things worked fine. In reality, however, behind the scenes one finds that very often the bugs in a computer give one tremendous problems. We must not assume that computers do not malfunction, that there are not problems in relation to them. Therefore we again have to utter a word of caution in regard to the infallibility of computers.

A computer would have done better than you are doing.

Sure, but they will not do better than the hon. member for Mossel Bay; they cannot, because in some of the things he spews out in this place he beats a computer absolutely to a standstill. He is remarkable in what he spews out. The only difficulty I have is that I do not know who punches him in. That is the only problem I have with him. [Interjections.]

There are two more things to which I should like to draw attention. Firstly there is the question of the penalties. I am not sure that they go very much beyond the whole concept of perjury. They do not go much beyond perjury if anything. In fact, I think the defences which are available in terms of clause 5 are probably making it a little easier to escape responsibility under the Bill than under normal perjury proceedings. I think that the question of carelessness in this matter is something to which we must really pay attention. We shall have to watch how this is abused.

The last matter to which I should like to refer relates to what is to some extent a development in our whole law of evidence, a quite interesting development in the sense that when some of us went to law school, which was probably quite a long time ago—Sir, I think you yourself had experience of that…

It is that long ago that some of us have forgotten everything we were taught there.

Yes, some of us have forgotten, but others still remember.

One of the things we had was some fairly clear rules as to what was admissible and what was inadmissible. To some extent it was very rigid in the days when we went to law school and learnt this. Other countries have different systems, and in some countries in the world virtually anything is admissible. In some countries one can go to court—I have seen it take place—and one can put in any evidence one likes. Everything is then regarded in the light of the weight that should be attached to such evidence. We do not have that, but here we find another development in this direction where one really allows evidence and then one decides what weight one should attach it to.

I wonder whether that development is one which we should not carry a lot further in our law of evidence. There are many things which at the moment are inadmissible, but which might well be regarded as being admissible although one merely attaches a particular weight to that evidence. I should like to commend to the hon. the Minister that having taken this particular step, we look at that in regard to the law of evidence as a whole because this is a development which I for one should like to see encouraged.

I think you may have a point there.

If the hon. member for Mossel Bay now agrees with me, he has made my day. He really has, because that has not happened before.

With respect I should like to commend to the hon. the Minister that this is a principle which we should look at to see whether we can extend it in other fields. I think the legislation is necessary and we support it, but I wanted to utter these words of caution, which I think must be said in respect of the Bill as it passes through the House.

Mr. Speaker, at the onset I want to thank hon. members who participated in this debate for their support. I am refering to the hon. member for Durban Central, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, the hon. member Mr. Schutte, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, the hon. member for King William’s Town as well as the hon. member for Yeoville. I thank them, too, for the ideas they put forward. More specifically, I want to thank the hon. members for Durban Central and Port Elizabeth North for their representations that we should consider extending these matters to criminal proceedings as well.

†I think that the importance of this Bill perhaps justifies that we should state as a matter of fact that, after due consideration of the recommendations of the Law Commission, we have decided that their arguments against the applicability of this Bill to criminal matters were so forceful and persuasive that at this stage we decided to introduce a Bill pertaining only to civil matters. I think it is perhaps important that we should pay attention to these arguments. First of all the commission argues in its report (paragraph 4.3)—

Hence the caution as far as criminal matters are concerned. The commission goes on—

We shall have to look into that facet as well. As a matter of fact, we are already being inundated with requests for further particulars in regard to criminal matters. However, I do not think we should yield too easily to this idea. Nevertheless, in the interests of the administration of justice it is a matter we shall have to look into.

If the hon. member for Yeoville would care to hear further arguments advanced by the Law Commission why the Bill should not be applicable to criminal matters, I can tell him that the commission stated further—

I think that these arguments are sufficient to convince the hon. members who have argued in favour of this being made applicable to criminal matters as well, that for the time being we should abide by the recommendations of the Law Commission.

*The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the question of the definition of “public institution”. I want to tell him to read that definition in conjunction with the provisions in clause 2(6).

I have read them.

That subsection provides that—

1. (a) relates to a computer print-out of a public institution …

As defined.

Now he warns us against making the definition of “public institution” too wide by also including financial institutions. I think there are many Acts on our Statue Book which contain definitions which are drafted in such a way that we shall be able to cope with the objectives of particular sections. Thus I should like to refer the hon. member to the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, Act No. 25 of 1965. I think that what we are actually doing here is to put this legislation on a par with that Act. That particular section reads—

What we actually intend doing is to put it on a par with the situation provided for in the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act. I do not think that we are really creating a new kind of financial institution by naming it a public institution.

I did not say that.

No, but the hon. member cautioned us against that. I do not think that by this very definition we are really creating a problem for the legislature at all. It is a matter of drafting a Bill in such a way that it is understandable and that it is acceptable to the reader.

It think the hon. the Minister misunderstood me. The issue to which I tried to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention was that there are public institutions which are local authorities, which are the State, but that financial institutions are now being included, giving them a certain privilege. I drew the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the past some financial institutions have in fact indulged in fraudulent conduct. Therefore not all financial institutions can in the future be regarded as being absolutely secure, and that is why this exemption is given to them. That is why I cautioned the hon. the Minister. I think that is where the hon. the Minister misunderstood me.

Yes, there seems to be some discrepancy. Then it is just a matter of cautioning against financial institutions that are inclined to defraud.

Some of them.

Some of them, not all of them. I think the hon. member should caution himself not to generalize.

That is why I told you so.

Thank you. Then I understand the hon. member perfectly.

*All the other points which the hon. member for Yeoville raised, are not points of difference, but points on which he cautioned us with regard to the application of the provisions of this Bill. I believe there is one clause which he, in fact, did not interpret quite correctly. I believe in one particular instance we do make it easier to get evidence accepted. In this respect I am referring for example to clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the value of the evidence and that it is not made such that it cannot be submitted to a court.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. member for his support. We shall pass his warnings on to the specific persons or bodies who might be interested in them.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express regret that the hon. member for Randburg is not here tonight and I also want to say that I am very sorry that the hon. member for Bryanston is not here with us this evening either. I say this because I wanted to commiserate with the hon. member for Randburg and to congratulate the hon. member for Bryanston on the magnificant victory that the PFP has just achieved at Randburg in smashing the Nationalists in a municipal ward in that area. [Interjections.] They did so by over 130 votes and I simply wanted to commiserate with the hon. member for Randburg and congratulate the hon. member for Bryanston.

Order! The Committee is dealing now with clause 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.

Sir, I am sure that the voters of Randburg will support us in the amendment which I am about to move to this clause. [Interjections.] They have demonstrated this today. They have demonstrated it by smashing …

Order! I want once again to direct the attention of the hon. member for Sandton to the fact that this Committee is now dealing with clause 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.

Sir, I want to carry a message to this Committee from the voters of Randburg in connection with this Bill.

Order! I request the hon. member for Sandton to obey the ruling of the Chair.

I shall do so, Sir. Acting on the instructions of my caucus and my voters in Randburg … [Interjections.] … I wish to move the following amendments to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. 1. On page 4, in line 7, to omit “R2 000” and to substitute “R200”.
2. 2. On page 4, in line 8, to omit “two years” and to substitute “three months”.

The penalty provided for in the principal Act …

May I please ask a question?

No, you may not. [Interjections.] I do not have the time. The penalty provided for in the principal Act was three months and we propose that the penalty provided for in the clause under discussion be reduced to what it was in the principal Act. As far as the fine is concerned, we appreciate the fact that we have experienced inflation and we suggest that the fine provided for in the principal Act should be multiplied by four to bring it up to R200. I want to say that we were unconvinced by the hon. the Minister’s arguments which he advanced during his Second Reading speech as well as in his reply to the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in regard to why he required this incredible increase in the penalty. He said that he required this particular increase because there were cases of serious trespass which were not covered by the principal Act. He quoted from the judgment in a case heard by Mr. Justice Curlewis in terms of which that judge asked for an increase in the penalty because a particular case had appeared before him which he felt was not covered by the penalty provided for in respect of that particular offence. However, under questioning it became even more clear that the hon. the Minister was more interested in creating a penalty that would deter people from trespassing on what he termed “sensitive areas”. From questions put by this side of the House, it emerged that he meant, in fact, areas which were related to national key points but which, at that moment—or this moment—had not yet been designated as such. He mentioned that some 400 of these points or places were in existence. Our argument against that is that whatever is said by the Government—whatever assurance is given—we should not create a law which is designed for one purpose but can, in fact, be used for several other purposes, a law that is capable of being used for purposes other than what the hon. the Minister, in this legislation, intends. Let us, however, take the Government’s argument and accept that the hon. the Minister is trying to find a remedy for a type of trespassing which is far more serious than the ordinary common-law mindless trespassing involved in crossing somebody’s property or something of that nature. The penalties proposed by the hon. the Minister are still, I submit, almost the highest in the world for an ordinary offence of this nature. He himself has also admitted that the sensitive areas that the hon. the Minister himself says should be protected are, in fact, not designated on any list and are therefore unknown to members of the public and therefore certainly to possible offenders. What the hon. the Minister is therefore doing, is reading certain evils into the ordinary, common-law offence of “trespass”. In fact, he is trying to transport, into the offence of “trespass”, another offence that I would term “trespass with the intent of doing grievous bodily harm” or something of that nature.

Or to commit sabotage.

Yes, or to commit sabotage. If he is trying to find a means to combat some mischief or evil which relates to more than the mindless, common-law offence of “trespass”, he should define that offence. Then he should create a situation in which the offence that he is trying to curb can be properly dealt with. He should amend the National Key Points Act. We would then consider, on its merits, any law on the National Key Points Act he might put before us.

You are trying to create loopholes.

Loopholes? Creating loopholes in the law is better than loopholes in that hon. member’s head. Nevertheless, if he is seeking to remedy or combat a certain evil, he should define the evil he is trying to combat and design a law to combat that evil. He must not, however, open up the ordinary common law of “trespass”—which has come to us from ages past—to be used as a catch-all, to achieve an objective far in excess of the objective the law was intended for. He should not create a law which is open to abuse by the authorities, the prosecuting authorities, and perhaps even open to misinterpretation by the judicial officers. I say: Do not hide the real intention of the Government. He is creating an offence that is so horrendous that I feel that this law is being taken far beyond the bounds it was intended to cover. If I had nothing better to demonstrate my point of view, there would still be that huge majority in Randburg against that Government tonight.

Mr. Chairman …

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

No.

Ah, the great jurist!

Before the commencement of this debate, I indicated to the hon. member for Sandton what my reaction would be if he were to oppose clause 1 of this Bill again. Unfortunately the rules of this House do not allow me to say to the hon. member what I told him before the commencement of the debate. At this stage I can therefore only refer him to what I said to him before the commencement of the debate. [Interjections.]

If I quoted what you said to me, a point of order would have to be taken.

If the hon. member were to quote what I said to him prior to the commencement of the debate, I would take a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to infer that he is using unparliamentary language against the hon. member for Sandton without expressly using those words? He is impliedly using a term which he admits is unparliamentary, and therefore he should withdraw it.

I am listening very closely to the hon. member. I shall ask any hon. member to withdraw any word which is unparliamentary.

Prior to the debate when the parliamentary rules were not applicable I indicated to the hon. member exactly how I felt about his opposition to this clause. I am not repeating it now. The hon. member knows what my feelings are.

You are using an unparliamentary expression.

No, I am not.

*The hon. member for Sandton knows precisely what our standpoint is in respect of the amendment which he moved. We debated this matter during the Second Reading. The hon. the Minister also indicated to the hon. member for Sandton what the motivation was for the clause as it stood in the Bill. The hon. member is reading motives into the Bill which do not exist. On that basis, them, he has now moved an amendment which deprives the clause of all effectiveness. The hon. member is implying that the hon. the Minister is trying to give a new meaning and purview to the common law offence of trespass. Surely that is not true. There is nothing in the Bill which has anything whatsoever to do with the principle of the common law offence of trespass. All that is happening here is that the authorized sentences are being increased, as indicated in the clause. If the hon. member alleges that the possibility is now being created for this clause to be made applicable to completely different circumstances, I wish to point out to him that that possibility also exists in respect of the legislation which is at present on the Statute Book. The only difference is that the authorized sentences are being increased.

If the hon. member had listened to what I had to say during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice on the considerations which apply in the meting out of sentences, he ought to understand that the Bill does not prescribe a minimum sentence, but merely establishes the parameters within which the judicial officer shall use his discretion to impose a suitable sentence in view of the circumstances. For that reason we cannot support the hon. member’s amendment because it will entail that this clause will not then make provision for those circumstances for which we foresee it may be required.

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

I agree that there may be some substance in the possibility that the maximum fine of R2 000 might be on such a scale that one could be on the road to influencing an initial sentence. We feel therefore that a maximum level should apply to a first offence. Beyond that, I would like to add that the reasoning of the hon. member for Sandton is as misguided as that of the voters who voted for the PFP in Randburg. [Interjections.] I will tell you why, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has absolutely no feeling whatsoever for the reality of the circumstances on the platteland. He has none whatsoever. He does not have the faintest idea of circumstances on remote farms and of situations where people are very far away from law and order the immediate action of a squad car with law-enforcement officers, laid on electric light, the help of neighbours and all those attributes which go with city life and which are not available to people living on distant properties in the platteland. One can also think of widows on their own on farms whose sons are doing military service. There are situations today as far as stock theft is concerned where this particular sentence, in regard to trespassing, will be an extreme deterrent to the roving stock thieves in vehicles who prowl around the country and go onto properties without permission to make a reconnaisance of the areas where the best pickings are. They know the inhabitants of those areas, they know when they are on their own and when they are at their most vulnerable. The old fine was not even equal to the price of half a sheep they might steal, and they laughed at it. There are occasions when these people are found on properties that they virtually cock a snook at the owner when they are told to move on. They repeat this sort of performance over and over again. For those living in the remote areas of the country the increased fine in respect of trespassing will be a blessing. The incidence of this type of thing today can be attributed particularly to the instability and insecurity that have been occasioned by consolidation, the drawing of new boundaries and the circumstances surrounding people who are close to States which have not yet settled down and who are unsure where their rights begin and end. To them this will be a blessing and I believe it will be applied in such a manner that our prosecutors, magistrates and judicial officers will take into consideration the facts surrounding the case.

Trespassing can lead to a long list of crimes and unfortunate incidents. Hon. members in this House are always talking about preventative action by the police. This is one of the measures which can assist in bringing about preventative action. We simply do not have enough police and we will never have enough to prevent every single crime and prevent people from committing more serious crimes. Bearing this in mind, trespassing is a crime which should be punished far more harshly. We in these benches certainly have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the proposal for the increased fines, in the knowledge that they will be applied in a judicious manner in respect of the particular case which is being heard. However, I do believe that, in order to allay the fears of the public and in order to give this legislation a proper balance, the House should see fit to accept the amendment moved by me, that there should be a maximum amount laid down in respect of a first offence.

Mr. Chairman, when we have a proposed new section before us whereby the penalty of £25, as it existed since 1959 and which I think on today’s value would be worth about £12 or about R15 at the most, is to be changed to a penalty of R2 000, which is something like 40 times the penalty originally imposed, I would think that we are taking a very drastic action. With great respect to the hon. member for King William’s Town, it seems to me as though we are talking about different things in so far as the definition of trespass is concerned. That hon. member is more concerned with security. The hon. the Minister is more concerned with security and perhaps with attempts at sabotage in certain areas and he is therefore using the protection of key-points and the definition of trespass …

Do you find any fault with the fact that I am concerned about the security?

No, but then you must do so on the right premises. As indicated, no one will disagree with the hon. the Minister if he wants to take action against a person who is about to commit a serious crime or sabotage. We will support him to the hilt. However, he must not come here with the definition of trespass and import these penalties under a “schlenter” of what he is calling trespass when he does not really mean trespass. It is basic in criminal law that you examine the mens rea, the intention of a person. You cannot ascertain the intention of a person who has walked across somebody’s territory. You cannot say that he had in mind to commit a serious crime or sabotage. You are prejudging him on that basis. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the Trespass Act itself. To remind the hon. members of this House about the definition of “trespass”, I quote from section 1 of the Trespass Act—

1. 1. Prohibition of entry or presence upon land and entry of or presence in buildings in certain circumstances—
   1. (1) Any person who without the permission—
      1. (a) of the lawful occupier of any land or any building or part of a building; or
      2. (b) of the owner or person in charge of any land or any building or part of a building that is not lawfully occupied by any person,
         enters or is upon such land or enters or is in such building or part of a building, shall be guilty of an offence unless he has lawful reason to enter or be upon such land or enter or be in such building or part of a building.

If somebody walks into the garden of your house, for example, to visit your servant, he is, technically speaking, trespassing, because he is there without your permission. On many occasions it does happen that someone will come there without your permission. However, when he is then charged and appears in court, the magistrate, as the hon. the Minister of Justice will know, is obliged to take cognizance of this, and the prosecutor in the case is obliged to take cognizance. He must argue to the court and he must tell the court that this is a serious offence, and that the legislators in Parliament have seen fit to raise the maximum fine to R2 000. With respect to the hon. learned member for Mossel Bay, it is no good saying that there is no minimum sentence. What we have done is to increase the maximum sentence some 40 times. The court will have to take cognizance of the higher penalties; in fact, it will have to impose higher penalties. A person could have committed a trespass because he entered without lawful permission. He could have wandered in without having any intention, without mens rea of committing an offence, but he may nevertheless have to answer to a very heavy charge. If the hon. the Minister wants to protect key points, surely there are different laws at which he must look. With great respect, we cannot use, as I say, a schlenter by creating a trespass in this legislation, a trespass which is to be regarded as a very serious crime. If we were to do that, we would be departing from the wrong premise.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow is obviously labouring under a very serious misconception of the law. He accuses me of using this as a “schlenter”; in other words that I am misleading the House and that I have other motives which I have not stated. He then reveals not only his hand, but also his ignorance. He says that if a man wanders onto premises without having the necessary mens rea, he can be convicted despite the fact that he is innocent. That is his interpretation of the situation.

I say he is guilty if he does.

Yes, that is the whole point. He is guilty if he wanders onto the land innocently because, accordingly to the hon. member, it is not necessary for him to have the necessary mens rea, it is not necessary for him to have in his mind the intention to commit an unlawful act. It is also not necessary for him to think of a lawful explanation for his presence there. If the hon. member for Sandton had been listening to this, he would stand up to apologize. He would concede that they had been labouring under a misconception altogether. He would do that because the hon. member for Hillbrow has now revealed to us the reason why the PFP are opposing the Bill. It has been decided in many, many cases that there should be mens rea, and I am going to quote one of them.

You have only one case?

No, in several court cases it was decided that there should be mens rea. Is the hon. member now arguing that we are doing away with mens rea?

I am not arguing that at all.

We are not attacking that at all. I think the hon. member for Groote Schuur should enlighten his colleagues as it appears to me that they are labouring under a misconception.

I want to refer to the case of Nkapane as reported in 1962. The presiding judge was a very well-known judge, Mr. Justice Smit, a very eminent person, and with him he had Mr. Justice Hofmeyr who went on to grace the Appellate Bench. It was held that—

And then on page 280, for the edification of the hon. member for Hillbrow …

I am listening.

But the hon. member for Sandton is not listening. I think he is opposing the Bill merely for the sake of opposing. It seems to me he is not really interested in the discussions in this Committee.

If you advance that sort of argument, we can delay the Committee for another two hours. I think you should rather sit down so that we can vote.

This is what is stated on page 280—

I think that under the circumstances the hon. member must accept that I am not going to reply any further to his argument. It is very clear to me that their objection is now completely without foundation. They were under the impression that a form of mens rea has to be present. The hon. member for Hillbrow can bring out all the books under the sun now, but he caused the bottom to fall out of their argument and he can now go and tell all the people who put him up to objecting to this measure and reading secretive things into it that they were wrong.

I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for King William’s Town. The reason is obvious. Some of the trespasses are minor and there will be light sentences because, as the hon. member himself said, the magistrate will have a discretion. No fingerprints will be taken either. In any event, these will be first offenders. How on earth are we going to control it? I do not think we should impose an unnecessary burden on our administration. I think the hon. member will understand this. Consequently I adhere to the explanation which I gave.

It goes without saying that the hon. member for Sandton’s amendment is not acceptable to me either.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the Act, which the hon. the Minister probably has not read for a while, there is no necessity to prove mens rea. Is that correct, or is it not? [Interjections.] Absolutely nothing is said in the Act about mens rea.

You do not understand anything about the interpretation of the Act.

There is no mens rea applied in terms of the Act.

The wording is exactly the same. I have indicated to you that it was found to be implicit.

All I am saying is that it is very clear … [Interjections.]

Order!

In the Trespass Act there is no mention made of mens rea.

Mr. Chairman, is it permissible for a member to partake in a debate if he did not listen to the previous speaker to whom he is now endeavouring to reply?

You do it all the time.

Let us deal with that for a few moments. I have found in a number of debates—the no-confidence debate, the budget debate and all sorts of debates—that no matter what is said by a speaker on this side, the next speaker actually says something that is quite irrelevant to what has been said, very seldom deals with any of the questions we have asked, never replies to any of our criticisms and normally tries to take the PFP and the Opposition down some blind alley.

But you would not do that!

Well, I admit that when that hon. Minister speaks, I find it very hard to listen to him. However, we have been trying to listen to him for the last little while.

There are times when you should listen.

The point I was trying to make is that in the statute no reference is made to any intention being required. Let me assist the Committee by reading from the statute.

All of you are in serious trouble. You have made fools of yourselves. It is an absolute disgrace. [Interjections.]

Order!

Section 1 of the Trespass Act states that “any person who without the permission of the lawful occupier” does some such thing “shall be guilty of an offence”. In common law, certainly, mens rea is a factor.

That is the point.

Yes, but the argument we are trying to …

I will give you the decisions. You can study them tonight and apologize tomorrow.

Sir, I do not know who is making a speech here. I am prepared to sit down if required.

Order! The hon. member for Sandton may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The argument we are trying to put to the hon. the Minister …

You are certainly trying! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, does that hon. member want to ask a question?

Order! The hon. member for Sandton may proceed.

He wants to, Sir, but the hon. member for Sandton is constantly being interrupted. I think it is not enough to say “The hon. member may proceed”; the hon. Chairman should curb the hon. members who are interrupting the hon. member. I ask for your protection, Sir. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is not even listening to me. He is talking about freehold title to one of his colleagues. With regard to the mens rea argument, what we are saying is that if one wishes to import into the offence of trespass a greater intent of evil, a deeper mens rea, then one should actually legislate for that, but not in the ordinary law of trespass, because the ordinary law of trespass has been calculated over the years and utilized to curb the evil of ordinary offenders walking across people’s property, invading privacy and that sort of offence. However, what the hon. the Minister is trying to do is to import into this legislation, law relating to national security and this Opposition is not going to allow him to do that, certainly not without protest.

You are harming yourself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Would the hon. the Minister like to ask a question? I thought the hon. the Minister wanted to ask a question, but if he does not, I just want to ask him to not try to bring national security legislation into ordinary legislation relating to trespass.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the hon. the Minister to South African Criminal Law and Procedure— formerly Gardiner and Lansdown—volume III which deals with statutory offences. On page 191 par. 2.1.1 deals with trespassing on occupied land or buildings. This paragraph states—

When dealing with the definite elements mens rea is defined on page 194 as follows—

So there you have it. That is what I referred to with regard to the question of mens rea. Therefore the hon. the Minister must not say that we are talking a lot of nonsense. What I am saying is that we are dealing with the intention of an offender. He may have trespassed on to a property without the permission of the owner. That is all right, but the hon. the Minister is saying that he has trespassed with the intention of committing sabotage or some very serious offence. That is what we are quarrelling about—the use of the “schlenter” definition of “trespass” in this case.

Amendment 1 put and the Committee divided: