announced that in terms of Rule 23 (4) he had referred the following draft Bills which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandums thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills:

1. (1) Republic of South Africa Constitution Second Amendment Bill, submitted by Mr F J le Roux.
2. (2) Smoking Control Bill, submitted by Dr M S Barnard.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 4 August 1987, as follows:

In the course of its investigation the Committee was informed by the Managing Director of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa that further amendments to the Land Bank Act, involving principles not contemplated in the amending Bill referred to it, and therefore falling outside the scope of the Committee’s enquiry, have become necessary.

Your Committee accordingly recommends that the Minister of Finance be requested to consider the introduction of a new bill incorporating the further amendments suggested by the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa.

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 10 August 1987, as follows:

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid having considered a memorandum referred to it regarding the description of certain areas in the districts of Vryburg 1, Vryburg 2, Marico, Brits and Pretoria and the Yellowwoods area, district of King William’s Town, as areas in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, your Committee begs to recommend that the House approve:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Before I continue with my speech, I should like to say that this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing the hon members of this House. Hon members will be aware that the members of the House to which I belong have recently had a general election, and we who have been there for some time have had to listen to quite a few “nooienstoesprake”, as they call them. I do not know, however, whether hon members are aware of the fact that today I shall be delivering my maiden speech as Deputy Minister. I must say I was looking forward to it with a certain degree of trepidation, but when I heard that I would present this Bill in this House, I was rather pleased because I knew that, coming from Natal, I would be among some of my own people. So it is nice to be here.

Hon members are aware of the fact that the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation, generally known as the Wiehahn Commission, was also instructed to investigate, and make recommendations on, the Mines and Works Act, 1956 (Act 27 of 1956).

For the information of hon members I should like to quote from the relevant recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission, as they appear in part 6 of the commission’s report. I quote:

1. (i) adequate measures are taken to allay possible apprehensions about their future job security on the part of White workers within the industry;
2. (ii) standards of work are rigorously maintained;
3. (iii) all workers are required to achieve the same level of proficiency with respect to training and experience before being appointed to a post;
4. (iv) the principle of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal value’ is maintained;
5. (v) changes in work practices and conditions of employment are not introduced unilaterally by employers but rather with due regard to the process of consultation and negotiation with affected employee organisations;
6. (vi) adequate job security measures are incorporated in collective agreements; and
7. (vii) adequate protection against racial victimisation is provided for all groups.

Mr Chairman, the Government’s standpoint regarding these recommendations, as it appeared in 1981 in the White Paper on part 6 of the Wiehahn Commission’s report, is as follows, and I quote:

The Government accepts that adaptations are needed in the mining industry, as in other industries, in the light of the economic development and growth of the Republic of South Africa and the accompanying structural changes in the economy and changes in employment patterns and in the supply and demand conditions in the labour market. The Government is, therefore, in principle in favour of adjusting the definition of ‘scheduled person’ to a non-differentiating definition of ‘competent person’ at an appropriate time and in a suitable manner. In this connection, however, it is emphasised that the parties concerned, ie the employer organisations and the trade unions themselves, must in the first instance take the initiative to reach a compromise within a reasonable period of time on other arrangements through negotiation and co-operation, having due regard to the Government’s objective as stated above. In pursuance of the proposals made by the parties concerned in this connection, or in the light of the pattern which the negotiations take, the Government will determine its further action, but wants to emphasise that no legislative amendment will be made before alternative safeguarding measures have been effected.

Mr Chairman, section 12(2) of the Principal Act provides the authority for the existing regulations whereby Blacks are excluded and cannot obtain certificates of competency in the mining industry, certificates such as a blasting certificate.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are 13 different types of certificates of competency from which Blacks are at present excluded and which will become available to Blacks if this Bill is passed by Parliament. It must, however, be emphasised that no person, irrespective of race or colour, will obtain a certificate of competency under any category unless he has, in the first place, been permitted as a candidate and, secondly, unless he has successfully passed a compulsory examination, written or oral, prescribed by the Act or the regulations promulgated in terms of the Act. Although it would appear that at present a more positive spirit prevails between employers and trade unions in regard to the establishment of an industrial council, this development cannot, at this stage, be regarded as particularly successful. To date agreement has not been reached between all the interested parties.

It is understood that the organisations representing the majority of the gold-mine and coal-mine owners, the owners of other mines and works such as Iscor and Highfield Steel and the owners of diamond, platinum, copper and other mines, as well as several trade unions, are ready to participate in the establishment of an industrial council.

Those trade unions representing workers who are the holders of blasting certificates or who are banksmen or hoist-drivers and who may have reservations regarding their future job security—and here I refer to the Mineworkers’ Union and a few others—have thus far, however, not been accommodated in preliminary agreements with a view to the establishment of an industrial council, and it is doubtful whether, without their participation and co-operation, an industrial council for the minerals industry will serve its proper purpose.

As the establishment of such a representative industrial council and generally accepted labour arrangements covering all aspects of the minerals industry has not yet been finalised, and as it would appear that protracted negotiations to accommodate all parties are still pending, it is essential to grant peace of mind to members of trade unions so as to maintain stability and proper order in the industry. To achieve these objectives it is regarded as desirable that the Government, whilst abolishing statutory job reservation, should also honour its undertaking that no legislative amendments will be effected unless alternative safeguarding measures are taken.

*Sir, one of the reasons why the Mineworkers’ Union and other trade unions are opposed to the abolition of job reservation is apparently based on suspicion about certain employer organisations because of the possibility of “over-training” and the uncontrolled admission of workers to the production level and the possible amendment of labour agreements which could lead to the fragmentation of the work done by holders of blasting certificates. These trade unions therefore feel an urgent need to have entrance requirements prescribed, conditions with which a person, regardless of race or colour, must comply in advance in order to be accepted as a candidate for any of the relevant certificates of competency.

†The preceding problems, as well as other aspects concerning the mining industry, which I shall address at a later stage, can be overcome with the least resistance by the extension of the regulatory powers under the Mines and Works Act so as to enable the Minister, after consultation with the relevant employers and trade unions, to prescribe entrance requirements and to appoint such committees, as and when necessary, to advise him about such entrance and labour requirements of the mining industry. Such a committee or committees could possibly be instituted under the chairmanship of the Government Mining Engineer, or an official of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, and can play a very valuable role as a forum for discussion, policy-making instrument and information channel in regard to supply and demand conditions in the mining industry. Paragraph (b) and (e) of clause 4 of the Bill create the necessary powers for the Minister in this context.

I should like to make it very clear today that the measures being suggested here must not be seen as entrenching job reservation. Since the initiative was taken by the Government, and while the hon the Minister and senior officials of the department were engaged in negotiations and consultations with interested parties, there were blatant allegations in certain Press circles that the proposed amendments were simply aimed at entrenching job reservation, something which would be totally unacceptable in South Africa and abroad.

This is not true. The truth is that the Bill abolishes the whole concept of scheduled persons and job reservation, which means that any person, irrespective of race, colour or religion, can be accepted as a candidate and obtain a certificate of competency, provided he complies with the minimum entrance requirements. Being a White person is not one of these requirements.

Hon members will concede that the mining industry is still the backbone of the South African economy. So from a safety and security point of view, it is certainly correct that a person who uses and controls explosives in a mine, or a person who drives a hoist or does any other work underground, must comply with certain minimum norms and standards. Hon members are aware of the fact that thousands of people of all races work shoulder to shoulder in the mines each day, and also that thousands of millions of rand are invested in the mining industry. It is therefore necessary that only competent and responsible persons, irrespective of race or colour, should have access to such important jobs in an industry in which a very high premium is placed on the safety and health of the labour force.

It will therefore be the duty of the proposed committees to furnish advice on entrance requirements, labour needs and problems of a general nature which may require the attention of the Government. They will be required to act in the interests of everybody in the industry, and that will also be the approach of the Government, my own approach and that of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

The recommendation by the Wiehahn Commission that the provisions and powers in respect of service conditions and labour practices contained in the Mines and Works Act be transferred to the Department of Manpower is being implemented by the Bill. The functions of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs are now being restricted solely to matters relating to the maintenance of a safe and healthy work environment.

The Bill further provides for the extension of the scope of the Principal Act to include mines and works operated by the State, for example the State Alluvial Diggings at Alexander Bay and quarries worked by the public sector. Furthermore, obsolete expressions are either being substituted or deleted.

In conclusion I should like to mention, as you will note, Sir, from the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, that the hon the Minister, his predecessors and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs have, on several occasions, consulted and held discussions with employer and employee organisations in an endeavour to bring about consensus on these measures dealing with the abolition of job reservation. Although the ideal could not be achieved, I believe that the proposed measures will effectively protect the interests of the labour force and a sure stability in this very important industry which is a valuable asset to our country.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, the CP cannot support the Bill under consideration. I consequently move the following amendment to the motion now before the House:

†First of all, Mr Speaker, allow me to congratulate the hon member for Amanzimtoti upon his appointment as Deputy Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I hope he will be successful in his new position.

*Mr Speaker, for just a few seconds I now want to devote my attention to the hon member for Bloemfontein North. Before the adjournment last Friday the miners’ strike of 1922 was under discussion. On that occasion the hon member for Bloemfontein North tried to make me believe that the 1922 strike was a communist-inspired movement. If he would just take the trouble to read Two Thousand Casualties and The 1922 Strike, the hon member would discover that even in those two works there are divergent opinions put forward about the 1922 strike. When the hon member goes to Johannesburg one day—he must just get used to the traffic before he attempts to drive a car there—I invite him to visit me at the offices of the Mineworkers’ Union. I will then let him have a look at the union’s 1922 minutes. The hon member can then decide for himself what conclusion to come to.

I myself did a bit of quick research. As far back as 1969 Prof F A van Jaarsveld wrote the following, and I quote:

He went on to state that 200 people were shot and killed by the then SAP Government and added:

Let me also tell the hon member for Maraisburg that I am quite prepared to hold discussions with him one day—he did not want to say it in the House—and debate the issue. [Interjection.] If we look at the legislation before us, we find that the intention is to do away with the words “scheduled person” and to substitute the words “competent person”.

If we look at the strikes that took place, and not only those in 1922, but also the strikes of 1914, 1946 and all those which took place in 1964, we see that all of them involved the effort, on the part of the Chamber of Mines, to have White workers replaced by Black labour. It is informative to note that after the 1922 strike the mineworkers supported the NP to such an extent that it came into power in 1924. That Government then entrenched White jobs in legislation. It is the NP, that maintained down all the years since that time that it would protect the Whites in the mining industry, that is now leaving them in the lurch. It is now going to allow Blacks to obtain blasting certificates in South Africa.

On page 8 of the memorandum issued by the hon the Minister, he says that there is a possibility of a labour shortage in the mining industry. Let me say today that that is devoid of all truth. Since the initial discussions with the relevant hon Minister, we have pointed out to him that the Chamber of Mines wants to create an artificial shortage so as to convince the Government that the time has come to appoint Blacks to those posts. At the moment there is unemployment, and this is the first time in history, as far as my knowledge goes, that Whites have been unable to find employment in the mining industry. Even in the minutes of the Government Mine Training College it is indicated that there is no shortage. I refer to the minutes of the training college, dated 3 March 1986, in which it is stated:

On the same page it is also stated that:

In the minutes of 7 April 1986 it is stated:

The minutes went on to state that there was no shortage of White mineworkers in the industry.

There have been so many references in the House to Die Patriot not publishing the truth, but in Die Nasionalis of March 1987 there was the following:

I want to repeat that that is not the truth. There are sufficient Whites to do the work. The only reason why the present-day Government wants to amend the Act is to satisfy the Chamber of Mines, big business in South Africa and the outside world. There is no necessity to amend this Act. If we look at the review published by the Chamber of Mines, we find that over the past five years there has been an average increase of 600 White underground workers per year. I just want to get the facts straight here; these 600 people are not only mineworkers. Here reference is being made to all those who work underground, for example shaft-sinkers and artisans, and over the past five years there has been increase of only 600 in their ranks.

Anyone who is familiar with the mining industry knows that if a mining company establishes a complex, it sinks two shafts. While it is working those shafts, it sinks a third shaft. Once a shaft has been worked, it moves to the new shaft; that is planning. So one does not sink a whole series of shafts and then say: “Now we need 100 000 people; we must get those people.” There is no mining company that works that way.

Let us look at the number of blasting certificates that have been issued. In 1985 2 088 blasting certificates were issued in South Africa. The figure for 1986 was 1 821, and this year—there are still four whole months left—1 700 blasting certificates have so far been issued. This proves that White workers are interested in working in the mining industry.

Today I want to make it very clear that White workers are going to make way for Blacks from other states. We must bear in mind that more than 85% of the labour force is comprised of Blacks from independent states and that the majority of these states are not favourably disposed towards South Africa. We know that last week the hon the Minister of Defence issued a warning to Zambia and Mozambique, but now we want to bring those Blacks into White South Africa, train them to work with explosives and issue them with blasting certificates.

On 22 August 1986 the hon member for Boksburg said:

When the legislation was published, the hon member’s fighting spirit vanished into thin air, because he did not even try to keep out these Blacks from other states.

I appeal to hon members on the opposite side of the House to think carefully about the mineworkers. There are those on that side of the House who represent mining constituencies. Having obtained this information, they should have the courage to tell those mineworkers that it was not necessary to amend the Act, but that they did so to satisfy others.

So they must think about this very carefully today.

The new legislation makes provision for the appointment of a committee. In terms of section 12 of the principal Act, the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs—initially it was the State President who exercised these powers—may make regulations. When we look at the legislation before Parliament today, we see that the Minister may do all kinds of things. When we look at the very first piece of draft legislation that was published, we find that the hon the Minister had no choice, but had to establish a selection committee for the selection of people who wanted to obtain blasting certificates. This first piece of draft legislation made provision for who would serve on the selection committee, what their functions would be and for what certificates of competency they would have to make provision.

Again this legislation was unacceptable to the Chamber of Mines and big business in South Africa, and it was subsequently watered down to what it is at present. I want to tell hon members today that the present hon Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs will possibly make such regulations, but what is going to happen as a result of the NP’s present-day policy of power-sharing? They want to share everything, and next year or the year after that we will have Mr Buthelezi or someone else as Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Would he still be prepared to appoint that committee? My contention is that he will not do so, because it would not be necessary for him to make such rules; the Act has already been amended. So there is nothing which obliges him to do so, because the Act states that he “may” do so. I want to go on to say that the Chamber of Mines is also undermining the Group Areas Act.

Order! Would the hon member be kind enough to tell me to what section of the Bill he is now referring?

Mr Speaker, I have been referring throughout to the draft legislation, the subject being blasting certificates.

Reference has been made to the Kloof College Hostel. Then it is stated what should be done, and at the end there is this statement:

They want to add to South Africa’s humiliation. If Black students are now going to be trained to hold blasting certificates, they must live together. At the present moment provision is made for married Whites to live in married quarters. When they are living together in these quarters, we are going to have what the hon member for Langlaagte wants—a commingling. What hope does anyone in South Africa have if one is to allow these students to live and work together whilst they are being trained for their blasting certificates? [Interjections.] So where are they going to live? Are they going to live in the White residential areas? Is the Chamber of Mines paving the way by using mineworkers to undermine the Group Areas Act? We must be very careful. Let me say, firstly, that if there were too few Whites, we could have done something about that. There is no shortage of Whites, however. Sufficient people are recruited annually to do the work. All we want to do is satisfy the outside world and big business in South Africa. We must bear all this in mind.

In 1948 it was the mineworkers who brought this Government to power. It was this Government which repeatedly told the mineworkers that giving blasting certificates to the Blacks would herald the beginning of communism. It is this Government which said it would do everything in its power to protect the mineworkers. I now reiterate: This Government is leaving the mineworkers in the lurch and not looking after their interests. I therefore want to appeal to everyone to think carefully before they act. If we do not stop Black people from other countries from being trained as mineworkers here, we are making a big mistake.

The mineworkers are quite prepared to help train those Blacks in an independent state in which there is a mining industry. They would even train the Blacks to the point where they could become mine managers. White mineworkers, however, are not prepared to work under Blacks in White South Africa, nor are they prepared to see Blacks working here. I repeat; If we do not prevent this, nothing is going to stop the mineworkers. As in 1922, they will act to defend their blasting certificates.

Mr Speaker, firstly I want to associate myself with the hon member for Carletonville who congratulated the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, Mr Bartlett. We wish him everything of the best on this, the first occasion on which he is acting in this capacity. We have come to know him well and we are confident that things will go well for him in the future. We wish him everything of the best and many successful years in this post.

I want to come back to the hon member for Carletonville’s speech and comment on a few of the statements he made here. I shall do so very briefly, because we do not have all that much time. Firstly he said that White workers were being replaced by Black workers. He surely knows, as well as I do, that that is not the truth.

The Mine Workers’ Union frequently approached me, whilst I was employed in the industry, and said that Whites were being replaced by Blacks. On each occasion I told them to bring me the names of the Whites, or to bring me those Whites themselves, who had been replaced by Black workers or had been dismissed so that a Black worker or a worker of any colour could replace them. I said I would then personally undertake to reinstate them. The hon member for Carletonville knows that. No one ever came back to me.

Secondly I want to tell him that ultimately Acts either become obsolete or have to be adapted. This is one of those instances of an Act that we, as the governing party, feel should be adapted. I repeat what the hon the State President has so often said: No Act is a sacred cow.

No Act?

Yes, no Act is a sacred cow.

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

No, I am not prepared to answer a question now.

The hon member asked whether we were simply going to allow Blacks to obtain blasting certificates at random. He answered the question himself, because a committee is being established on which White mineworkers will also be represented. There White mineworkers can specifically allay their fears about the security aspect of explosives and underground works.

The hon member went on to say that if there had been a shortage, we could have looked into it. What the hon member for Carletonville said is very important. By what he said he is, in other words, acknowledging that the issue of blasting certificates for the exclusive use of Whites is not a sacred cow as far as he is concerned. He said, did he not, that if there was a shortage, we could have looked into it. So if there had been a shortage, he would have been prepared to examine the possibility of giving Blacks and people of colour blasting certificates.

Do you accept the fact that there is a shortage?

I did not say there was a shortage; I am just following up on the hon member for Carletonville’s argument.

Do you accept that there is an oversupply?

The issuing of blasting certificates to people of colour is not being done merely because there is a shortage. There are many posts in the mining industry for which a blasting certificate is a prerequisite for appointment. It is not merely a prerequisite for becoming a miner. There are consequential promotions for which having that blasting certificate is absolutely essential, and the hon member for Carletonville knows that. If I want to operate a section in which I want to appoint a shift boss in charge of Black workers, I cannot do so if he does not have a blasting certificate. The hon member knows that. So it is not simply because there is a shortage that we are examining changes to the legislation before us; we also want to create consequential possibilities for promotion.

He also said there was no shortage at the moment. I acknowledge that there is possibly no shortage at present. Yet the hon member knows as well as I do that at a low point in the business cycle the mining industry has no problem finding people with blasting certificates. The moment the economy runs rampant, however, we have the problem of not being able to obtain sufficient workers.

He also referred to the hon member for Boksburg and said the hon member for Boksburg lodged a plea to the effect that foreign Blacks should not be allowed to obtain blasting certificates. I agree with the hon member for Boksburg that we should certainly, as far as it is possible to do so in practice, give our own local people preferential treatment in any job situation in our country, and not only as far as mining is concerned. What he failed to say, however, was that when I do get young trainees in the mining industry from overseas, they also need blasting certificates, which they must obtain here, before we can make use of their services and promote them. It is not only Blacks from other countries who have to obtain blasting certificates; we also have Whites coming into the mining industry.

What is more, the hon member knows, as well as I do, that there are outstanding Black people from beyond our country’s borders who have been working underground for 25 or 30 years. If the hon member wants to be honest, he could go to members of the Mineworkers’ Union and ask them if they would want to exchange those people for local Black people. The hon member knows what the answer would be. They would immediately turn round and say: “No, we would not exchange this Shangaan or that Sotho for anyone else.” We must not be blinded by the argument that we now want to give blasting certificates to Blacks per se. There is far more to this matter.

This amending Bill, of course, has a very long history. It is the last job-reservation provision in our labour legislation which we now want to remove from the Statute Book. I just want to make this very clear: I advocate the removal of this last provision. Let me motivate my statement.

Firstly I must take a brief journey back in time. As long ago as 12 January 1979 rumours surfaced about strikes amongst the mineworkers. I find it very interesting that the hon member for Carletonville mentioned all the strikes, but not those of 1979. Why? Why does he not want to mention those of 1979? What is so extraordinary about 1979? I shall give hon members the answer. In Beeld of 12 January 1979 the following report appeared:

If this amendment of his that this Bill be read this day six months is the atom bomb he spoke of, I do not know what other big guns he has at his disposal.

Let me go further. The following report appeared in Beeld on 12 January 1979: “Op 7 Maart 1979 het die staakstorie soos ’n veldbrand deur ons land getrek.” Mr De Jager—I take it the hon member for Carletonville knows him—said: “Daar kom ’n optrede, dit kom spontaan van die werkers, en dit word nie deur die Mynwerkersunie georganiseer nie. Hy het die bewerings dat daar gestaak gaan word, as oordrewe beskou. ”The very next day a report appeared in the same newspaper, Beeld, which read as follows: “Reuse-staking word krisis. Storm oor 10 000.” If they do not know, from one day to the next, that 10 000 people are coming out on strike, I do not know what kind of generals they are.

This Bill is the product of the Wiehahn Commission’s report. The Wiehahn Commission had certain reservations, involving amongst other things the fears of White mineworkers about their future. We acted in strict accordance with our policy of interfering as little as possible in the labour field and gave the Chamber of Mines and the Mineworkers’ Union an opportunity to come to light with proposals for solving this problem. Over a period of many years those two parties could not come up with any proposals. Eventually we, as a Government, had to approach them with a proposal they could use as a basis.

After many mutual differences between the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines, and after evidence presented to us, we proposed a final amending Bill, which is the Bill we are discussing here today.

This progress which the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines could not make has been the main stumbling-block up to now. On the one hand the White mineworkers said we were selling the Whites down the river. The Chamber of Mines, on the other hand, said it was just another form of entrenched apartheid. Be that as it may, because they could not reach agreement over a period of many years, we came forward with the final product after having heard evidence from various parties. The hon member for Carletonville also gave evidence before the commission. I really cannot understand the CP’s opposition.

They have so little confidence …

They are a lot of racists!

… in the mineworkers and are telling them that they cannot maintain their positions in the labour field unless they have an Act to protect them. Let me say today that I regard this as an insult to the mineworkers.

They have rejected you!

I think it is a gross insult to the mineworkers to tell them they are so feeble they cannot protect themselves. To tell the truth, Sir, many of those mineworkers have told me: “Sir, by hard work I am prepared to prove I am a better man than the chap next to me.”

That is why they rejected you in Stilfontein!

They do not need the legislation on our Statute Book at present to protect them. By productivity they themselves will prove their inestimable value to the mining industry. I have to ascribe the attitude of those hon members to one thing, and one thing only, and that is the CP’s racism. [Interjections.] Surely there cannot be any other reason.

Only a leftist liberal could say that!

Other posts, reserved in the past, are now open to all races. Numerous such posts have been opened up to all races. We have, for example, had surveyors and production-workers. Their posts were supposedly all opened up, thereby selling the Whites down the river. What happened, however? Just look at the number of workers in those posts. The number of Whites in those posts has increased, not decreased.

Let me say here today that when it comes to mineworkers, precisely the same situation will apply. In their jobs the mineworkers will not be ousted out by anyone who cannot maintain the same basic level of productivity as they can. It makes no difference whether it is another White person or a person of colour.

The mineworkers did not want you!

What I find interesting, Sir, is the following. We have Black doctors. We have Black police officers. We have Black teachers. So why can we not have Black mineworkers too? In my view it is a job like any other job in our country. [Interjections.]

Sir, let me go even further.

What about a Black State President?

The legislation under discussion is aimed at granting a certain status to both White and Black mineworkers, regardless of who they may be. We are now giving the mineworkers an opportunity to become professional men in their own field. There is, after all, going to be a committee to advise the hon the Minister on the precise requirements with which someone must comply—educational and otherwise. That gives the mineworker a certain status. It begins to put him on the same footing as a professional man. He is now becoming a professional man who can be proud of the work he is doing. He does not have to be afraid to say he is a miner, as has been the case with certain people in the past. He can puff out his chest and proudly say he is a miner. Whether he is a Black or White miner, he will nevertheless know that as far as professionalism is concerned, he is amongst the best in the country.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, I would prefer not to react to the hon member who is sitting there shouting so badly. [Interjections.]

Sir, the days of the blood-and-thunder approach are a thing of the past. The time has come to act professionally. The time has come for us to adopt a professional approach. I know that every mineworker in our country is going to seize this opportunity to obtain a professional post. As a result of the fact that we are giving them that opportunity, that we are not telling the mineworkers they are so feeble that there has to be an Act to protect them, I know that the White mineworkers in South Africa will grasp this opportunity with both hands. So because we are making professional men of the mineworkers in this country, we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support the proposed legislation.

Mr Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the motivations we have heard from these two opposite sides of the House so far. It is quite ironic, Sir, that today, when one of the biggest strikes in the mining industry is shaping up on the Reef, there does not seem to be a sense of urgency or of reality in this debate. This is ironic against the background of what is actually happening on the Reef today in respect of the National Union of Mineworkers. [Interjections.]

Listening to the hon member for Carletonville, Sir, we witnessed a display of blatant racism, a blatant elevation of the interests of only one group of South Africans to the exclusion of the interests of the rest of South Africa. His argument is that there are enough Whites to fill the gaps and therefore no one else must be taken into account. He concluded his speech by saying:

I should like to know what he means by that, Sir. There was an underlying suggestion that he was hinting at a defence other than a verbal one. I want to challenge the hon member for Carletonville and his colleagues who may still be speaking in this debate. Is that a threat of militant action on the part of the White mineworkers?

They will not tell you!

We shall be listening to the replies furnished by the speakers of the Official Opposition.

On the other hand I was disappointed by the contribution of the hon member for Stilfontein. His defence and support of this Bill seem to belong to the realms of practical considerations and not an issue of principle. He said: “Daar kan wel aanpassings kom.” There is a need. He himself has said that he will place any displaced White mineworker, but there have been none.

That kind of argument does not address the principle of the matter. We on this side of the House ask: “What about the principle of equal opportunities for all South Africans?” [Interjections.] This is a general affair—the mines of South Africa are a general affair, not an own affair of this House, and as far as a general affair is concerned, the duty of Parliament is to uphold the equal opportunities of every South African. [Interjections.]

I am not picking a fight today with that side of the House; they can relax. [Interjections.] The real fight today is with the CP, but I am criticising the hon member for Stilfontein for withholding outright support for that basic principle.

We are supporting the Bill.

Yes, very well, we are coming to that now.

This Bill comes to Parliament after five years of wrangling between the Government, the employers, the White unions and the Black unions. This is something that the Government could have climbed in and done something about years ago. It is five years since the Wiehahn Commission issued its report in which it recommended quite simply that mining industry job reservation be scrapped. The only condition they imposed was that the interests of existing workers should be protected in the process. However, they maintained that the scheduled person provision should simply be scrapped.

Let me state right at the outset that the main principle embodied in this Bill that there should be no distinction on the basis of race or colour in the issuing of certificates of competence in the mining industry, is welcomed by the PFP.

The effect of passing this Bill is that de jure discrimination will be removed from the workplace in South Africa’s mines. The last vestige of statutory job reservation in the mines will have been removed and 13 different types of certificates of competency will become available to Blacks, including the well-known blasting certificate, which is at present limited only to Whites and certain classes of Coloureds.

While the PFP naturally will support this Bill and welcomes it as a development of some historical significance in South Africa, it is necessary to point out that we do not believe it is appropriate to congratulate a man who has stopped beating his wife; he should not have been beating her in the first place.

In approaching the Bill, it is necessary to remind the House that although Blacks were the first miners in Southern Africa way back in prehistoric times, since the early days of the formal mining industry in this country they have been excluded from skilled positions and from the possibility of making a contribution to the mining industry at a skilled and senior level.

Successive South African governments down the years—it is not only the fault of the National Government since 1948—have failed to correct this position, and the scheduled person definition has been one of the main examples of hurtful discrimination which has damaged the optimum development of the mining industry in South Africa, bedevilled industrial relations, nurtured suspicion, antagonism and even hatred between Black and White in the mining industry and damaged the reputation of South Africa internationally. Whereas Whites in the mining industry have generally filled the skilled positions from supervisory through to director level, have been protected by the colour bar over all these decades, have enjoyed freedom of movement, protection of their family life, and wide-open opportunities, and have benefited directly from protection of themselves by virtue of their white skins to the exclusion of others, Blacks, on the other hand, have been confined largely to the manual, menial and lowly supervisory levels in the mining industry. Until recently they were subjected to migratory labour laws and the splitting up of their family life confined to disgraceful conditions in compounds that were little above the level of animal sheds…

They are no worse than their kraals.

… forced to be foreigners in their own land, denied job opportunities, training and advancement, and restricted to occupying only among the most menial and unskilled jobs in the industry.

So, having welcomed this Bill and indicated our support for it against this long history of discrimination in the mining industry, it must, however, be said that the requirements which have now been laid down and introduced as requirements with which a person must comply to be allowed as a candidate for the acquisition of a certificate, have aroused strong suspicions. They have aroused the suspicion that while the Government is giving with the one hand by ruling out discrimination based on race or colour it is, in fact, taking with the other, and that while discrimination on the basis of race or colour is being outlawed in this Bill, in practice new forms of discrimination might be applied in such a way as to continue to place Black miners in a disadvantaged position.

There are seven requirements built into this Bill that were not there before but are now being entrenched. They are practical experience, command of language, physical health, security, age, educational qualifications and training standards.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that sounds fair but there are very serious reservations being advanced by the spokesmen for the Black unions and we must take note of this.

There is for example the question of language. At present some 40% of all workers in the mining industry come from outside South Africa.

They speak Fanagalo.

They are not competent in either of the official languages of South Africa and so a linqua franca has developed on the mines which the hon member referred to as Fanagalo and which is acceptable and practical in the circumstances.

Ramaphosa says it is a bastard language.

That hon member can make his own speech later.

If, for argument’s sake, the provision were introduced that every person, in order to get a certificate of competency, had to have a proficiency in either of the official languages, the practical effect of it would be that an enormous number of miners—almost overwhelmingly Black ones—would be excluded from candidacy for this certificate even though their competency in terms of Fanagalo may be adequate for the purpose at hand.

As regards the question of physical health every miner is at present subjected to physical and medical tests. What is intended by introducing a health requirement into the principal Act? The danger has been pointed out—I am simply repeating this; I do not say that it will be applied—that the workers of whole countries could be excluded from qualifying because of an epidemic in such a country, in spite of the fact that individuals might have been able to pass specific tests.

The question of security is a very difficult one. Security as such is a very ambiguous concept. It raises the question of whether the candidates for these certificates will have to pass some political tests before they may qualify.

With regard to educational qualifications the hon member for Langlaagte said that it was all equal. We know, however, that access to education is far from equal in this country as are educational qualifications. In fact, it is one of the most politically contentious questions in this country that access to educational opportunities among Whites is totally different from the access to educational opportunities among Blacks.

The point is that the worker must be qualified in order to do the job well.

Fair enough, but the hon the Minister has enormous powers to regulate right now. The situation could also be resolved in the workplace between the employer and the employee. Why is it necessary to build that provision into the Act? We accept the hon the Minister’s assurances that this measure will not be applied in a discriminatory way. I am simply making the point that if the Government wants to discriminate against Blacks—if they want to continue doing so in a disguised manner—this provision opens the door to doing just that. One could apply a language barrier, an educational barrier and other barriers from among this list and one would have achieved an almost 100% exclusion of Blacks from acquiring these certificates without having to define it in racial terms.

It needs to be recorded that these tests could conceivably be applied so as to put Black people in a seriously disadvantaged position and in such a way as to block Black advancement in the mining industry. As I have said, the hon the Minister already has wide powers without having to build this list of qualifications into the principal Act.

Having said that, we on this side take note of the hon the Minister's assurances in his introductory speech. We take note of his assurance that this will not be applied in such a way as to perpetuate job reservation. We shall accept that assurance in good faith as partly satisfying the problems we have in this regard.

We received two further assurances, and I should like to record these in Hansard for future reference. Firstly, the regulations relative to these new provisions will be published in the Gazette for comment before being implemented. The second assurance we received was that those same draft regulations would also be laid before the standing committee for consideration before being implemented.

On the basis of assurances on the prepublication of the draft regulations and on pre-consideration by the standing committee, we shall support the principle of this Bill.

It must be said, though, that another part of this Bill gives us difficulty, viz the provisions of paragraph (nC) inserted by Clause 4(b), and clause 4 (e), which envisage the establishment of advisory committees. We ask why the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology should be regulating and becoming involved in what is basically a labour matter. We want to know why such negotiations and agreements are not left to employers and employees—in other words, to the ordinary processes of collective bargaining in the workplace.

The provision is wide open—any person could be involved in these advisory committees—and the introduction of outsiders into the collective bargaining domain of a particular industry is, we believe, not desirable. These clauses grant the hon the Minister wider discretion than we believe is warranted in the circumstances. The Bill also introduces more bureaucracy and introduces the possibility that decisions might be taken under political pressure rather than purely on the merits of issues relating to the work situation.

Having said all of that and in spite of the reservations that have been expressed, we accept the assurances that have been received and, on balance, regard the reservations as less important in the circumstances than the overriding principle of the abolition of the last remaining statutory job reservation clause relating to the South African mining industry. On that basis, we will indeed support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I do not intend following on the hon member for Constantia. In any case, he is too busy making overtures to the real leftwing radical Government in this House where he will no doubt be very shortly.

On behalf of the hon member for Carletonville, I should like to extend a cordial invitation to the hon member for Stilfontein to share a public platform with him at Stilfontein on any date at his convenience; then we will see what is going on in the labour field in South Africa. [Interjections.]

After the very competent appeal of the hon member for Carletonville on behalf of the White mineworkers against this proposed legislation, I cannot improve on what he said in presenting the case of the Official Opposition. I will therefore, in expressing my objection to this legislative sellout of the mineworkers by the leftwing radical NP, cover the political implications of the Mines and Works Amendment Bill contained in the proposed new section 12(1)(nA).

For the House to be able to understand the realities of this amendment, I will first show that the reason for this radical leftwing type of amendment is that the NP has become radical leftwing in its approach. In fact, one would expect such an amendment to be proposed by the PFP, which is the true radical left wing in this House although it, like the NP, appears to be split between left and leftwing radical.

I propose to quote from NP pamphlets drawn up before it became leftwing radical in order to support this view. I wish then to follow the line that, disregarding the fact that the NP has become radical leftwing and therefore cannot be trusted with any matters concerning Whites in the Republic of South Africa, even this propaganda issued to reassure White workers in general and the mineworker in particular confirms the fact that as far as the White worker is concerned, the leftwing radical NP can no longer be trusted to take care of their affairs.

Mind your vocabulary!

I propose to read from a document which will be familiar to hon members on the other side of the House. It is called Skietgoed and was published in 1974. In it is outlined one of the principles of the previous leftwing radical government.

*They give the following as one of the six principles of the Progressive Party:

I apologise; that is the wrong point. That is point three. [Interjections.] Never mind; after I have completed it, hon members will see that it is just as appropriate. I shall quote further:

That was the PFP’s principle in 1974. I think hon members will agree with me that this applies to the NP today. [Interjections] When I refer to the NP as the leftist radicals, I am quoting from another pamphlet.

†This pamphlet that was published in 1980-81 is entitled “These are the Facts”. There was a reference to an allegation that the hon the State President’s leadership had deviated so from the principles of the NP that it was now closer to the PFP and they quoted the following four points as proof of the fact that the NP was not the PFP:

1. 1. There is an irreconcilable gap between the NP and the PFP. Where the NP believes in self-determination, the PFP believes in power-sharing in one parliament with one man, one vote.
2. 2. Where the NP stands for separate communities in their own residential areas, schools and churches, the Progs stand for full integration in an open society.
3. 3. Where the NP stands for the retention of separation measures, the Progs want all schools, swimming pools, beaches and facilities open.
4. 4. Where the NP believes that Blacks must have full citizenships in their own states, the Progs believe that Blacks must have full citizenship within White South Africa, which …

In the terms of the NP of 1981—

[Interjections.] We agree wholeheartedly. I think there can no longer be any doubt that the NP is now the true leftwing radical party in this House. [Interjections.]

*This legislation clearly demonstrates that the White worker can no longer trust the leftist radical NP Government, and trust is one of the essential elements necessary to gain support for this legislation.

Let us see what the various members of the NP and specifically the NP itself has said in the course of time regarding its attitude in respect of the worker. I am quoting from a congress document dated 1979, which included a copy of a pamphlet which was distributed by the NP. The caption to it was: “Wat vrees die Blanke werker?” and it read:

They then asked the question:

The NP’s reply was:

They went on to ask:

The NP said yes. In reply to the question why the Government was abolishing job reservation they then went on to say:

Not one of these meant anything to the White worker.

They then went on to say:

What reply did the NP give?

This sounds wonderful, but in practice precisely the opposite is happening.

The next question was:

The NP reply was:

This was the motivation which the NP used at that stage to convince those of us in the NP that the Wiehahn Report was correct and that these adjustments were in our interest. We have now discovered that this was a farce.

I now want to quote from a pamphlet of 1981, the caption to which was: “The National Party is the workers’ friend”.

†The pamphlet states:

Is it the will of the Mineworkers Union that this legislation be accepted or not?

In 1981 a special pamphlet was issued by the NP to pacify the mine workers.

*Under the caption “’n Oproep aan mynwerkers”, various assurances and replies are given to truths and explanations regarding blasting certificates, and then they conclude by saying:

The hon member for Carletonville will tell hon members a completely different story, because he knows what is going on there.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Stilfontein should rather cut the apron strings binding him to Mr Oppenheimer and go and ascertain what the mineworkers are saying.

I now want to come to the hon the Minister who was quoted as follows in Business Day of 12 February 1986, in the last paragraph of an article with the caption, “Last job barriers on the mines to go”:

†In another report in The Star of 20 May 1986 the hon the Minister was also quoted when he reminded members that—

The final report to which I would like to refer is dated 19 August 1986. It appeared in the Cape Times under the heading “Labour Bill soon” and reads, inter alia:

I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever, and I can quote out of numerous further propaganda items which were issued along those lines by the NP to reassure the worker that he had nothing to fear under the NP. The White worker in South Africa is quite clear on what is happening in South Africa, and that is why we had the tremendous result in the Carletonville election and also in Lydenburg, the constituency of the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public works, as well as the constituency of the hon member for Stilfontein, who are now only temporarily there, until the right wing gets together to evict them. [Interjections.]

Did you win in Krugersdorp?

Aha, 55 is already finished, but the hon member has bigger problems than I have! [Interjections.] The mining industry is in favour of the allocation of blasting certificates to everyone because it suits them. Who is really in favour of this legislation? Prof Wiehahn, now one of the blue-eyed boys of Anglo American, and also the Black National Union of Mineworkers is a little bit more receptive to it, but particularly the mine bosses are the people who are really agitating to get this legislation through, and we know what the attitude of those bosses is towards the White workers in the mining industry.

What about 20 million Black South Africans?

What is a Black South African? [Interjections.] It is no wonder the White worker no longer trusts … [Interjections.]

I challenge you to come to Parktown and we will debate it. [Interjections.]

Has the hon member ever seen what a Black South African does when one sticks him in the whatchamacalit with a pin. [Interjections.] … Then he tells one what nationality he is.

Order! The hon member will not proceed along those lines. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I was just trying to illustrate that there is no such thing as a Black South African.

Order! The hon member will not proceed along those lines.

It is no wonder that the White worker no longer trusts the leftwing radical NP, and I appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister today to restore the faith of the White worker in a future South Africa by withdrawing this Bill today.

Mr Chairman, in my opinion the fact that the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis did not make a single reference to the legislation as such is the surest proof that he has little, if any, knowledge of what has been tabled here this afternoon. [Interjections.] I merely want to tell the hon member something incidentally: If one gives other workers rights, it does not ipso facto mean that one is doing so to the detriment of White workers.

This amending Bill is the result of the Government’s White Paper on the sixth Wiehahn-report, as has been pointed out many times this afternoon. What is at issue here is the substitution of “competent person” for “scheduled person”. This finally brings job reservation in the mining industry to an end. There was a period in the history of South Africa in which job reservation as such served a specific purpose. I think the hon member for Carletonville referred to this in his speech this afternoon. Job reservation actually dates from the days of Pres Kruger and appeared on the Statute Book of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek.

What was the reason? There was a purposeful attempt on the part of the mine-owners to replace unskilled White labour by cheap Black labour. Job reservation appeared on the Statute Book of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek for this specific reason.

If one reads Packenham’s book The Boer War, one sees that he quotes this trend as one of the reasons for the Boer War. He says Milner wanted control over the mines because in his opinion Black mineworkers were being paid excessively high wages by pres Kruger. The whole campaign was actually launched, therefore, to get control of the mines and to pay the Blacks less. I mention this just in passing, because the whole question has a long history in our country.

Job reservation was also placed on the Statute Book of the Union of South Africa in 1911, for the same reason. There was a trend to replace unskilled White labour by cheap Black labour. This gave rise to the 1922 strike, to which the hon member for Carletonville referred.

The conditions in the country are quite different today, however. Today it is an acceptable labour practice to pay equal salaries for work of equal quality. The circumstances that necessitated job reservation in our history no longer exist.

This is power-sharing!

Because they no longer exist, it is not necessary to adopt similar measures. The key to job security today is experience, efficiency and quality. As I know the White mineworkers—the hon member for Stilfontein referred to this as well—they need not take a back seat to anyone as far as experience, efficiency and quality are concerned. That is the key to job security.

I want to refer briefly to the condition in the White Paper for the substitution of “competent person” for “scheduled person”. The Government made a specific condition and that was that alternative measures had to be taken to allay the fears of White workers about job security. Measures other than those that are based on race and colour were necessary. The responsibility for this was left to the Chamber of Mines and the Mineworkers’ Union.

I want to say this afternoon that I think the hon member for Carletonville was a good trade-union leader in many respects. In this respect, however, the hon member for Carletonville left the White mineworker in the lurch by purposely staying away from the negotiation table. He stayed away from the negotiation table because he permitted himself to be led by a certain political ideology. The hon member was in the best position to negotiate alternative measures, but because he stayed away from the negotiation table for five years, nothing came of this, as it were. Consequently the Government had to start doing his work on his behalf.

I think this condition of allaying the fears of White workers in respect of job security are effectively obviated by this legislation. This is done mainly by extending the Minister’s regulatory powers. The hon member for Carletonville made a great fuss and said the hon the Minister could institute regulations. Who says he is going to? The specific point at issue this afternoon, viz “scheduled person”, did not appear only in the Act, but also in regulations. There is a history, therefore, on the basis of which this kind of thing can be organised by way of regulation. This regulation will give the Minister the authority to form a committee which can advise him on admission requirements. I think this obviates the danger of overtraining. All these other requirements which have been built into the Act and about which the hon member for Constantia expressed his fears, are intended merely to ensure two things, viz safety and standards in the mining industry. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to make these regulations known as soon as possible, even if only for commentary, and to implement them as soon as possible.

In conclusion I want to say only two things, and I want to associate myself with a remark made by the hon member for Carletonville which I found disturbing. He said the mineworkers would defend their blasting certificates. At the moment we are in the middle of a mining strike and I think the time has come for outside organisations which are intent on using the mineworkers to promote their own objectives, to stop doing so. There is also a trend among right-wing political parties to try to use the mineworkers to promote their own political objectives instead of serving the interests of the mineworkers. The opposite happens too. Even the communists try to use mineworkers to effect their objectives. This was the case in 1922.

One cannot allow the part played by Percy Fischer, chairman of the Communist Party, with his “Action Council”, to be ignored. He used a cause the mineworkers had espoused for his own objectives. I do not think we should sacrifice the interests of the mineworkers to promote our own interests. I hope the hon member for Carletonville will stop doing this.

In conclusion I want to point out that trade unions can cause large-scale unemployment in this country. The mining industry is being mechanised to a great extent at the moment, because machines cannot go on strike. The same thing can happen if the White trade unions overplay their hand. In the end we could do the White and all other mineworkers a great deal of harm.

I should like to support this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is an exceptional privilege to take part in this debate this afternoon. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys will not take it amiss if I do not react to his speech, because the White mineworkers of the Randfontein constituency have rejected him already. I am not going to waste my breath or my time on him, especially not on a has-been, since he does not even have the authority to speak on behalf of the White mineworkers in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may an hon member refer to another hon member as a “has-been”?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

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

Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to answer the questions of a political has-been. [Interjections.]

It is a pleasure to support the amendment of the hon member for Carletonville, viz that this Bill which has the object of making it possible for Blacks to obtain blasting certificates, only be read in six months’ time.

It is necessary to look back briefly on the course the White mineworker in South Africa has taken. When the Boer War was over, the Afrikaner people returned defeated to their burnt-down farms. The economy had been destroyed; cattle had been exterminated by the scorched-earth policy of Lord Roberts; and hardly any means remained by which the die-hards could rebuild their farms. This state of emergency was effectively exploited by the foreign magnates, which had played no part in the struggle for liberation. Hardy young Afrikaner men, with their strong bodies, courage and a religious sense of responsibility, could be utilised as cheap labour in the mining industry after the war.

When we look at the findings and observations of Ramsay MacDonald, the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the time, we see in the translated version of his book, Wat ek in Suid-Afrika gesien het:

That is not what I say; these were the observations of Ramsay MacDonald, the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the time. In contrast, thousands of Afrikaners were working the deep reefs, and ennobling the gold with their labour, sweat and their deaths. For many years the average age of the White mineworkers, before tuberculosis calcified their lungs, was no more than 42 years.

They developed South Africa into the largest gold producer in the world.

It is advisable at this stage to see what the poet, G A Watermeyer, said:

These were the conditions of the White mineworkers. They were to go on strike once; first 20 000 Chinese were imported to deprive them of their work, and later thousands of Whites were paid off to make room for cheap foreign and Black labour. An unsympathetic government forced them to fight for their work, backs to the wall, to feed their hungry wives and children. The Hanekom brothers were shot at a mine-dump; Erasmus was sentenced to death and had to polish his copper gallows every day.

It was the NP that rectified this glaring injustice. They implemented legislation which compelled big business to give preference to the sons of the people, viz job reservation. Foreign Blacks would still be imported from neighbouring states, but the Afrikaner would receive preference in his own country. After all, that is the course taken by every people that has self-respect. In periods of depression or economic distress, big business should not be permitted to employ foreigners from other states when its own people are walking the streets looking for work. [Interjections.]

The mines in South Africa are making their greatest profits at the moment, at a gold price of almost R1 000 per fine ounce. With those profits they control the whole Stock Exchange and with the profits on the Stock Exchange they control the whole of the South African economy. It is unbelievable that their tax contribution to the Treasury has dropped from 29% in 1980-81 to a mere 8%, whereas the voters’ personal tax has increased since 1980-81 from 15% to 30%.

Mining, particularly the gold-mining industry, has reached its golden era. The White mineworkers developed the mines, supported them and made them powerful. It is the White workers who put the NP in power, and now today’s NP is selling those same mineworkers out to big business.

Blacks, even Blacks from foreign neighbouring states, of which some have communist sympathies, are now to be the equals of our sons. The NP is making it possible for them to acquire blasting certificates. Sometimes one hears from the left-wingers that the Whites are not good enough to keep their senior positions, but the achievements of the White mineworkers—as mentioned above—prove this claim to be a misapprehension which is the result either of ignorance or of a purposeful attack on the White mineworkers.

Whites have been blasting gold out of the granite in the deepest mines for decades, with the smallest number of casualties. Thousands of lives, those of Whites and Blacks, are respected by the White mineworkers. That is why I want to put this question: Can the Government take the chance of changing this situation and gambling with the mineworkers’ safety? Must they become the guinea-pigs of politicians who have not worked underground in the dark passages of the mines for even a single day?

Did you?

I worked there for ten years.

Is this the thanks the White mineworkers are getting from the mine-owners, with their enormous profits—blasting certificates for Blacks? Does the Government’s reform politics also imply the surrender of traditional White posts, which are being given to strangers, in order to put the mine-owners in a position of power in which they can pay off thousands of Whites, as in the past, and replace them by foreign Black labour? Must the children of our people go hungry because insensitive big business wants even greater profits … [Interjections.]

That hurts, does it not?

… or are the mine-owners preparing them for an ANC take-over, and then have all their mining done by Black labour on conditions laid down by the Communists? The visit of Anglo-American’s spokesmen, Gavin Relly and Tony Bloom, to the ANC makes one wonder what their joint decision was.

Once Blacks have blasting certificates, they can paralyse the mining industry with strikes. They want to paralyse the mining industry. They are the ones who are most eager for sanctions to be applied against South Africa. The easiest way in which to paralyse South Africa’s economy is by means of strikes in the mining industry. At the moment mining activities can continue to an extent, even if the Black mineworkers strike. Or do the Government and the mine-owners really believe that they will be able to call on the Whites in an emergency? Once Blacks have blasting certificates, South Africa’s total economy—which the Government has built on Black pillars—would be destroyed completely if they were to go on strike. This Government, the creator of the injustice, would fall.

The CP makes it very clear, therefore, that we are not in favour of the substitution of the words “competent person” for “scheduled person”. We refuse to accept that the blasting certificate, the onsetter’s certificate, the lamp-man’s certificate, the locomotive-engine driver’s certificate and the winding-engine driver’s certificate be granted to Blacks. They represent traditionally White positions, extremely responsible key positions, and the CP refuses to have these particular positions opened up to Blacks, because this will be to the detriment of the mining industry and the South African economy.

What has become of the Government’s promises, even in this NP pamphlet published in 1968, that the NP Government would take care of the White workers? What has become of the NP’s promises that its policy was to preserve and protect the White workers’ identity? What has become of the NP’s promise that they would continue to apply job reservation in a just and realistic way, that Blacks would no longer become members of industrial councils and conciliation boards, as it was in the days of the old United Party? What has become of those promises? Those promises have fallen away under the NP—fallen like leaves off a tree. [Interjections.] The NP once said the NP Government would take care of the White workers. We can justifiably say today that the NP is ensuring the downfall of the White workers. [Interjections.]

The White mineworkers no longer trust the NP. The NP has turned its back on the White mineworkers, which helped to put the NP in power. That is why the White mineworkers will turn their backs on the NP Government, and the NP will get what it deserves from the White mineworkers. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I must say the hon member for Ventersdorp spoke with a kind of pathos and emotion which was very difficult to follow. When someone carries on in that vein one almost feels that one’s thoughts are wandering and one’s concentration is flagging, “falling like leaves off a tree”.

You Dakarites find this very difficult to understand!

This is a language and a tone which could perhaps have been used effectively decades ago to whip people up. But I want to tell the hon member that the exaggerated tone and the cheap emotions he tried to arouse here …

Melodrama!

… made the entire effect he was trying to achieve, fall flat.

It was pathetic!

Of course this is also the case with the CP. Because there are those persons in the ranks of the CP who are apparently convinced that White self-determination is being jeopardised here, they are opposed to the legislation under discussion, in the interests of White self-determination. There are, however, also those persons, the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis, for example, who are not really concerned about White self-determination in the first instance. His motivation for his behaviour is based on one thing only.

†His motivation in this instance is simply a plain hatred of Blacks. Simple! He hates Blacks. Schluss! Simple!

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

That is his motivation in politics. He hates Blacks.

And you love the Nats!

And you love the ANC!

The hon member for Carletonville is someone I do not know very well. His motivation might well be the interests of the White worker. However, the speech that the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis made quite clearly illustrated the bitterness and hatred that motivate him.

The Nats will not even accept you.

The English-speaking member of the CP has flipped over, as they very often do if they find themselves in a situation in which they are not really quite at home. He wants to prove himself by being 101% racist and 101% conservative. He tries to outdo his colleagues in that party. [Interjections.] He is a danger! [Interjections.]

The points which have been made in support of this Bill need no repetition. There is one aspect I would like to highlight, namely the illogical definitions which have resulted from the Act, and perhaps the next CP member can comment on this almost weird provision for Coloureds which has existed up to now.

It seems that up to now only specific types of Coloureds were included in the definition of scheduled persons, and when the standing committee met to hear evidence, one of the officials from the Chamber of Mines was questioned about this aspect. I think it is interesting to read his reply, since it gives us an indication of what the legislation has been like up to now.

He mentioned in his evidence that only certain Coloureds qualified for certificates, and he was then asked: “Who are these ‘certain Coloureds’ you refer to?” His reply was the following:

Who said that?

I do not want to mention names; it would be irrelevant. He merely quoted the status quo. This is how the department and the Government have defined this up to now. It has nothing to do with the personality. [Interjection.]

He went on to say:

I am sure that the CP cannot defend this farce. They have not tried to defend this type of classification farce; they just talk in terms of White protection. That is why it is a positive development to eliminate this definition of scheduled persons and to eliminate the last vestiges of job discrimination.

I merely want to underline one aspect which my colleague, the hon member for Constantia, dealt with, viz the department’s undertaking that the draft regulations will be published for comment by all interested parties. In addition, I would ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he can again confirm what was told to us at standing committee level, namely that the draft regulations, before being promulgated, will be put to the standing committee which deals with this portfolio, so that the standing committee can also make an input in regard to that aspect before promulgation takes place.

Mr Speaker, before I react to some of the hon member for Ventersdorp’s reservations, I should like to comment on the hon member for Constantia’s speech.

†The hon member for Constantia is a member of the standing committee and, as such, if he were not satisfied with the particular clause he referred to—the one laying down the qualifications required for people to be able to obtain the certificate—then I wonder why the hon member did not raise it in the committee.

I was not a member at that time.

The hon member was not a member at that time? Well, we discussed the Bill not so very long ago, and he could have proposed it then.

It is no good criticizing after the event. The place to bring one’s amendments is in the standing committee.

The criticisms I have, were also raised in the standing committee.

One does not only make criticisms. This has been the trouble with the PFP all along. They make criticisms but they never come with a solution. They do not bring amendments and say: This is how we can improve the legislation. I am sure the standing committee would have welcomed any amendments by the hon member.

Those criticisms certainly will not be withdrawn.

No, I do not say the hon member must withdraw them. However, I want to ask him in all sincerity whether he expects a person who has attained a certificate of competency to have very low qualifications. We are dealing here with blasting certificates and other very responsible schedules of work on the mines. I do not think one excludes people in this way. As a matter of fact, I think one is encouraging people to better their standard in order to obtain these certificates.

*I am sorry the hon member for Ventersdorp has left the Chamber. He made certain allegations here which one cannot simply allow to pass. One of the allegations was that the price of gold to which the Afrikaner worker contributed his share had risen so high now that mine owners were making a profit of R1 000 a fine ounce. I wonder what the profit on that R1 000 a fine ounce and the hon member’s comments on this would really be if he were to analyse it.

He does not know what he is talking about.

Surely that is the selling price per fine ounce of gold in world markets today.

And that is not even R1 000.

It is not even R1 000; it is just over R900.

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

Mr Speaker, I have only 10 minutes.

The hon member related what had happened after the Anglo-Boer War and how the Afrikaner had contributed his share to the development of mining. He described how they had sacrificed their lives, which I concede. Many of our people made such sacrifices, but at the same time I want to tell him there were as many Black people who assisted under identical circumstances in putting South African mining where it is today. [Interjections.] We cannot deny this; it is the truth about the situation; not only the White contributed his share.

Where do we stand today? We no longer find ourselves in the period mentioned by the hon member just after the Anglo-Boer War nor of the 1922 mining strikes. It is more than three quarters of a century later. Our economy is developing and our labour patterns are changing continuously. The reason for the appointment of a Wiehahn Commission, which published its report in 1979, was that we are dealing with a developing economy with different patterns which require perpetual adjustments.

For the record I should like to clarify a certain matter. The other day the hon member for Brakpan asked me how I had come by certain quotations of his. I now want to tell him where I found them; I was quoting him from his own Hansard when the Wiehahn Commission Report was being discussed.

Which one?

Hansard, 1979, col 8099. The hon member for Brakpan referred to four factors conducive to peace in the field of labour and also mentioned the Industrial Conciliation Act. He said the following about this Act—

He then quoted the hon the Minister:

The hon member continued:

The hon member also added:

[Interjections.] What did this report accomplish? It removed colour from the labour market; it ensured a person would be remunerated according to his ability and productivity and that he would be judged in that way and not on the grounds of his race or colour.

The mining industry had the same opportunities to do away with colour by means of negotiation between employer and employee organisations. Nevertheless it did not do so. Where do we stand this year? We have reached the year 1987 and nothing has happened yet—absolutely nothing. South African mineworkers do not even have an industrial council. Apparently they do not want one.

Arrie does not want one.

No decisions have been taken yet on these recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. The matter was simply left in abeyance.

What should the Government do now in this regard? The Government is introducing this legislation and is being criticised for instituting this committee. Just like employee organisations, they will be represented on this committee. To my mind it is absolute nonsense to say that even greater power is being placed in the hands of South African big business now.

I should like to say in conclusion that South African big business, which has come in for so much criticism from hon members on that side of the House and from the hon member for Carletonville in particular, has contributed just as much to developing mining in South Africa and bringing riches to this country as the labour of the White and the Black. Without big business we would have been incapable of achieving anything; we did not have the capital to develop our mines.

This criticism of South African big business reminds me a great deal of certain socialist slogans I have heard which say big business exploits the workers. It was an old HNP slogan, a body to which I have heard the hon member for Carletonville once belonged. I want to add we should cease referring to these people as if they were the villains of mining and the development of South Africa …

You were a UP man!

Yes, I did support the UP and am proud to admit it. [Interjections.] I am proud to be able to say that I have never had the colour prejudices hon member suffers from and I am pleased about that. [Interjections.]

You are still a UP supporter!

It seems to me this makes a person mentally ill; it embitters one. I am not an embittered person—I hope not. [Interjections.]

I take pleasure in supporting this legislation. It appears to me that all my friends in the CP have against this legislation is merely the question that colour is now being removed from it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman has just clearly illustrated the saying “if you can’t beat them, join them”. There one has an excellent example of the kind of mentality of the people who supported the United Party, Gen Smuts and Sir De Villiers Graaff in the past, and who now feel at home, and are in fact taking the lead, in the NP. He spoke about big business. One of the institutions that has been the major object of attacks by the Government in years gone by, has been big business. I ask the hon member to go and read the annual report of Mr Gavin Relly of Anglo American. In this annual report he manifests the same attitude as all the other chairmen of the large mining companies. Now I should like to ask that hon member who is defending big business, whether he agrees with everything Mr Relly has to say here. For example, he says that the time has come for the NP to accept the KwaNatal proposals. [Interjections.] Does the hon member for Kuruman accept them?

He does not know what they mean!

Half the annual report of the Anglo American group is devoted to politics, but the hon member is defending big business.

What has that got to do with this legislation?

The hon member spoke about big business, after all. He said that big business was being attacked here, and he defended it. [Interjections.]

He defended no one.

I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that big business is destroying the NP. [Interjections.] Big business played footsie with the NP at the Carlton and Good Hope Conferences, and again at Libertas …

Order! Hon members are permitted a considerable amount of latitude, but not that much. The hon member must deal more specifically with the Bill.

In passing I just want to refer to certain remarks the hon member for Stilfontein made. I think it is high time hon members of the NP stop referring to us as racists. [Interjections.] I want to ask once again why we have three Houses of Parliament. [Interjections.] Why are 60%—perhaps a little more or a little less—of the hon members in the NP not in favour of a Black State President? [Interjections.]

Why is Hendrickse not allowed to swim?

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs almost lost his post in the Cabinet and was almost kicked out of the NP because he said he would serve under a Black State President. [Interjections.] Then the hon the State President is a racist, because he almost drove that hon Minister out of the Cabinet. Surely it is nonsense to say that we are racists.

See how Dawie is laughing now.

I am laughing at the joke. [Interjections.]

The hon member says we are racists and that we are opposing this Bill only on the basis of the fact that we are racists, but a member of the Cabinet is not even allowed to swim at the same beaches as Whites. [Interjections.] Are we racists, then? Rev Hendrickse was almost kicked out of the Cabinet because he dared to swim at a White beach, but we are called “racists”. Has one ever heard such stuff and nonsense in one’s life?

See how dead quiet they are! [Interjections.]

A remark made by the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis was completely misunderstood by the hon member for Durban Central and other hon members. He made no racist remark in respect of Black people. He simply said there was no such person as a Black South African. He illustrated this by saying that if one put pressure on a Black person, he would say that he is a Xhosa, a Sotho, or whatever. He made no racist remark by referring to having to prick such a person with a pin.

I see that the hon member for Stilfontein is not here. It is really strange that the NP’s main speaker in a debate of this nature is not in the House. [Interjections.]

That story is getting boring now.

But it is a habit of yours.

In the standing committee he referred to the fact that in the economy there are peaks and troughs in the business cycle. He said that when there was a lower business cycle, the White miners returned to the mines, and that when the economy improved, they left the mines. The fact is that 96% of the mineworkers remain in the mines of the Chamber of Mines. Only 4,5% of the workers have left mining recently, and that 4,5% went to mines that do not fall under the Chamber. There is therefore no obvious trend, as the hon member for Stilfontein tried to imply here.

A previous PFP speaker, the hon member for Constantia, referred to the disturbing times in which we are living at present. These are disturbing times. We do not know what the course of events is going to be in the Free State, in Johannesburg and on the Rand, which is possibly beginning today. It is therefore a pity that we want to pass sensitive legislation such as this with which we are dealing at this stage.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North tried to give us a history lesson on Friday.

He did not try. He succeeded! [Interjections.]

Did he? I just want to tell him that he tried to explain to us that a “pagina” and a “page” are the same thing, and that a communist and a Bolshevist are also the same thing. I just want to tell him that “dom” and “onnosel” are also synonyms. [Interjections.] The hon member for Carltonville referred to history, and it is in fact true that the communists tried to abuse this situation, but to say that the 1922 strike was hijacked by the Bolshevists, is not the whole truth.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member for Brakpan whether he is aware of the fact that towards the end of the strike radicals took control of the action committee and that the Government eventually shot at these radicals, which then led to a revolution? This is not what the hon member or any of his colleagues have told us, because they are not prepared … [Interjections.]

I said that it was not the whole truth that the communists or the Bolshevists took control of the 1922 strike. There were White South Africans involved in that strike, who were convinced that that was an opportunity to declare a republic in South Africa again. However, people like Tielman Roos and others withdrew from these violent attempts, which were to be exploited by Fisher and others. The fact is that Whites, and even farmers, participated in that revolt, and that was the direct cause of the fall of the Smuts Government.

At this late stage hon members on the opposite side of the House want to tell us that Gen Smuts handled this strike well and that he should really get the credit. The important reason why that strike is not remembered with a favourable attitude is in fact that Gen Smuts handled it incorrectly. At a strike in Wales he asked the strikers to sing for him first, because he had heard that they sang so well. He defused that strike by using tact and psychology, but in South Africa he used his Defence Force and his aircraft to disperse the strikers. [Interjections.]

I refer to the hon members of the PFP who are satisfied that this legislation is in order now, because a saving clause has been inserted in terms of which there may be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. It is strange that in this regard the hon member for Stilfontein in fact cleared the way for them to support this legislation. To a certain extent it clearly indicates how these two parties are one another’s henchmen. [Interjections.]

The hon members of the PFP were not very happy with this Bill on the standing committee, but when the hon member for Stilfontein suggested that the proviso that there may be no discrimination on the basis of race or colour be inserted, Mr Ramaphoso expressed his satisfaction with the legislation, and the PFP then accepted it.

What we really find very interesting in this regard as well, is the fact that the NP is once again trying to satisfy all parties, and eventually satisfies no-one. Initially the Wiehahn Report said that when job reservation was done away with, as provided in this specific Bill, the fears of the White man concerning his job security had to be allayed.

Now they have taken away this so-called job reservation provision by creating certificates of competence, but at the same time a committee has been established which, on the basis of certain considerations, can decide whether a person should be permitted to undergo training. Those considerations are, for example, language, age, and competence, as well as various other aspects.

The way hon members of the PFP are arguing, an effort is going to made in this artificial manner to keep Black people from obtaining these certificates of competence.

On the one hand, therefore, the NP is telling the world that they are abolishing job reservation, but on the other hand, they are still trying to retain this work for the Whites in a dishonourable way. That is what they are trying to intimate now.

Why are you opposed to it, then?

We are opposed to it because firstly we say that one must act in an honest way. [Interjections.] If one wants to protect the White worker, one must protect him as we have done all these years, and that is what we stand for, plain and simple. Do not say that the White man will no longer be protected in this way and that everyone can now obtain certificates of competence, while attempting to close the door to Blacks in a different way, by referring to age, language proficiency, skills, and that kind of thing. Comme ci, comme ca. Typical NP attitude! [Interjections.] These are the things we despise them for, and for which the White worker in South Africa is going to reject them, as they are already doing in the suburban seats of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that he must approach this matter very sensitively and discerningly with us. As other members have already said, this is not a case of our being afraid that the Whites will be forced out of their jobs and lose them in this way. We say there are more or less 16 000 Whites who are members of the Mineworker’s Union. At present there are between 200 000 and 300 000 Black people who are members of NUM who are threatening to strike. If one opens up the occupation that has been reserved for Whites all these years, whilst there are presently only 16 000 White members of the union—hon members know how many of them are unemployed at the moment—to 200 000 people competing with them, what hope is there for someone who wants to retain his right of self-determination in mining? [Interjections.] One has just as little hope of that as those hon members, since their hope is based on false grounds if they think that we can retain our power and our right of self-determination in politics by trying to practice all kinds of manipulations.

It will not work. There are 16 000 Whites, as opposed to 200 000 or 300 000 Black people in a sensitive industry such as mining. We see what is happening now, and we shall watch the situation carefully to see how it develops.

We are dealing here with a product of South Africa which is free of disinvestment and sanctions—the most sought-after mineral in the world. It is a product made available by the White mineworkers because they have the blasting certificates. This particular industry is now not only being opened to Black South African citizens, but also to Black people from other countries; countries, which, as my friend the hon member for Carletonville said, are hostile towards South Africa. Those people are being given blasting certificates. Let us look at what is happening at present, since NUM is trying to organise a strike. Let us see what happens. At this stage hon members can imagine what the consequences will be one day for the most sensitive industry in South Africa if these people have blasting certificates, and if they have the majority of blasting certificates.

At this late stage I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister at least to let this legislation be held over until there is calm amongst us again, since the problems that are arising here could perhaps spread to the Whites. What position would South Africa find itself in then?

We spoke about the Whites acting in a responsible way. The hon member for Constantia asked us to react to the question of action if blasting certificates were to be taken away. The Whites act in a responsible way. The Mineworker’s Union has done so all these years, but the White worker must not be driven too far, and we are doing this with this legislation. Under no circumstances can we support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, we witnessed a very interesting phenomenon in the hon member for Brakpan’s speech, and that is that he devoted a very large portion of that speech to an explanation of what hon members of that party were actually saying when they participated in this debate. At the very end he also gave a brief explanation of what the hon member for Carletonville meant when he said that mineworkers would, as in 1922, come to the defence of their blasting certificates and that nothing would stop them. He did not really get round to that, however, because it seems to me that what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition started doing is now becoming a habit, and that is the tendency always to hint at something and never becoming right out and saying it, because of an inclination to want to play for both teams. The fact of the matter is that if the hon member for Carletonville, and here at the end the hon member for Brakpan too, are insinuating that Whites will go on strike and that they will effectively be encouraged to do so if this legislation is passed, my question is: What is the difference between their sense of responsibility and that of Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, because both are trying to adopt a threatening attitude. Are they then not playing the same game? On what grounds do they then claim that we would be in a better position if they alone had blasting certificates and the right to threaten people? What sort of morality are we dealing with here?

There is another aspect that gives me some cause for concern. The hon member for Carletonville extended an invitation here for a visit to the Mineworkers’ Union, saying that he would then make certain documents available, etc. Is the hon member for Carletonville now the MP for Carletonville, representing the voters of Carletonville, or does he represent the White Mineworkers’ Union?

Both.

The primary task of the legislature, this Parliament, is that of reconciling or harmonizing conflicting interests—that is specifically the case with this legislation—thereby serving the general interest. When this legislation was considered by the standing committee last year, the hon member for Carletonville, in his capacity as leader of the White Mineworkers’ Union, gave evidence before the committee, which he had every right to do, but at the time he was serving certain sectional interests. As a member of this House, however, he has other terms of reference, a different responsibility. Here it is a question of serving the general interest. At this late stage—as far as I know, there is only one other hon member of the CP who is going to participate in this debate—I therefore want to make an earnest appeal to those hon members to act in a responsible way. They could make an important contribution by ensuring that this extremely sensitive matter is dealt with calmly and that there is no unnecessary disruption. The Bill makes provision for the protection of the interests of established workers. The provisions are aimed at ensuring that there is no oversupply and that the market is not inundated with people who have blasting certificates. This is, in fact, also creating opportunities for the upward mobility of people who do already have blasting certificates. As the hon member for Stilfontein explained, this can also satisfy conditions for promotion in other spheres.

I therefore cannot understand why the Whites should now be afraid of competition. When the rural Afrikaner sought employment in the mining industry, I do not think there were any of them who were mining engineers. Nor were there any mine captains or mine managers, or any of them who owned or managed their own mines. It was without protection, however, that we worked ourselves up into the top positions, and this has greatly added to our accomplishments and our sense of pride. In the same way we also run our own mining companies. If we could compete with Europeans and big business—the CP has also tried to scare us with this prospect—why should we be afraid of competing with other people? How one can have so little self-confidence is beyond me.

Don’t shoot, just sit there shaking in your boots! [Interjections.]

Finally let me ask the last hon member of the Official Opposition who participated in this debate to tell us who they include in the phrase “big business” which they used this afternoon, on several occasions, as a juicy little slogan. They must just tell us to whom they are referring. Does the phrase refer to Volkskas, Sanlam, Gencor and those Afrikaner business undertakings which have grown into multimillion rand undertakings? Does the CP include those business undertakings, because some of them also have large-scale mining interests. The CP must tell us whether they include those undertakings. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to come back to the Bill before dealing with a few statements raised in the House today. In the first place I should like to refer to clauses 1 and 2 of the amending Bill.

We find what is ostensibly a very innocent amendment, namely that the “Minister of Mines” is now replaced by the “Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs”. In clause 2 the concept “Consolidated Revenue Fund” is replaced by “State Revenue Fund”. This side of the House asks the opposite side, which is still the Government at this stage, when it will cease changing departmental names from day to day and so creating a vertible Babel of confusion. [Interjections.] Why could an old, tried concept such as “Consolidated Revenue Fund” not simply be retained? Why does it have to be replaced by “State Revenue fund”? Research has not yet been done into the costs to this country occasioned by these changes of name which take place on an annual, six-monthly and monthly basis.

To us there is another argument involved here, however, which is more serious than the mere superficial change in name. It is that we get the impression that that side of the House has a psychological mania for change in the country. They cannot stop making changes; they want to change everything that moves, as our constitutional set-up has already been completely changed. This side of the House is simply unable to support the changing of all names which occur such as the old, tried one of “Consolidated Income Fund”. It appears far more like change merely for the sake of change.

Secondly, I should like to return to what a few previous speakers said in this debate. It is immediately obvious that points of view differ on this amending Bill. The NP is on one side, supported by the PFP in this respect, and the CP standpoint on the other. Of course we do not find it strange that the PFP is supporting the NP in this regard because this Bill not only embodies integration in the labour field—as a few previous speakers called it—but is especially linked to the entire process of integration which is being launched in the constitutional sphere in South Africa at present.

The hon member for Constantia and the hon member for Durban Central mentioned that standpoints adopted by this side of the House came down to or verged racism. It is the view of this side of the House that when one’s point of departure is the concept of a unitary state, when one sees South Africa as such a state, as the PRP and the NP see South Africa, it is patently obvious that one has to give everybody within the unitary state context the right accorded to Blacks in this legislation. If one argues on the other hand that South Africa is not a unitary state, as this side of the House believes, it does not follow automatically that one can say we are adopting a racist standpoint when opposed to legislation of this nature. We are then drawing a fundamental constitutional distinction between those advocating the concept of a unitary state and those in favour of partition. We claim that the government in power within a partitioned state is fully entitled to give preference to its own people. We—as well as the NP—have always seen South Africa in this light.

We now want to know of that side of the House if they are not actually racists when we examine the statements of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys in this regard. He said there were three conclusive criteria which should provide the test here—experience, efficiency and quality. I assume what he was explaining here represented a resumé to him in his own words of what is embodied in subsection 4 (b) of the Bill. There is no reference, however, to experience, efficiency and quality—not as I interpret it. We shall leave it at that now as I shall devote more time to this later.

What the hon member Dr Geldenhuys said came down to this. We had no cause for concern as they would now decide from the nature of the case—the committee and the Minister would decide—who was experienced, efficient and of quality. If one analyses this standpoint, does the hon member Dr Geldenhuys then wish to suggest to the House that they do not want to discriminate on the basis of what the old Act contains? He wants to suggest that they may as well be trusted since they are the Government, and they will ensure that the right people are appointed to it. They will determine who is efficient, experienced and of quality. Is it the standpoint of that side of the House that they will determine which person this definition fits? Is that true? There is no reply and the old adage runs: “Silence means consent”. I therefore have to accept that this discrimination, which they supposedly wish to reject, is merely being built in here in a different way—as the hon member for Brakpan said. It is our point of view that it is patently dishonest to incorporate a safeguard through the back door which they are not willing to admit through the front. Our standpoint is not one of innuendo directed at one side or another—as the hon member for Springs said. We say very clearly that we are opposed to this legislation and we are adopting this standpoint because it does not give the White worker the recognition he deserves in mining.

I should also like to refer to standpoints adopted in the past by hon members on this side of the House. Previous speakers mentioned that the CP was not to try to ride on the back of the miner now. It is our standpoint that it was in fact the NP which has been riding on the back of the worker over the years. If the argument raised here—that the CP is the party that is riding on the back of the worker—carries any weight, we say we have learnt our lesson well from the NP on this subject.

Let us examine what the NP said in the past. As recently as 1968 under the banner headline Die Nasionale Regering sorg vir die Blanke Werker there are four cornerstones and supporting pillars, beautifully illustrated by means of four squares and a powder horn. The good old days!

It is a yield sign now.

One of my hon colleagues has just aptly remarked that the powder horn has become a yield sign! [Interjections.]

Next we see printed: “Vier Hoekpilare van Arbeidsrus en Arbeidsvrede” and at the first opportunity in the first square—we have to accept the squares are arranged according to priority and importance—is: “’n Blanke werker mag nie tot sy nadeel deur ’n Nieblanke werker vervang word nie. ”

The operational word is “to his disadvantage” (tot sy nadeel).

The hon member for Springs has just interjected “to his disadvantage”. This is the first time I have ever heard someone deprive a person of something and then say it is to his advantage. That type of logic no longer has credence even in this House; it is not believed outside in election campaigns and, to cap it all, it is no longer believed by the White miner within the framework of this debate.

When one cures someone’s cold, is that to his advantage? [Interjections.]

While on the subject of whether it is to his advantage or disadvantage, I want to read the following from page 3 of the published memorandum:

We now ask who will activate this racial victimisation. Surely it will be the Black who will start it because he benefits from this legislation according to the standpoint of that side of the House. Surely it will—this is what it is aimed at—be the White workers who will be victimised on the basis of the argument used here. We find this an illogical standpoint and cannot understand it.

I should like to refer to another NP pamphlet published in the fifties. Hon members may well say the fifties are history, but principles are timeless and not bound by any period. [Interjections.] Principles dating from the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties should be the same. Obviously they will not be the same to that side of the House because we have grown accustomed to their lack of principle in the eighties. [Interjections.]

In the fifties, on 18 February 1954, Adv Strauss, a former Leader of the Official Opposition said that economic integration …

Order! In what sense was the hon member’s reference to the lack of principle of that side of the House intended? Did I interpret the hon member correctly in that he was referring to the lack of principle of that side of the House? Is that what the hon member said?

Mr Speaker, I was reacting to an interjection and to the best of my knowledge …

Order! What did the hon member mean by referring to the lack of principle of the other side of the House? I should like to have clarity on this.

Mr Speaker, by “lack of principle” I understand a person had a principle which is no longer honoured by that side of the House. It is the principle that one does not believe in economic integration.

Order! Did the hon member say the other side of the House was without principle or refer to the lack of principle of the other side of the House? If so, the hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to argue the point with you that it is not unparliamentary to say that the NP or a political party is without principle or has rejected its principles. I submit with respect that you reconsider this ruling.

He said the members were without principle! [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Losberg refer to the principles of the party or of individual hon members?

Mr Speaker, I was definitely not referring to individual members but to the party which is without principle because it no longer honours standpoints it adopted previously.

The hon member may proceed.

I should like to explain why I said that side of the House had become a political party without principle. In this regard I want to refer to what the former Leader of the Opposition at the time, Adv Strauss, said on 18 February 1954—that economic integration would have consequences—and this economic integration would have consequences in the social as well as the political sphere.

Let us examine what he regarded as economic integration. He said a new labour pattern would arise; that would be the economic integration. This side of the House claims that through the Wiehahn Commission and the recommendations arising from it a new labour pattern was certainly established in South Africa—a labour pattern of integration.

Does economic segregation mean total self-employment?

I am not discussing self-employment now; I am speaking within the framework of the Act in which I am expounding the principles as accepted by the old United Party.

Secondly, the old United Party said in the words of Adv Strauss that “die vernietiging van die bestaande kleurslagboom in die nywerheid ter sprake sal kom”. In the third instance he said that Native trade unions, as they were known at that stage, would be recognised. We ask that side of the House at least to exhibit sufficient honesty, if they have the courage of their convictions—and I am now addressing the hon member for Stilfontein—to tell the voters and miners out there that they no longer support these principles. They should not try to sit on two stools because eventually the miners will no longer believe those hon members and neither will voters in general. We are obviously delighted at this because it can only lead to the self-destruction of that party.

You are confusing policy with principle!

In the fifties the NP said the following:

We say that this Bill is definitely jeopardising this principle. In the last place, and I want to conclude with this, the standpoint was that this process of economic integration would also have political consequences. In this regard it is illuminating that a former hon member, Mr Marais Steyn, who represented Vereeniging at the time, had the following to say:

It is the view of this side of the House that the point at issue—as was ostensibly argued by that side of the House—is not merely that we are opposed to blasting certificates being given to a few Black miners. The point at issue is the fundamental question involved within the labour pattern and within the constitutional pattern of every state—the protection of own workers. That side of the House has so little respect—again I am addressing the NP as such—for the protection of own workers that it does not even want to protect our own Black workers against foreign Black workers. On looking at clause 4 (b) of the Bill, we see that there is not even a built-in qualification that foreign Black workers—that is from outside the self-governing areas and the Black independent states—are excluded in the case of these blasting certificates.

But there is no difference.

There is obviously no difference to the hon member who made the interjection between workers from Zimbabwe, etc, and other workers.

Our urgent request is that at least here a qualification be built in that Blacks from outside the Southern African area are not also accorded this privilege of access to blasting certificates. This is a statement of policy which is unacceptable to us.

Finally, Mr Chairman, this measure also provides for the Minister to exercise his unfettered, free discretion in this regard. The standpoint of this side of the House is that the Minister should at least be bound by prerequisites in the exercise of this discretion because the subparagraph involved would be rendered null and void without them.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losbek … [Interjections.] … Losberg said on several occasions: “It is the standpoint of this side of the House” when he was referring, I take it, to the CP’s standpoint. I think we are quite justified in asking the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis and the hon member for Ventersdorp the following question: If he says it is the standpoint of that side of the House, he is either referring to the CP’s standpoint or that of the AWB, and how does he reconcile the two?

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a minute now. That nimble-footed hon member, who ran away from Edenvale to Johannesburg and then to Krugersdorp—I do not know where he is going to run to next time—referred specifically to big business, and he is a member of the AWB. He is a member who is carried shoulder high and that hon member’s AWB standpoint is that the mines, big business, must be nationalised.

The Broederbond will throw you out yet, just wait and see.

The Broederbond is not a socialistic organisation. The AWB is socialistic. They say the mines must be nationalised. Now, I want to ask the hon member once again: Is the standpoint he is now proclaiming that of the AWB or that of the CP? It is important that we receive a reply on this, because people will say: “When it comes to the push who are you going to support, Eugene Terre’Blanche or A P Treurnicht?” It is very important that we receive a reply because that hon member is sitting in this House as a member of the AWB and as a member of the CP. The CP is like a single cylinder engine: Racism, racism, racism! [Interjections.]

†The CP stands for a one-cylinder party and it stands for a collapsed-piston party.

All I want to ask the hon member is this: If he had to decide, is he going to support the AWB’s standpoint on these specific issues or is he going to support the CP’s standpoint? I shall return to certain standpoints which these hon gentlemen have adopted.

I merely want to tell these hon gentlemen that the NP considers the interests of the White worker to be a very high priority. I myself was a White worker. I myself was a manual labourer. I myself was member of a White trade union. When I speak about these things, I am not talking about illusions but of something which I have experienced in my soul.

The hon member for Ventersdorp quoted quite poetically. I want to tell him that the expression that the White mineworker is the salt of the earth is part of the NP’s terminology. We have often heard the hon member for Carletonville—I am coming back to him now—express this same sentiment at meetings. Our primary consideration with this legislation too has been the interests of the White workers interests. Totius had the well-known personality, Oom Gert, say the following about the grave-mounds of the Boer people and the mine dumps:

Now I want to say that the White mineworker is part of our culture and our soul, and with this legislation—I shall return to it in a moment—we are in fact working in the interests of the White mineworker and I shall demonstrate how in a moment.

But first, Sir, allow me to quote a few lines from the poem “Die Hoëveld” by Toon van den Heever, which we learnt when we were still small:

The standpoint and the feeling of the NP continues to be reflected in these fines. We are not, however, a one-cylinder party, a one-vision party which only sees either a Black man or a White man as if the two together do not exist.

You are the new integration party.

I shall come back to what the hon member said. The hon member for Losberg tried to create the impression that he did not believe in such a thing as economic integration; that such a thing did not exist. I want to tell him that there is only one thing in this House which is more ridiculous than the standpoint that economic integration does not exist and that is the ridiculous standpoint of the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis who said that there was no such thing as a Black South African.

He does not look upon these Black mineworkers as Black South Africans. That is easily the most ridiculous standpoint I have heard in this House in the eight years I have been associated with this House.

There are Blacks who were born in this country. Their parents were born here and their parents’ parents were born here. They have South African passports. They are policemen, they fight for their lives on the border; but they are not South Africans! Good heavens, it is probably the AWB coming to the surface when people make such ridiculous statements.

I merely want to say, with reference to the hon member for Carletonville, that I have known him for many years. We are good friends, fortunately not political friends. If I say that we have come a long way together, it is not entirely true because it is only a half truth—we have also clashed for much of that way.

I do not doubt his sincerity in the least and I have no doubt at all that the hon member for Carletonville wants to act on behalf of the interests of the White miner. But I am utterly astounded at the way in which he is trying to do it. He is being crude, other adjectives are unbalanced, shortsighted, without simply calling it plain stupid, if he thinks that one can look after the interests of the Whites suppressing and offending other groups. His premise is completely incorrect. He definitely creates the impression that one must at least not promote the interests of the Blacks but should rather prejudice their interests in order to promote those of the Whites. That is essentially incorrect. The whole premise is incorrect. They only see it from one point of view.

Surely this hon member knows a mine very well. A mine consists of Whites and Blacks, surface and underground workers, mine bosses and mineworkers. The mining industry is therefore a big organisation, a large living organism which surely does not consist of one small group only. The work done must be in the interests of everyone if everyone’s interests are to be promoted. The interests of every worker, White and Black, must be promoted in order to promote the interests of the whole. Let me give an example. A doctor cannot treat a patient’s heart with medication that is going to affect his liver. It is not going to work. He must prescribe medication for the heart which is going to affect the liver but which will preferably benefit the liver as well. Precisely the same applies here. If something benefits the whole organism, if the Black workers’ interests are promoted without prejudicing the Whites and if the Whites’ interests are promoted without prejudicing the Blacks, then one has a very good heart medicine. In this way the whole organism will benefit and not only the heart or the liver or the kidneys or whatever. The big mistake which the CP and the AWB make is that they only want to treat one organ, and think that that will restore the whole body to health.

I want to repeat that the hon member is probably sincere in his intention, but to imply and to react as though all White mineworkers—those with and those without blasting certificates or any workers for that matter—are inherently bad, inherently do not have it in them and are not good enough to hold their own, is an insult to the White worker. According to that party the Whites must have offensive and discriminating legislation to protect themselves against the competence and capabilities of Black workers. I want to repeat that that is an insult to the White workers. The White worker in South Africa, and especially the White mineworker, is inherently strong enough to hold his own without any need for legislation to shackle or confine other people. The standpoint that one must prevent other people from equipping themselves for a task, that their capabilities and talents must be suppressed so that White workers can hold their own, is an insult. The White workers have the ability to do so themselves.

What is the CP in fact saying today? The CP is telling the Whites that since they are too useless to hold their own against others through their own competence and capabilities in respect of others, they will do it for them by means of the CP-AWB coalition and by means of legislation which confines and oppresses others.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to minority rights again. When one speaks of constitutional development and of one man, one vote in a unitary state one is dealing with something completely distinct from a person’s capabilities. The legislation specifically uses the words “a competent person”. We are not dealing with numbers here solely as in the case of one man, one vote in a unitary state; we are dealing solely with capabilities. That is the point. That is why the White mineworker has nothing to fear because it is a question of competence and ability.

I want to tell the hon member who quoted so lavishly from what happened in 1950 and more recently in 1986, and from what Adv Strauss said in 1950, that today is 10 August 1987, not 6 December 1962 or whenever. Regardless of the circumstances which prevailed in 1952 or whenever, today’s circumstances are prevailing now and we have to govern accordingly. Today it is necessary for us to remove all discrimination from this legislation, because the White workers will hold their own.

†Sir, the hon member for Constantia referred to certain principles contained in the proposed new paragraph (nA) inserted by clause 4, viz:

*The hon member referred to it as if it were a kind of inverted, entrenched form of apartheid. Surely he knows it is not true. He will find the answer in that specific paragraph.

Mr Speaker, will the hon member take a question?

Mr Speaker, I just want to complete my sentence.

†This paragraph specifies:

That cuts both ways, towards the Whites, as well as the Blacks or any other colour. Race or colour, in other words, play no role whatsoever. That is the point.

*To now want to maintain that one is going to allow the one to cheat the other in an underhand way, is simply not true.

Order! Before the question is put, I want to know whether the hon member for Langlaagte referred to the hon member for Constantia in regard to a specific matter and said: “Does the hon member know it is not true?” Did I hear the hon member correctly?

I possibly did put it in that way, Sir. I withdraw it if that is the case.

Order! The hon member may not put it in that way.

Sir, I mean that I did not say …

Order! No, I do accept the withdrawal.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member why in the past the Chamber of Mines was allowed to regulate the issue of blasting certificates when these additional areas of qualification were not insisted on by the Government, and why suddenly we have the same people now apparently having become incompetent to issue the certificates so that the hon the Minister has to step in through legislation and set parameters he never set before?

Mr Speaker, nothing happens all of a sudden, as the hon member put it.

*The Government was engaged in negotiations with these people long ago. The Government did this in accordance with the Wiehahn Report, which stated what had to be done. These negotiations are continuing ad infinitum.

†It did not, therefore, happen all of a sudden; it was a matter of going on and on, and I think it is for the good of South African society and the mining industry.

*There must be certainty that this is our standpoint, this is how and we are introducing it.

†Nothing prevents the Mineworkers’ Union from continuing with their consultations with the mining bosses.

*I conclude with the following thought. We are demonstrating our utmost confidence in the White mineworker by telling him: “Mr White mineworker, the NP has complete confidence in you; the NP knows that you do not need this legislation to protect yourself and it knows without any doubt that you will hold your own”. It has been the policy of the NP since the time of Mr Vorster and even in Dr Verwoerd’s time to move away from discrimination; consequently we are removing that undesirable section out of this legislation as well.

No one can now tell the White mineworkers: “You are the sissies of the industry. It is only in the mines where this is still being done, and we are protecting you sissies”. We know, from our knowledge of and admiration for them, that they will hold their own. They do not need the CP, nor the AWB nor any other political flirtations in order to hold their own and maintain their position. We know they can do it. We are therefore abolishing the discrimination here because it is necessary that it be done.

Mr Speaker, a number of hon members, including the last speaker, the hon member for Langlaagte, have mentioned how long this Bill has been in the making. I wonder whether the hon members as a whole realize that this measure has been in the making for five years or more. We have now reached the stage where the Bill has reached the third House in which it has been debated—it has already been passed by the other two Houses of this Parliament—and within a matter of a few minutes it will also have been passed by this House.

If I may raise this matter at this stage I want to say that I did not know that the hon member for Langlaagte was a member of a labour union in the past. This is interesting, because what we have been debating here, has had to do with the workers of South Africa, and I am quite sure that that hon member is not aware of the fact that I too was a member of a labour union in my time. I was a member of the United Automobile Workers’ Union in another country, so there are hon members on this side of the House who have gone through a similar experience to that of the hon member for Carletonville—probably not as long an experience in the labour union movement but enough experience to understand what it is to work and to sweat.

As the hon member for Langlaagte said, when one looks at the history of the NP one sees that it has a very good record in protecting the interests of the White worker, so much so that when I sat in the benches on the other side of the House I used to say that it paid too much attention to the interests of the White workers only. That was why I sat in those benches at that time. Today, however, I am proud to be standing in these benches and to be piloting a Bill such as this through Parliament.

The hon member for Langlaagte said that the workers are the salt of the earth, and I agree with him. South Africa has been built on the sweat and the blood of our workers and we must never forget that. There is nothing that we can see in South Africa that has not been built by the sweat of our workers, whether they be Black or White. [Interjections.] Might I say that nothing will ever be achieved in life without the sweat of the worker at the bench or in the field or wherever it may be.

I am sure that all hon members—even hon members who sit in the CP benches—and especially the hon member for Carletonville because of his experience in the labour union movement, will agree that the sentiment towards the South African worker must apply as much to the Black worker as it applies to the White worker. That is what this Mines and Works Amendment Bill is all about. It is about removing discrimination and giving equal opportunity to all suitably qualified employees on the mines, regardless of the colour of their skins.

I want to thank the chief spokesman of the CP and the hon member for Stilfontein for their congratulations and good wishes which they expressed towards me. I am actually presenting my “nuwelingstoespraak” as a Deputy Minister this afternoon and in one way it is a pity that it had to be on this rather controversial amending Bill. I would have preferred something a little less controversial.

I want to thank the hon member for Carletonville and pay tribute to him as a labour union executive or leader. He has, might I say, an outstanding record as the General Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union.

I would never join the NP. [Interjections.]

Whether he will join the NP or not is not the point that I am making here. [Interjections.] What I am saying is that he did a remarkable job looking after the interests of his workers as a labour union leader. In the little I have had to do with him in the past few months and on the number of occasions that I have met with him and the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union, I found the hon member to be a straight talker and a reasonable person and I certainly hope that our future relationships will continue along those lines. [Interjections.]

I am now referring to the hon member’s activities as a union leader, but we must remember that today he is sitting in those benches as a politician and a member of the CP. There is therefore no doubt that we are going to differ many times in the future on some of the ideas that he puts forward here.

One thing he did was to make an appeal to the Government to think about the White South African worker, to make sure that the White worker is not going to be displaced. He says there are unemployed White mineworkers at present and he appealed to the Government to make sure that they were not displaced by Black workers.

However, that is one of the aspects that come to one’s notice in this Bill, namely that in the past there was no real effective mechanism whatsoever to determine whether there were shortages of White mineworkers on the mines or not. The Chamber of Mines often alleged that there was a shortage of White mineworkers, while the Mineworkers’ Union alleged that the contrary was the actual case. One of the purposes of this advisory committee that is being provided for in this Bill is to determine for the first time in South Africa the exact facts about this particular argument—whether White miners are being put out of work or not. I hope the hon member will look at it in the light that his union, as well as other bodies, such as the Chamber of Mines and, no doubt, the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, will be represented on this advisory committee. I sincerely hope that in due course we shall get the exact figures in this regard.

The hon member also said that the mineworker will defend his right to the blasting certificate. I was not quite sure as how to interpret that comment, and whether it was a threat or not. He referred to past difficult strikes, such as the strike of 1922.I would like to submit to the hon member that what we, the Chamber of Mines, the Mineworkers’ Union and other unions have to do, is to distinguish between the legitimate grievances of workers per se regarding their working conditions, as opposed to the grievances based on the principles of privilege, racialism and discrimination.

I believe that is what the approach of the Mineworkers’ Union and any other union in South Africa should be as regards problems. They should look at the legitimate grievances of the workers and guard this treasured asset of any union movement which is that of looking after the workers’ interests. I sincerely hope that when the hon member goes back to his former members he will try to inculcate this idea in their minds, namely that the Mineworkers’ Union is first and foremost a union of miners and that it is not a political organisation which will confuse political issues with workers’ interests, which I do not think will be in the interests of South Africa, especially in the light of the emergence of another union in the mining industry that has probably ten times the number of members that the hon member’s union has.

He also referred to the Act as it presently stands in terms of which the Minister may make regulations. He asked—and many other hon members raised this point—why it should not be that the Minister must make regulations. My answer to that is that the Government would have preferred the formation of an industrial council for the mining industry so that the industrial council itself could have determined and sorted out many of these problems. The Government does not really want to interfere with the activities of a particular industry. That is the reason why our labour legislation has been created in order to provide for an industrial council. The fact is that after two or three years of trying to bring the various parties together into an industrial council, this was found not to be possible, and the Government decided that the time had come to take some sort of action and therefore we brought this measure before Parliament which provides for the Minister to make regulations should he deem these to be in the best interests of all concerned.

The hon member for Stilfontein said that he rejected the complaint that Blacks would now be replacing Whites as a result of this measure. He said that a committee will decide in future as to who shall qualify for training as a blaster or for any other of the 13 job categories covered by the existing legislation. He also said that this will give the position of blasters a greater status than it has had in the past, and I agree with him. We are in a period of progress in South Africa where we find continuous efforts in almost every trade or profession to upgrade the standards and training of our workers etcetera, and I believe that this measure will in fact do so as far as mineworkers are concerned. He also mentioned the Wiehahn Commission’s Report and how long it has taken us to get to this stage. It has taken us five years, as I have said earlier on, so it was about time that we introduced the recommendations of that particular report.

He referred to the fears which mineworkers may have in regard to the provisions of this Bill before us. I agree with him. There are fears being expressed, however, that we should look at other industries that have had their labour regulations reformed over the years. Even in those other industries these fears were initially expressed by the workers. However, I think these fears have been proven to be unfounded in many other industries. In fact, many of those workers have gone on to have even better and more profitable jobs than they had in the past. I want to thank that hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Constantia raised the matter of the qualifications required to qualify for training as a blaster. I would just like to say to the hon member that the entrance requirements are not meant to discriminate but rather to promote the main purpose of the legislation, and that is the safety and health of the miners in their workplace. Therefore there must be a degree of language proficiency in order to be able to communicate. I know we can argue about which language it should be, but I am quite sure that the committee will take this into consideration in due course. Consideration has to be given to security, because one is after all dealing with explosives at a depth of 2 000 or 3 000 metres underground.

I think security and safety are of a very high priority and all these requirements are necessary to promote safety and health and have nothing whatsoever to do with any effort to exclude Blacks from future training. The emphasis as I have said is on safety and a healthy work environment and that is all that it really amounts to. I would therefore like the hon member to review his viewpoint and not spread the thought that this is discrimination by stealth or by reservation. I hope he will accept that in the spirit in which I have expressed it to him today. I must stress that we are sincere in removing this form of discrimination and I hope he will accept this as a fact.

The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis called this legislation “a sell-out of White mineworkers by leftwing radical elements in the NP”. I want to say to the hon member that he is talking utter and complete balderdash. It is utter and complete nonsense! [Interjections.]

Give me proof!

That hon member’s speech clearly indicated to hon members in this House that basically he has very deep-seated racial feelings. I want to say to him that what he should do before he makes another speech of that sort in this House is to read some of the Hansard reports of the House of Commons that go way back to the Reform Bills. He should read what some of the bigoted people in the past said about reform measures such as those that we are having here today. The hon member will remember that whatever he says in this House will be recorded for all time in the Hansard of this Parliament. Some day in the future people will read what that hon member said and they will wonder what sort of individual he was.

The same applies to the NP! [Interjections.]

What is at issue here is a principle. It is the principle that the hon member for Constantia raised. He said that what is at issue here is a principle, namely whether there will be equal opportunity in the workplace and the elimination of discrimination.

I say to the hon member for Constantia that that is the principle that is involved in this measure before the House. I say that we are removing discrimination from our statute books.

I do not believe that all the mineworkers who are members of the Mineworkers’ Union are racialistic at heart. They have fears for their jobs and their livelihood which are to be expected.

Mr Speaker, is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to take a question?

When I have finished this point I shall answer the hon member’s question.

I believe this fear will be dispelled by the application of the proposals contained in this Bill. Unfortunately, these fears are being exploited by others within the CP. I believe these people are really racialistic at heart and they are exploiting the workers for their own racialistic reasons. That is very regrettable. I shall now answer the hon member for Losberg’s question.

Mr Speaker, could I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he thinks that the NP’s policy in this regard was consistent prior to his joining that party?

That is an interesting question. Over the years the NP’s policies have changed and I make the prediction that the CP’s policies will change too over the years. [Interjections.] If their policies do not change, that party will have no future in the political system within South Africa. [Interjections.] What we are talking about here is the removal of discrimination.

*I understand that there is only one English-speaking member on that side of the House, and that is the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis. All the other hon members on that side of the House are Afrikaans-speaking. I want to tell those hon members that if they as Afrikaners do not understand this principle of discrimination that I am talking about, they have forgotten their own history. When my ancestors were in power in this Parliament…

Carry on, George, you are doing well!

Yes, thank you. I am addressing this House in Afrikaans for the first time. This is my maiden speech in Afrikaans.

Order! Under these circumstances hon members must give the hon the Deputy Minister a fair chance. I do not want to hear any interjections while the hon the Deputy Minister is speaking Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

I appreciate the sentiment expressed by those hon members. [Interjections.]

There was a time when my ancestors discriminated against the Afrikaners. They called Afrikaans a kitchen language. I now want to ask those Afrikaners how they really felt in those days.

†That is what we are talking about here today. There are Blacks who have been discriminated against and this is causing tremendous bitterness in this country. It has nothing to do with the rights of groups. It has to do with the rights of ordinary people to ordinary things that everybody should enjoy such as the opportunity to become a blaster in due course if that person has the basic qualifications. I say to those hon members that they must look to their own history and perhaps look at this matter in a little more depth.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys went into the history of discrimination and I think that we should all study it. I want to thank that hon member for having a little of the history which led up to this measure recorded in Hansard.

I do not think we should be ashamed of our history. When I look at the history of my own ancestors over the centuries I see that they did some terrible things, but I am not ashamed of that. Those were the things that people did in those days but they are not acceptable today. I thank the hon member for bringing this matter to the fore. He appealed to me to bring the regulations into force as soon as possible. I want to tell hon members who have raised this that I have the draft regulations here before me. We are just waiting for this measure to go through Parliament and then they will be published and in due course people will be able to comment on them. We will therefore try to speed that up as fast as possible.

I want now to come to the hon member for Ventersdorp. [Interjections.] He is a backbencher who has just come to this place. I want to tell hon members that I have never seen a new member in this Parliament with such a rude and arrogant attitude. [Interjections.] I have been a member of this Parliament for nearly 14 years and I want to make a prediction that that hon member will not have a distinguished career in this House. I say that because he is too arrogant to really get the feel of what Parliament is all about.

There speaks an old UP supporter! [Interjections.]

He appeals purely to the emotions and not to logic. He made the kind of rabble-rousing speech which he should rather confine to the hustings whence he comes. I am therefore not going to say anything more about his speech.

The hon member for Durban Central also asked whether the regulations will be published for comment. That will happen as soon as possible. However, in terms of the Interpretation Act the regulations must be tabled in Parliament within 14 days after promulgation thereof. I can give him the assurance that they will be tabled and, of course, that there will be an opportunity to debate them at that stage.

And the standing committee?

As far as the standing committee is concerned I was not party to that decision and I am afraid I will have to look into that matter. I believe the hon member said that an assurance had been given that they would be submitted to the standing committee. I certainly would not like to have the content of this Bill raised in the standing committee again. This is something that I will look into and then we will come back to him on this matter.

The hon member for Kuruman referred to the CP using the propaganda that the mining companies are making a profit of R1 000 per fine ounce of gold. I think he dealt with that matter very well. However, I would like to tell the hon members that I agree with the hon member for Kuruman that we would not have had the growth and development in this country if it had not been for money coming in from all parts of the world to help us develop our resources. If hon members do not understand that principle then perhaps none of them has ever tried to start his own business where he has had to seek capital from elsewhere in order to get things going. South Africa needs capital, and I believe that hon member…

One must learn the difference between “prys en wins”.

I think the hon members in those benches are speaking, as the hon member for Kuruman said, too much about socialistic concepts.

The hon member for Brakpan tried to make an extremely and purely political speech—as was to be expected—deviating somewhat from the actual measure before us. He said the NP referred to the CP as racists. He then questioned the NP’s policies and asked why there should be three Chambers, implying that the tricameral Parliament is based on racism. I think that hon member has perhaps been longer in this House than I have. If he has not been able to determine the difference between being a racist and being a pluralist—a pluralist who believes in the rights of groups, and the right of groups to certain control over their own affairs—then I believe he has been sitting here all those years doing practically nothing at all but probably just twiddling his thumbs. He has not been able to absorb into his thought processes the difference between these two philosophies.

He then went on to say that there were only 16 000 members of the Mineworkers’ Union as against 200 000 members of the National Union of Mineworkers, and that this measure was going to open the doors to the whole 200 000 members and so put the 16 000 out of work. Well, that is the sort of logic one gets from CP members. What he was in fact saying, was that all 200 000 Black miners were going to become blasters. We all know that that is…

That is nonsense!

I agree with the hon member, but then he should not have raised that point. [Interjections.] I do not believe that that was a worthwhile contribution.

The hon member for Springs gave very good reasons why mineworkers should not look upon this legislation as being a threat to them. One has to look at the history of the Afrikaners—at their growth and progress. I do not believe that the CP is giving the mineworkers in general and Afrikaners in particular the credit they deserve. I think the CP is making them out as being incapable of looking after their own affairs.

The hon member for Losberg is against this Bill because according to him it does not give the White mineworker the recognition he deserves. This is, therefore, another emotional effort on their part to stir up the emotions of the workers, especially the mineworkers, and I do not think it does that party credit, because what they are saying, is utter nonsense. I believe that in due course, when the measure before us is finally implemented, we will find that a lot of what has been said here was a lot of hot air…

And the protection of the Blacks in South Africa?

… and I am sure that in the course of time it will be proven that this has been to the benefit of South Africa and to the benefit of the mining industry in the whole.

In conclusion I just want to thank the hon members in these benches and also the PFP who have supported this measure.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Our country has been greatly blessed with extensive sources of energy and coal is by far the most important fossil fuel we are presently utilising. The large scale conversion of coal to electricity forms the backbone of the South African energy economy and we endeavour to produce synthetic liquid fuels in order to minimise the country’s dependence on imported crude oil. These facts bear witness to the Government’s strategy over the decades at making South Africa as self-sufficient as is practically possible in the field of the provision of energy. Despite decreasing international prices, during 1986 coal also earned R3,11 billion on the export market, where steam coal has to compete with crude oil and its derivative products. As a result of our extensive coal reserves and its vital importance to our economy it is absolutely essential that this commodity be utilised to our best possible advantage.

We therefore constantly need to improve our coal technology through progressive research and this has already been provided for in the Act. Research is an expensive exercise, and the Government has accepted this fact. Consequently, a contribution is presently made by the State which is at least equal to the total yield of the levies on coal sold by coal producers in accordance with the Act.

*The coal mining industry has made representations for the creation of a body which would advise the Government on its research needs, among other things. For legal technical reasons it is not possible to provide for such a body in this Bill, but separate legislation in this regard is being prepared.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the proceeds of the levy, which will remain a maximum of 3 cents per ton, to be paid into the Central Energy Fund, and for a similar contribution to be paid by the State to the CSIR.

Clause 3 provides for the utilisation of the levies and the State’s contribution according to conditions determined by the Minister, and by persons designated by the Minister, for the financing of, firstly, research, investigations and surveys in connection with coal and its uses, described as the general levy in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, and, secondly, research, investigations and surveys in connection with coal-mining and safety in and at coal mines, described as the special levy in the memorandum.

This clause also provides for the correct control and utilisation of these funds and for the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the research programme.

†While these provisions enable the Minister to accept sole responsibility for the utilisation of the funds, I want to assure the coal mining industry that its own research requirements as well as those of the CSIR will be taken into consideration when research priorities are being considered.

Clause 6 of the Bill makes provision for the delegation of authority by the Minister to the Director-General. The remaining clauses are to a large extent of a purely consequential nature.

The Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs consulted many bodies with regard to the proposed amendments. It was found that only the CSIR expressed concern about these provisions. This is understandable, as they affect the amounts of money received annually by the Council in terms of the Act as it presently stands.

Officials of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs held meetings with the CSIR with regard to the implementation of those amendments. My department and I accepted that the implementation of the provisions of this Bill might create problems for the CSIR, namely the disruption of current research projects, the closing of the CSIR’s financial year, the audit of annual statements, etc. For this reason the original Bill was re-submitted to the Standing Committees on Manpower and on Mineral and Energy Affairs for amendment of clause 9, in order to provide that the Coal Amendment Act, 1987, “shall come into operation on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Government Gazette”. This was done earlier this year and I wish to thank hon members sitting on the standing committee for dealing with the matter in such an expeditious manner.

My department will consult with the CSIR with regard to the implementation of the Act in order to minimise disruption. The CSIR is South Africa’s leading research institution in many fields, and this includes the field of coal research. For this reason my department and I want the Council to retain its position in this regard. However, in future the Council will have to apply to the Central Energy Fund for its research funds. I have no doubt that the Council, with its long-standing research record, will be successful in obtaining the necessary funds.

I am of the opinion that the proposed amendments will improve the Coal Act and that they will result in more satisfaction and peace of mind to the coal industry.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, the CP supports this amending Bill. A few good things have resulted from these amendments. Firstly the Minister concerned can impose a levy of three cents on all coalmines producing more than 10 000 tons per months. The other point is that these funds are going to be used for research relating to the use of coal. Furthermore it will expand coal mining and promote safety in coalmines. Besides that, the Bill also makes provision for the imposition of a fine of 5% for every month in arrears on coalmines that do not pay the levy regularly. We are of the opinion that this is a worthwhile amendment and therefore we support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the coal mining industry in South Africa has a very proud history. Today it is one of the main sources from which energy is generated. Our Sasols, the Secundas and a few other examples where coal plays a tremendous role in the generation of energy, come to mind. Besides that, coal is one of the main components in the manufacture of steel by our steel industry and other industries which are associated with this kind of manufacturing.

In this vein one could probably mention many other examples of the use of coal and importance of the coal mining industry in South Africa. One of the proud achievements which I have heard of recently, was the fact that our coal export industry, in competition with foreign exporters, has succeeded in conquering quite a few markets abroad which were previously dominated by counties such as Australia. That is something on which we as South Africans, in the particular circumstances of sanctions and boycotts against the country, should congratulate the coal mining industry in South Africa. It is indeed a great achievement.

The objections which were originally made to the Bill, have been eliminated in the present Bill. One has no doubt that the CSIR, as the research institute in South Africa, has made the greatest contribution to research in South Africa. That is why it is good to know that their objections have been accommodated because research has surely contributed to the great success which our coal mining industry has achieved in South Africa so far.

I want to thank the hon member for Carletonville for his support for this Bill. I also should like to express our support for the Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Speaker, as the hon member for Kuruman has indicated, and as we all know, coal is by far the most important fossil fuel for South Africa’s energy requirements. Its conversion to electricity is the backbone of the South African economy and it has also played a very important part in assisting South Africa in reducing its dependence on imported crude oil insofar as it is used in the development of our synthetic liquid fuels.

Underlying the successful use of coal, is adequate and timeous research well in advance, and it is this aspect of our coal resources which this amending Bill addresses. The country’s research needs in respect of the coal industry are really divided into two sections.

On the one hand there are the short-term practical needs of the coalmining industry like the practical requirements of making the extraction of coal more efficient and the mining process safer for the workers. There are a range of projects that require practical research for the industry. On the other hand the country as a whole has a need for strategic and long-term research. There is often a tension between the short-term practical requirements on the one hand and these long-term strategic requirements.

The CSIR has made an invaluable contribution, particularly to the long-term strategic research needs, but in my opinion there has been a tension and a concern on the part of the industry itself—the practical men at the coal-face—that they have not been getting a fair bite of the research cherry.

This amending Bill makes a positive contribution to the extent that it addresses that problem by giving the discretion for allocating research funds to the Central Energy Fund and will hopefully provide a mechanism for striking an appropriate balance between these two competing requirements. We understand the concerns of the CSIR that the changes will give rise to disruption of their programmes, but we welcome the indication that the hon the Minister has given that maximum effort will be made by way of consultation to minimise the disruption that may arise and that the CSIR’s problems and the country’s needs can be resolved in a good spirit.

On that basis we believe it is a positive Bill and we support it.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the three hon members who spoke for supporting this measure. I agree with what the hon member for Constantia had to say in regard to the present need for greater research work to be done into the actual practical job of mining coal, not just to improve mining methods in the extraction, but also to investigate ways and means of how we can recover the greatest percentage from our coal resources. I am sure the hon member realises that in some of our older mines we have left an awful lot of coal in the mines to act as columns to hold up the mine roof. New techniques are now being evolved which will enable us to extract a greater percentage of the total resource. It is for that sort of research that a portion of these funds will be used. The other funds will of course be used to improve the safety measures within coal mines. I am sure that hon members are aware of the fact that coalmining is a rather dangerous occupation because of gases leaking etcetera. This money is also going into further research into safety measures.

With those few words I thank hon members for their participation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Following the recommendations of the Rörich Committee of Inquiry into the Sugar Industry an amended cane transport system was introduced with effect from 1 April 1984 in terms of which cane growers themselves are responsible for the full cost of transporting their cane to the sugar-mills. Growers and millers who suffered financial losses as a result of the amended cane transport arrangements were, however, compensated on a capitalised basis by those who gained financially under the new system.

The Sugar Act, 1978, and the Sugar Industry Agreement, which is in fact a set of regulations published in the Government Gazette in terms of the Act, consequently had to be amended during 1984 to make provision for the amended cane transport system where-after the relevant rules, known as the Cane Transport Rules were issued on 29 March 1984 and made known in writing to interested parties for commencement on 1 April 1984. In view of the limited time available they could not be published in the Government Gazette. Such publication was also not considered necessary in view of the fact that the rules were of a local nature.

†However, a dispute arose in connection the calculation of compensation. As a result legal opinion was obtained which indicated that uncertainty existed as to the validity of the Cane Transport Rules. In fact, further study of the legal opinion obtained revealed that the rules may indeed be invalid in view of the fact that they were not published in the Government Gazette and that the Sugar Act, 1978, contains no specific powers for subdelegation in terms of which the Minister could have granted authority to the South African Sugar Association to make such rules. Hon members will appreciate that it is impossible at this stage to undo all transactions from the date the Cane Transport Rules became effective. For the sake of orderliness in the sugar industry and in order to obviate possible legal action in regard to the validity of the rules, it is necessary to create certainty in law, which is also the object of the Amendment Bill. I now wish to draw hon members’ attention to the most important aspects thereof.

The provisions of subparagraph (ii) of section 4(1)(b) the Sugar Act, 1978, regarding the Minister’s powers to amend the Sugar Industry Agreement with retrospective effect, have in practice appeared to be too restrictive and have also given rise to problems of interpretation. In terms of clause 1(1)(a) the Minister’s powers in this regard are extended so that he may now effect amendments, retrospective to any date, after consultation with the South African Sugar Association. The new subparagraph at the same time eliminates possible interpretation problems.

Clause 1(1)(b) in turn grants specific powers to the Minister to authorise the South African Sugar Association to make subsidiary measures, such as the Cane Transport Rules to which I have referred, in terms of the Sugar Industry Agreement and to publish such measures in the Government Gazette or, where expedient, to make them known in any other manner. When necessary such measures may, with the approval of the Minister, also be made with retrospective effect. Subsection (2) validates all other existing rules and measures, apart from the Cane Transport Rules, made in terms of the Sugar Industry Agreement. It is, therefore, intended as a safety measure to create certainty in law.

In order to remove all doubt as to the validity of the existing Cane Transport Rules and to create the necessary legal certainty in this regard, subsection (3) validates these rules with retrospective effect to 1 April 1984, ie the date of commencement thereof. It is further provided that the rules shall lapse after the expiry of a period of 12 months as from the date of coming into operation of the Sugar Amendment Act. It is the intention, however, to substitute corresponding new rules for the Cane Transport Rules before the expiration of the aforementioned 12 months.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, the CP supports this legislation. We just want to touch on one or two aspects in connection with it. It seems unreasonable to me that where certain regulations in terms of section 4(2)(i)(bb)—clause 1(b) makes provision for this—are published, there is a choice of either publishing them in the Gazette or through other channels. However, if they cannot be announced in another way, they nonetheless affect the farmers on whom they have a bearing. It seems to me unfair that farmers who are not aware of these regulations that have been issued are affected negatively as a result of the fact that that have not been published in the Gazette. I hope that I have put my case clearly to the hon the Deputy Minister.

Secondly, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the cane transport rules, which were referred to in the Bill, are given a statutory definition elsewhere.

I would like to know whether these regulations or rules, the cane transport rules, which are referred to in this Bill, are defined statutorily anywhere else than in this particular legislation—whether they are perhaps defined in the regulations. How are interpreters to know what these rules are if they are not defined?

Apart from what I have just said, it seems as if there are no problems regarding the legislation. We accept the explanations as set out in the explanatory memorandum. It is just a pity that the problem arose in the first place due to the fact that the original cane transport rules were not proclaimed in the Gazette. The CP nonetheless supports the Bill with these few words.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, I should like to thank the hon member for Brakpan for supporting this measure. I am certain the hon the Deputy Minister will deal with the two technical aspects which the hon member raised.

†Although this is not a contentious measure, and as it is intended to obviate possible legal problems as well as being necessary to ensure orderliness in respect of an important aspect of the sugar industry—and although the hon the Deputy Minister dealt fairly extensively with the background in his Second Reading speech—I do think it is appropriate to bring just a few facts to the attention of this House.

This I hope will emphasize the importance of this measure and give an indication of its significance.

The sugar industry is one of the most efficient industries of its nature in the world. In terms of the cost of its production it is served by some of the most sophisticated research industries that we have in this country. As a matter of interest I may mention that recently this industry embraced 20 000 additional growers, the majority of whom are peasant farmers. It therefore participates in arguably one of the most successful smallholder agricultural developments in Africa. It is also a labour intensive industry that requires less than R8 000 capital for every additional job created. I think this is of great significance at a time when unemployment is assuming alarming proportions.

As far as the question of cane transport is concerned which is dealt with in this Bill, excellent improvements have been achieved by the cane-growing section of the industry over the past four years. Cane transport just happens to represent one of the largest single cost items.

I would like to record that since the individual grower has been made responsible for the transport of cane as per this Bill, savings in transport costs have risen to R37 million per annum. Accumulated savings since and the introduction of the recommendations of the Rörich Committee of Inquiry into the Sugar Industry in 1984 now stand at over R78 million and will rise to about R126 million at the end of the current year. Productivity improvements by the sugar industry—specifically in the growing section—are invaluable in reducing the upward pressure on the domestic sugar price, and I think this is something which we should all welcome.

Without doubt the sugar industry can be one of the most dynamic and important industries in our country. There are compelling political and socio-economic reasons for expanding this industry even further in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, you would quite correctly rule me out of order if I were to use this opportunity to motivate an appeal for the industrial production of ethanol or even proclaim its merits as an oil extender and as an octane enhancer by way of expanding this industry. So I will resist the temptation except to record that there are already well over 20 million cars operating on ethanol blends around the world.

I conclude my support for this Bill by quoting the Vice President of the USA, Mr George Bush, who recently endorsed the advantages of ethanol fuel to the environment and the economy in the following words: “Ethanol is a good idea whose time has come. ”

I wholeheartedly agree also in respect of the South African situation and I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the PFP will be supporting this Bill. We see it really as a technicality. The need has arisen as a result of what appears to be a technical oversight in not publishing the cane transport rules at the time. The possibility has arisen as a result of that technical oversight that many agreements made in terms of those rules could be challenged in a court of law. It would clearly be impossible to have all the transactions—running to millions of rand—undone by this technical oversight. We are satisfied that it is necessary to avoid that sort of chaos developing by supporting this Bill.

The one reservation which we expressed in the standing committee was the possibility that the retrospectivity of this Bill might disadvantage certain persons or bodies. We received the assurance from both the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials concerned that no one is being disadvantaged here. It is merely providing the legal certainty to underpin the agreement which has already been made and has already been operating for many years to the satisfaction of all concerned. On that basis we support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I again thank hon members for supporting this Bill. As the hon member for Constantia has said, there was this technical oversight of not publishing the Cane Transport Rules. As a result of this there was a threat that these rules would be challenged in a court of law. However, I would like to point out that the South African Sugar Association as such only consists of two members. The first is the South African Cane Growers’ Association to which every cane grower belongs through his own farmers’ association. The other member is the South African Sugar Millers’ Association to which every sugar milling company has to belong. This partnership has worked exceedingly well over the past 51 years, ever since 1936.

As far as this measure is concerned, there was unanimity on the part of all concerned on the proposals that are contained herein. The parties who in the first instance felt that they had not been treated quite correctly, have had their problems resolved and they are happy with this as well. If this Bill is not agreed to there is a possibility that some legal action may be taken sometime in the future. It is for this reason that this Bill has been drafted in such a manner that one does not only have a belt around one’s waist but also two sets of braces to make sure that it is absolutely free of any loopholes. It is for that reason that I said on the standing committee that all the parties concerned were completely happy with this. The hon member therefore need not fear in that regard.

The hon member for Umhlanga mentioned that the Cane Transport Rules had saved millions of rand in costs, and this is quite true. He actually mentioned the figures. It is surprising what benefits accrue when one places the responsibility for costs upon the primary producer as was the case here. The farmer suddenly was faced with the cost of transporting his sugar cane to the mill. Previously this had been done by the miller and it developed into a kind of cost plus operation. As we know, when there is a cost-plus operation costs tend to spiral. I forget the exact figure that the hon member mentioned, but more than a hundred million rand has been saved since the implementation of this arrangement.

This is absolutely essential at the present time when South Africa is having to compete on the world markets against other sugar-producing countries that are dumping their surplus sugar on the world market—sugar which is being heavily subsidised by their governments. I refer here especially to the European Common Market area. The new Cane Transport Rules resulted in a lowering of production costs and I think this is to the benefit of not only the sugar industry, but also of the South African consumer as well.

As far as the hon member for Brakpan is concerned, I want to assure him that the Cane Transport Rules form part of the regulations which are drawn up by the Minister and that these rules, in normal circumstances, are published in the Gazette. So I do not think he need have any fear there. As far as paragraph (i)(bb) inserted by clause 1(b) is concerned, as I said earlier on this clause was put in to add braces to belts, as it were, to make sure that every possible loophole was closed. The two parties concerned here, the millers and the growers and all their representatives, were absolutely happy with this. I hope that answers his question, but perhaps at a later stage …

My problem is that, for some reason or another, a rule or a proclamation may not be published in the Gazette. As these rules affect certain farmers I want to ask how they are going to know that they are affected if it is not published in the Gazette? That is my problem.

I will have to go into this in detail, and I promise the hon member that I will come back to him in this regard to see whether I can accommodate him and resolve his problem. I will look into this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.