laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Appropriation Bill of the Administration: House of Assembly [No 70— 85(HA)]—(Minister of the Budget).
2. (2) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to conclude the debate by thanking the hon member for Helderkruin, the hon member for Randburg, the hon member for Klip River and the hon member for Bellville for the contributions they made.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon the Minister whether it is still his standpoint at the moment—as he expressed it on 9 July last year—that the Government does not have a mandate also to accommodate Black people in any institution of government. Will he please reply to me on this?

You see, Sir, the question put by the hon member implies something that I did not say. We were conducting a debate on …

Local government affairs.

But please just give me a chance! I am replying to the hon member’s question. I should be obliged if he would just show me the courtesy of listening to my reply. The debate that took place on 9 July last year was about the central system of government. The hon member surely knows that. The hon members know, too, that that is the debate which was at issue up to that date. However since we are talking now and asking what mandate I have or do not have, I want to ask the hon member for Pietersburg with what mandate he came to this Parliament. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon member whether he came here on the basis of his policy of a White, an Asian or a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, a remarkable thing is developing in this Parliament. It is that only certain people have a mandate: other people do not have one. [Interjections.] It is only expected of certain people to respect their mandates; others can destroy them. [Interjections.]

Order!

Neither the hon member for Pietersburg nor any of the people around him came to this Parliament initially on the strength of the HNP’s policy. They adopted the policy of the HNP after they had come here. [Interjections.] Therefore they are the last people to come and conduct a debate with me about mandates and terms of reference. [Interjections.]

Why do you not answer the question?

But I am in the process of answering the question asked by the hon member for Pietersburg! The hon member for Pietersburg accepted that Black local authorities would have to develop within the borders of the Republic of South Africa.

Rather tell us what you accepted! [Interjections.]

Wait! Just give me a chance now!

Goodness, you are really thin-skinned!

Order!

Mr Chairman, I really ask that hon members must now give me an opportunity to reply to the debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

In the first instance the hon member for Pietersburg accepted the presence of Black people on a permanent basis outside the national states and outside the independent states.

I did not accept it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member states that he did not accept it. Then I want to know from him when he— while he was still in the National Party—set himself the target of debating the repeal of section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act, 1945. [Interjections.]

You were not even a member of that study group, man. Go and ask Piet Koornhof. [Interjections.]

The fact is that the hon member for Pietersburg and all the hon members of the CP accepted section 10 of the Urban Areas Act as part of their policy. [Interjections.] No, that is not my interpretation. [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon hon members to make fewer interjections. I shall be strict in this regard. We cannot permit the hon the Minister’s speech to be frustrated by constant interruptions when he wants to make his speech. I request hon members please to bear that in mind. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon CP members accepted that Black people outside the national states were and are present on a permanent basis. [Interjections.] The hon member for Lichtenburg now seeks to intimate that they did not accept that. [Interjections.] He says that they did not accept that. In other words, the hon member for Lichtenburg is now telling me that he sat in a Cabinet and did not accept the standpoints which were the standpoints of the other members of the Cabinet and of the Government. In that case I wish to say to him that he had better be the judge of the political ethics and morality of such conduct and of such a standpoint. [Interjections.] However, I wish to proceed with my argument. The hon member for Lichtenburg who is sitting at the front there, and who is now setting the tone as far as standpoints are concerned, accepted in 1982 that Black local authorities would be established. Did the hon member accept that or not?

Yes.

Does the hon member still accept that today?

Yes.

Then how on earth is one to reconcile these two things? [Interjections.] I find it interesting that the hon member still accepts that. He therefore accepts Black local authorities for Black people. That is really very interesting. Does the hon member for Lichtenburg also accept that there are overlapping interests among the Black local authorities and the local authorities for Whites, Brown and Asian when they are situated alongside one another?

We handle it differently.

The hon member for Lichtenburg says that he accepts it, but that they handle it differently. I should now like to hear how they handle it, because this is important.

First answer the question.

I have the questions before me, and I am going to reply to all of them. I find it very interesting that the hon member for Lichtenburg states that he accepts Black local authorities; that is part of the CP policy. He also accepts that there are indeed overlapping interests among the local authorities of the various population groups. Accordingly he accepts that institutions must be established capable of dealing with those overlapping interests.

No, they can speak to one another.

It is interesting that the hon member for De Aar states that they can speak to one another. Of course they can speak to one another! [Interjections.]

I now wish to turn to the hon member for Rissik and I want to speak to him in a friendly way. I want to ask him whether his party still accepts separate local authorities for White, Brown and Asian in the eventual White homeland that his party advocates. [Interjections.] Come now, I am waiting for an answer.

Mr Chairman, may I answer the hon the Minister’s question? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik need only state whether he accepts that or not. [Interjections.] Do hon members know why the hon member does not wish to reply?

Chris, surely I have been in the game longer than that! [Interjections.]

I concede that. I should have liked to address another remark to the hon member but it would not have been parliamentary and the hon member will understand that.

However there is a specific reason for that because after all, the hon member made an interjection in the debate; he said:

I have just said that there is an election in 1989.

Well, surely the hon member will tell us then what the policy is.

We have been propagating it consistently.

Very well, the hon member states that they are propagating it consistently. Let us see whether that is true. Is it not a fact that the hon members of the CP appointed a committee to investigate a policy on local authorities and to make recommendations in this regard? We are concerned here with facts. Surely the hon member for Pietersburg knows that.

The basis of the hon members’ ideas, which have not yet been formulated and for which I have to wait until 1989, is that they no longer accept autonomous local authorities for Black, Brown and Asian in their new homeland concept.

That is not true.

I am pleased that the hon member states that that is not true. He is helping me now, and I thank him for doing so. Let us take a further look at this. [Interjections.] I shall give the answer; I must just be given a chance. Surely they know that since that committee came up with its report there has been a debate within their ranks as to what the future policy is to be with regard to systems of local government that they support. Surely the hon member cannot tell me that that is not true. The silence opposite confirms the fact.

I further contend that what appears in that document as submitted, that policy document which they do not want revealed, entails that they no longer stand by the policy they endorsed up to 1982 when they were still members of the NP.

No.

The hon member can prove me right or wrong. He states that it is not true, and if I am wrong I apologize, but then they must table that document so that we can see what it contains. [Interjections.] If they table it, we can debate it. After all, in all fairness, we are entitled to ask the hon members opposite, if they do not endorse our standpoint—they are fully entitled not to endorse it—to tell us what standpoint they endorse. Why is there such a cloak of secrecy surrounding that document relating to the policies of the CP? The hon member might as well tell me whether they still support the standpoints they endorsed up to 1982. That is all I ask, and surely it is a reasonable request.

The hon member for Kuruman is not present at the moment, but what does he do? He tells us that we have swallowed the PFP all of a sudden.

Yes, you have swallowed it whole.

Or else they have swallowed you.

The fact remains that the hon member himself is moving so far away from the NP that nothing remains of their political identity, that identity which resulted in their failure to agree with the HNP. Indeed, the only difference is that the HNP does it more effectively and efficiently than these hon members themselves do it.

I wish to say to the hon members, these innocent democrats and patriots, that they do not have the courage to make their policy public. The reason for that is not only that it is a departure from their standpoints of 1982, but also that a dispute has broken out in their ranks. That dispute arose for a specific reason, viz that the standpoints of the practising members of the CP in systems of local government, who deal with the realities, are different to those propounded in terms of the theory. I say this in all fairness: Surely the hon members are aware of the guidelines announced by the then Prime Minister in 1982 with regard to local government. Is that not true? Surely the hon members were also aware that since 1982 various technical investigations have been carried out with reference to the broad guidelines, while reports have been published. The hon members are also aware that some of their own members in local government have participated in those investigations and adopted standpoints in those investigations. What they also know is that many of those members differ fundamentally with them as regards their policy on local government systems. Many of these aspects dealt with by the investigation were given effect to in legislation. This is legislation that the hon members used to endorse. In all fairness I want to say that if we are to debate the subject properly we must do so on the basis of differing standpoints. What I ask, in all fairness, is that if the hon members reject my proposals they must provide me with alternatives.

We shall do so.

That is very interesting. The hon member for Lichtenburg has put his foot in it again. He says that he will do so. However, we are now debating laws which make it a requirement that the hon members should already have done so. They were unable to do so. The reason is once again that their present policy differs so drastically from their standpoint in the past that they are unable to do so.

The conflict with regard to policy is such a contentious issue in their own party, particularly among those who have no knowledge of the system, that there is a total difference of opinion among them and those who are within the system.

I wish to reply to the hon member. Before the election in Primrose the NP stated repeatedly that its standpoint was that Black local governments would have to be represented in the co-ordinating council. He went on to say that the Black local authorities would be included in the regional services councils. That was before Primrose. That was said even then; it was not said here now as the hon member contends.

Did you say that in your pamphlets in Primrose?

The State President said it at a public meeting. It is no secret.

We went on to say that the Black communities could develop to the optimum extent. We said that here, and we added that they could liaise with the South African Government at the executive level. This would be done on the same basis as that on which the leaders of the independent states and the self-governing national states do so.

I wish to repeat today what I said yesterday. In all seriousness, how on earth can we propound philosophies which ignore the fact that there are ten million Black people in our midst and that those Black people form part of our economic systems? How can we fail to accept that there is not a single province in which the Whites are in the majority? How can we fail to accept that there is not a single development region with a White majority? How can we argue as though we are unable to perceive the interlinking of interests?

All we say—and we have this in common with the hon members who endorse partition—is that the concept of the sharing out of land has various implications. It is a territory for an independent state. It is a territory for a self-governing state. It is an area of jurisdiction for a local authority, defined on the basis of the group. It is an area of jurisdiction for regional services councils, defined on the basis of the group.

After all, the final answer is not merely one of partition. The hon members know as well as I do that we agree that once we had done all that, there would have to be institutions to deal with overlapping interests. We did of course say—this is part of the State President’s opening address—that Black communities could not be dealt with in the same way as the Whites, Coloureds and Asians in the parliamentary and executive spheres. In the course of that speech he said that structures would have to be developed for them to give them the maximum autonomy in the cities as well. Once that has been done, there are still common interests between them and us. We are negotiating as to the form this may assume. However, it will not take the form of another chamber of Parliament. Does the hon member for Pietersburg not understand that when we negotiate in the Multilateral Development Council, we do so as states? When we negotiate with the leaders of national states we do so with people with specific self-governing institutions.

The hon member for Kuruman asks whether I do not think it is unjust that Black people serve on the co-ordinating council to furnish advice, but do not sit here where the laws are made. That is an interesting question because it entails a certain implication. The implication is that the hon member for Kuruman thinks that it is unjust that…

No, no.

Give me a chance. He thinks it is unjust to have a co-ordinating council in which Black people serve, whereas they do not have a seat where the legislation is made. One cannot draw any other inference from his question. What does he go on to say? He says that he was in favour of the multiracial council on environmental conservation because their council would report to a White Government and a White Parliament. What kind of logic do we have here? *

The hon member Prof Olivier states that they had thought that the council would be a non-political one, but he notes that the council concerns itself with what may be party-political facets. As an example of this he refers to the motion concerning the delimitation board for the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities. Surely the hon member and I agreed that there would be separate Black local authorities. Surely that has a practical political implication because this is a level of government. He and I accepted that in the light of circumstances in the country. Representatives serving on the council surely come from the institutions of the various groups in their systems of local government. In other words, the composition of the council reflects the diversity of the institutions established on a group basis. All we are doing now is to give representation, on a group basis, to the Black local government systems which were established in terms of legislation that the hon member and I agreed on.

Finally, no terms of reference were given to the committee reporting on delimitation to which the hon member referred, except to investigate the criteria. That committee stated of its own accord that since the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities were related to the delimitation of group areas they would submit for consideration that a delimitation board be established which would perform both functions. That recommendation was referred by the Government to the President’s Council so that they could consider it in conjunction with the Strydom report.

†I want to conclude by referring to what was said by the hon member for Umbilo. His main objection was that the council was too big. I concede that. However, I should like to suggest that we discuss who should be removed from the council, because that is very important. Who should be removed? The Administrators, or rather, the MECs in charge of local government; the Ministers in charge of local government; the representatives of the organizations for local government? Let me say this quite frankly. The hon member will see that in the past year the council itself has in fact had three meetings while the Action Committee which is in effect the executive of the council had seven meetings. A large proportion of the work is being done by committees of the council and also by the Action Committee. So we are trying to reduce expenditure in this regard as much as possible.

Question put,

Mr Chairman, before I resume my reply to the hon member for Constantia, I should like to offer my apologies to the hon member for Edenvale and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for having to debate the Advocate-General’s report again, because I think it must cause them a lot of embarrassment. Unfortunately, the hon member for Constantia did not leave me any alternative.

Sir. I am much calmer than I was two days ago. I think I must for the record repeat my question, namely whether the matter we are debating at the moment was not tailored and whether the privilege hon members enjoy in the House was not abused for unidentified ulterior motives. I must just repeat that for purposes of the record.

The hon member for Constantia asked a lot of questions—about eight of them—and I in turn must ask why the hon member did not submit his questions to the Advocate-General at the time. I had a look at the speech he delivered in the standing committee on 4 May 1984. In that speech he posed almost the identical questions. The question remains: Why did the hon member not put his questions, his problems or his doubts to the Advocate-General at the time? The Prime Minister at the time and I myself have on various occasions requested anybody with any additional information to submit it to the Advocate-General. I think that the answer is very simply that the hon member for Constantia did not have the courage of his convictions to put these things to the Advocate-General because they contained nothing new. Everything he asked was based on what was in that anonymous report which was submitted to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and, through the Prime Minister, to the Advocate-General.

There is, however, one question I think I must pose, and that is whether the hon member for Constantia accepts the findings of the Advocate-General. I want to make the suggestion that the hon member does not accept the findings of the Advocate-General. Why do I say that? If one analyses the speech he made a few days ago, one finds that he again referred to contract 2.2.0.2, which was one of those contracts on which the accusations were based. That was one of the numerous contracts investigated by the Advocate-General, and the Advocate-General’s findings were based on his investigation of those contracts. That is why I maintain that the hon member for Constantia does not accept the Advocate-General’s findings. That is why he put those questions of his.

*I say he did not accept the recommendation of the Advocate-General and actually rejected it before the Advocate-General’s report was made known. I refer to what he said during the debate on the standing committee, col 309(S), namely:

He is referring now to the anonymous document:

He made this statement before the Advocate-General’s decision was made known. Therefore, he had already passed judgment before the time.

I think that we must now close off this part of the history. However, I want to make a final statement in respect of the speech of the hon member. He wants to know whether I will ask the new directorate in terms of this Bill to go into the financial history of this organization. I am not going to waste the time of important people—I hope to be able to appoint important people, people of integrity—by having them go back into the history of the matter in regard to which the Advocate-General has already given his decision. These people will deal with the future of the CEF and not with the past. Therefore, I am not prepared to ask them to dig into the past. [Interjections.] On that note I want to leave the hon member at that.

It is a pity that the hon member had no argument to advance. He did say that he supported the legislation but it is hollow support. One does not support legislation one moment in order simply the next moment to shoot it down with all the ammunition at one’s disposal in order to see whether one cannot plant a tiny seed of doubt in respect of this future company of the CEF. That is the only aim the hon member has: He wants the public outside to think that although there will be a new organization and new legislation, there will still be a little doubt created because the Minister refuses for the sake of argument to allow people to dig into the past of this organization.

I think at this stage I must try to eliminate some of the unclarity that apparently still prevails among many hon members. It is very clear to me that these people do not know what it is all about. I am referring here specifically now to the hon member for Constantia and to a limited extent to the hon member for Edenvale. I am used to the hon member for Edenvale usually knowing what it is all about. He usually makes sure of his facts. That is how we have learnt to know him. He usually makes sure that when he says something it is correct and that he has the facts at his disposal. [Interjections.] The question has been asked why it is possible now to get the Auditor-General involved in the auditing of the accounts and why I said in my reply last year that the SOF of last year was a private company and that access to its books was impossible. It is very easy indeed. All we have to do is look at the composition of the whole organization as it is at present. The shares of the SFF Association are now held by the IDC, and the shares of SOF are held by the SFF Association. The hon member for Edenvale is aware of this and therefore he nods his head. However, it appears to me as though the hon member for Constantia does not know this. [Interjections.] The SOF has never had anything to do with the purchase of crude oil in South Africa. This company was established for one purpose only and that was to canalize the money coming in from the petrol levy through the SOF for the development of Sasol II and III. That is how simple it is. In the old dispensation SOF and SFF were therefore private companies the shareholding of each of which was held by the IDC and the SFF Association separately. Therefore, we had no say in that regard.

In the new dispensation the shareholding of SOF is held entirely by the State. Therefore, we are turning the picture around completely. The shares in the SFF will be held by the SOF. Where in the past the Equalization Fund was dealt with by the SFF it will now be handled by the CEF. That is what the new legislation makes provision for. It is very clear to me that the hon member for Edenvale understands this very well, and I am pleased about that.

†I do not want to deny the hon member for Edenvale his claim that he was the father of this Bill. I do not want to deny him that pleasure but I should like him to grant me a small part of it. If one looks at my speeches of the past, I think it will be clear that after taking over this portfolio, in one of my first speeches on this subject in Parliament, I specifically said that I would look at the restructuring and also at the accountability of the new setup. I should like, therefore, to claim something for myself, but will grant him the balance.

I think I have replied to most of the issues raised by the hon member for Edenvale and should like to thank him for the kind words addressed to me. He also referred to clause 4 which introduces a completely new approach to the authority of the Auditor-General with regard to secret funds. I agree with the hon member. I support this approach. It is my department’s brainchild and I want to thank them very much for bringing it about. However, I want to raise one point. If we do not change the Petroleum Products Act this will not be possible. In accordance with the Petroleum Products Act I control what is to be disclosed and what not. The amendments to that Act that we have proposed in the proposed Bill will change the situation. It will not be written into the Act. I will decide what information on the sources, the agents etc should not be disclosed, and the rest can be published. Therefore, I think it is of vital importance that if we want to accept clause 4, and if in regard to the funds of the SEF we really want to give that authority as it is envisaged in clause 4, we will have to change that Act to make it possible for the Auditor-General to do that. Otherwise he will in any case have to come to me and ask for authority to publish, which authority I may then refuse or grant. I do hope, therefore, that I will have hon members’ support when we introduce that Bill.

There is one other aspect that I feel we should touch on briefly, and that is the question of whether the supply situation of crude oil to South Africa has changed since 1979. I think the hon member for Edenvale raised this point.

*I do not believe that it has changed. I accept the fact that more crude oil is available on the market. I think the hon member is quite right when he says that oil is more freely available on the market.

And more cheaply!

And more cheaply, quite correct. I have no problem in that regard. As the hon member has just made that interjection, I want to state categorically that the SFF is at the moment buying the cheapest oil in the world. If he wants to know why I say this, all he has to do is come and have a cup of tea with me in my office—he has never been in my office—and then I will be able to show him what we are doing in order to be able to buy the cheapest oil in the world.

I want to make the statement that the position in respect of the obtaining of oil by South Africa has not changed at all since 1979. To tell the truth, it has deteriorated. It has deteriorated because since 1979 two Western countries have made laws prohibiting the sale of oil to South Africa. They have made it a punishable offence, and the position has therefore deteriorated as a result.

In order to give the House an indication in regard to how people who offer oil to us consider the situation, I can give the House dozens of quotations. The standard practice is that we only purchase oil if the country where the oil is produced knows that the oil is coming here. I am speaking now of firsthand information. They know that the oil is coming here, but what is their prime requirement? They say: The moment you say that I have supplied you with oil, I will stop doing so. This also holds good for agents.

I want now to make three quotations for the House. Two of them come from offers I received from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central from the ranks of hon members opposite. [Interjections.] The one offer reads as follows:

I am not going to disclose the name of the company:

That is the requirement, otherwise they do not want to sell oil to us. That was the first offer that was made to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I come now to the second offer:

That is how simple it is, Sir. These people will supply oil to South Africa but they refuse to have their names made known.

I want now to quote from an offer that we received from what is probably one of the largest oil broker undertakings in the world.

Namely?

That hon member should rather be quiet. He only irritates me. This is one of the largest suppliers in the world, and the offer reads, inter alia:

When one reads the offer further, one sees that there is only one reason for this: They established the company in Switzerland specifically in order to distance themselves from South Africa so that nobody should know that they were supplying this country with oil.

I have mentioned these three examples in order to prove to the hon member for Edenvale that the situation in respect of the supply of oil to South Africa has not changed at all since 1979. In fact, it has deteriorated. We are receiving more offers because the oil is running out of the oil suppliers’ ears, and they do not know what to do with it. However, every offer contains the clause: We will give you oil but nobody must know about it.

Mr Chairman, there is a last remark that I want to make in this connection.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question. Would he say that one of the conditions of sale these days is a premium payment above the market price?

Mr Chairman, that is true. I dealt with the question of the way in which we deal with premiums in great detail in this House. Certain of our contracts embody virtually no premiums at the moment. I explained the whole question of the application of premiums to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central in a three-page letter. I set out the whole matter in detail and the hon member did not want to accept it.

I replied to that letter.

Mr Chairman, I do not think the hon member wants to accept it because he does not understand it. I invited the hon member to visit me—this was about five months ago—to discuss the matter with me, but he did not even take the trouble to telephone my secretary and arrange an appointment. For that reason I shall just leave the hon member at that. I will not answer any question of his either. [Interjections.]

To turn again to the question of the hon member for Constantia, I want to say that our premiums are reducing all the time. Because we can obtain oil from so many sources, one of our basic requirements is that we refuse to pay premiums. As a result of the risk element, as a result of the fact that these suppliers do not want their names to be made known, we have no choice but to pay the premiums; but those premiums, as I have said, are minimal at the moment. I can give hon members that assurance because my instruction to the SFF is that those premiums must disappear completely. That is my reply to the hon member for Constantia in respect of the premiums.

There is one further point I should like to explain. Hon members have asked why we do not permit the oil companies themselves to purchase oil. I think that is a very fair question. However, we must go back a little into the history of this matter. Why does the SFF buy oil? The SFF was not brought into being to buy oil. Originally it was the SFF’s function to purchase oil and to stockpile it for strategic purposes. That was the SFF’s only function. However, when the situation in Iran was at its worst in 1978-79, what happened? I am not saying this to cast aspersions on these people, but what happened? I was not Minister then; some of my other hon colleagues bore this responsibility at the time and they were faced with a serious problem which they had to solve overnight. This was that oil companies came to them one after the other and said: “We are no longer in a position to supply you with oil”. In actual fact, that position has not changed. The position is still precisely the same as it was in 1979. To tell the truth, I think that the efforts since 1979 to cut off South Africa’s oil resources have increased. If the hon member will come to my office I will be able to show him proof of numbers and numbers of attempts that have been made in this connection, but I do not think that I should take up the time of the House now in that connection. I will be able to show the hon member the efforts that are being made in South Africa at the moment to convince shipping companies not to ship oil to South Africa. They are being watched 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, and not for nothing. A definite and deliberate attempt is being made to influence shipping companies in this way. For this reason we cannot allow matters simply to happen. We have a responsibility. If we have to stand up in this House tomorrow and tell hon members that we only have oil stocks for a further day or two, or that we no longer have any oil in South Africa, or that we shall have to ration it because the oil embargo against South Africa has succeeded, hon members will themselves be the first ones to criticize us in this regard. Hon members of the PFP like the hon member for Constantia and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central—I do not include the hon member for Edenvale in this—will be the first to say to us: But surely you knew about this. What did you do about it? Why did you not take precautionary measures?

For that reason we will carry on as we are. I agree with the hon member for Edenvale that if circumstances warrant it, there can be no objection whatsoever to the oil companies making provision for their own crude oil.

There is another factor that is involved here but it is not applicable now. That is that the economy of scale has always been important, namely that if one buys in bulk instead of in small, individual quantities, one can always negotiate a better price. That is what we are doing at the moment. At the moment we are negotiating the best price in the world. I have no doubt at all that we are buying at the best price in the world at the moment. However, let me qualify that statement: The exception is America because we cannot buy from America. It is physically impossible for us to buy from America.

I trust that I have replied to most of the points raised by the hon member for Edenvale. I thank the hon member for De Aar for his support. I am also very grateful to the hon member for Prieska.

†I think I have replied to most of the points raised by the hon member for Mooi River. I thank him very much for supporting this measure.

*The hon member Dr Vilonel also replied to the arguments of the hon member for Constantia. I thank him for his support.

The hon member for Rustenburg is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs. I receive regular reports in regard to what is happening on the standing committee and I want to congratulate and thank the hon member very much indeed because the information and experience that I have is that he is handling it in a very capable way. He referred here to the importance of Soekor and made it clear that Soekor will also be financed from this Central Energy Fund in the future. However, we must not interpret this as though Soekor will now have unlimited resources; on the contrary, they are now going to be subjected to the same budgeting discipline as the rest of the State, or as that to which they were accustomed in the past. The only advantage that Soekor can derive from this is that it will now be financed from the correct source because it is an oil undertaking. We hope too that as soon as the study has been completed a decision can be made in regard to the Mossel Bay gas projects. The only advantage that Soekor really has is that it is now assured of its budget for a longer period from year to year because the budget will now be financed from that source.

I think I have now replied to all the points raised by the hon member for Rustenburg. I want to thank him very much indeed for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The introduction of this Bill is an excellent example of the success of the consultative process between the Government and the private sector. It illustrates furthermore the valuable role of the standing committee system. I would like to congratulate the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs for their valuable assistance in presenting this legislation in its present acceptable format.

As a result of the rationalization of the Public Service during 1980 all functions relating to energy were transferred from the then Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Coal, however, continued to be controlled in terms of the Price Control Act, 1964, which makes provision for the control of all price-controlled commodities. This Act is administered by the Department of Trade and Industry. In order to enable the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs to fulfil its functional responsibilities, it has become necessary to submit the Coal Resources Bill. The Price Control Act is duly being amended by the Coal Resources Bill to exclude coal from that Act.

The Competition Board, after investigating the coal industry, recommended that Government control in the coal industry be phased out. The Government accepted this recommendation as an ultimate objective. Avoidance of disruption of the industry is, however, of fundamental importance, particularly since coal is an important source of energy accounting for more than 80% of our primary energy requirements.

It is furthermore imperative that the requirements of our coal-based electricity industry, our flourishing oil-from-coal industry and the demands of the industrial and household sectors of our economy be adequately met. Coal is certainly of prime strategic importance, both for industries and for households where coal is used for cooking and heating purposes.

The phasing out of Government involvement in the form of price control and distribution control can, and will, be effected only when a combination of circumstances makes this possible. This implies, among other things, that the Government must be satisfied that all coal consumers are adequately supplied on demand at realistic prices. The Coal Resources Bill is enabling legislation which also provides the Minister with the necessary powers to achieve these objectives.

As hon members will observe, those provisions of the Price Control Act which are necessary for the regulation of coal have been included in the Bill. Some of these provisions have been amended in order to provide effectively for the regulation of coal pricing and coal distribution.

Additional measures regarding production and exportation of coal had to be inserted in the Bill. These provisions empower the Minister to prescribe certain conditions in respect of coal exports and mining techniques. It is, however, accepted that the export market for coal is sensitive to interference and that we have a well-organized and responsible mining industry. For these reasons it must be made clear that these particular clauses of the Bill will be used with utmost caution and only after wide consultation with all parties involved.

As far as price control is concerned, the vast majority of the lower income groups of our population, especially Black householders, still use coal as a source of energy for heating and cooking. This is especially true for the rural areas, and the Government deems it necessary that these consumers, for socio-economic reasons, should be able to obtain coal at a realistic price at all times. It is also necessary to ensure that coal is available to the householder buying one bag of coal at a time. The importance of coal being available at reasonable prices at all times but especially during winter time, is also strongly supported by the Consumer Council and all major development boards.

In addition to the household consumption of coal, it also plays an essential role as a source of energy in industries. It is for this reason that coal prices should be maintained at realistic levels, bearing in mind the wider impact of the cost of coal in the country’s economy.

In view of the above, it must be clear that, although the Government subscribes to the free market principle, it is at this stage not possible for the Government to withdraw from the coal industry at once. However, the reduction of Government regulations will be considered on an ongoing basis with a view to effecting the recommendations of the Competition Board as far as possible without neglecting the Government’s responsibilities.

In conclusion it must be stated unambiguously that entry into any level of the coal industry is unrestricted provided that the Government is satisfied that all persons wishing to do so can comply with certain minimum standards. These standards are primarily set to ensure a situation of equal competition in all segments of the industry.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, one thing about the Mineral and Energy Affairs Group is that even when we disagree with one another, we tend to do it relatively quietly. I think this is a shortcoming for politicians.

When one looks at the Bill which is before us now, one notices that it is a Bill which gives the Government, I believe, considerable additional powers over the South African coal industry, even though it already exercises considerable power. When we look at the present state of the coal industry we find that we have a situation where control over prices, for example, is exercised under the Price Control Act of 1964.

When one examines the export of coal, one finds that this is covered in terms of the Import and Export Control Act, an Act which provides a fair number of conditions which have to be met. The Act prescribes that no goods of a specified class shall be exported from the Republic except under the authority of, and in accordance with, the conditions stated in a permit. Section 2(3) provides that a permit issued in terms of section 2(1) may prescribe the quantity or value of goods which may be exported, the country from or to which, and the manner in which the goods concerned may be exported, and such other conditions of whatsoever nature as the Minister may direct. So, there are considerable powers already in existence in respect of the export of coal. The local market is governed in terms of Government Notice 2241 of 12 October 1941.

I should like to dwell for some time on this particular Government Notice because in terms of this notice no person shall sell coal to any consumer of coal within the Republic unless the seller is authorized to do so in writing by the Director General of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, or by any official of the department. The seller must have a depot which is suitable for the stockpiling of coal and which is approved by the relevant local authority.

Moreover, the depot must be suitably situated in the area served by such a seller. It goes even further and lays down that the seller must stockpile coal in accordance with the size and grading of such coal and that he must either have a rail siding on the premises on which the depot is situated or the exclusive use of a rail siding in the direct proximity of the depot. It even stipulates how he must obtain his coal. He must receive at least 50% or his total coal supplied by rail from the supplier. He must stockpile consumer coal in his depot and he must ensure that the minimum mass of consumer coal stockpiled in the depot is equal to 10% of his sales for the period from September to March of each year, and equal to 15% of his sales for the period April to August of each year.

In terms of this notice he has to service the entire spectrum of the market in the area allocated to him or he has to make his capabilities and willingness to do so known to the public. I am sure, Sir, you will agree with me that those are very, very wide powers indeed. He also has to be open for trading during normal business hours and must have at his depot all the necessary apparatus to handle, bag and deliver coal.

That is in accordance with the existing legislation.

Yes, it is in terms of the existing legislation.

Which is now before the court.

That is right.

If, however, there is an emergency—and we will come back to this because it is relevant in the debate about the strategic importance of coal—the Minister can, in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act, 1970, exercise additional powers where he deems it necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic.

With all these powers one would wonder what additional powers the hon the Minister could possibly want. It is felt, however, that the existing powers are inadequate for regulating …

[Inaudible.]

Well, we will argue about that. As I have said, it is felt that the existing powers are inadequate for regulating the coal industry, and that therefore the hon the Minister is to be given powers for regulating the price, production, acquisition, storage, distribution, supply, sale, delivery and export of coal. Hon members will find this right there in the Bill if they want to read it for themselves. Those, Mr Chairman, I would submit, are very, very wide powers indeed.

Communistic powers.

For example, when one looks at some of the clauses of the Bill one sees that in terms of clause 3 the Minister has the right to specify either the selling or purchase price of coal irrespective of cost. That is important, Mr Chairman. I submit that in terms of this clause the hon the Minister could, if he wanted to, prevent sellers from offering discounts against the maximum price. I am not saying he is going to do that. I am only saying he has the power to do it. He could even prevent consumers from purchasing at a discount.

In terms of clause 10 the Minister has the right to grant exemptions and to withdraw or modify exemptions. I quote from the Bill, as follows—

I am not saying that that hon Minister is going to abuse those powers but those powers are written into the Bill and they are considerable powers.

Are you against exemptions?

I will come to that and explain our viewpoint very clearly later on. The hon the Minister can, moreover, delegate these powers to the Director-General but he is still accountable, and to that extent I will admit that this drafting is an improvement on the other drafting where it was solely in the power of the Minister.

Is that clause 13?

Yes. We on these benches are asking ourselves why the hon the Minister wants such wide powers. A number of reasons have been put forward. It has been argued, for example, that coal is of such strategic importance that it needs to be regulated in this way. It has also been argued that these regulations are necessary for the orderly marketing of coal, particularly with regard to Black consumers. It has also been suggested that they are necessary to create a stable price system.

I do not think that anybody would deny that for South Africa coal is a tremendously important commodity. However, when we go back to the earlier Bill, ie State Oil Fund Bill, we notice that the position with regard to coal is substantially different to, say, the position with regard to oil because with oil we could be in a situation where we have no oil supplies. In the foreseeable future it is unlikely that we will find ourselves in that situation with regard to coal because we have large coal reserves. If I remember correctly from the report of the De Jager Committee, I think it is approximately 57 000 million tons. We have sufficient coal, in fact, to enable us to export approximately 40 million tons per year.

I will accept that the coal market is a complex one. We tend to think of coal as if there is only one grade of quality but, of course, that is not true. One has a constant need to match demand and supply as far as different sizes and quantities are concerned. Furthermore, that demand varies seasonably and can vary substantially.

While accepting that coal is of tremendous importance to South Africa, I do not think it falls within the same category as something like oil and, therefore, I do not think the Minister needs the same powers because when shortages occur they are going to be of a seasonable and short-term nature. There has been much speculation about what will happen if we have shortages in Soweto. When one looks at the Reef, one will notice that it is, in fact, situated only 2 to 3 hours’ travelling time away from the major coalfields of South Africa. Often when there have been shortages, they have occurred not so much because of a shortage of coal but that there has a shortage of rail transport. I believe we have a problem with another State monopoly there.

We in the PFP believe in a system of free enterprise and in a system of free markets. Since there seems to be some confusion about the use of these terms I want to clarify what I mean by them. When we talk of “free enterprise” we are merely talking of a system whereby a person is allowed entry into the market if he meets certain requirements. That would tend to presuppose a system where there is in fact very little control. However, by “free market” I mean a system whereby no one producer or cartel of producers can dominate the market to such an extent that they exercise monopolistic powers over the industry. In other words, when one is talking of a free market, it actually presupposes an element of government intervention to make sure that there is fairness in the market. I want to come back to that point a little later. When one takes, for example, one of the countries that is seen as a model of the free market system, the USA, it is clear that they have very strong powers to prevent monopolies and cartels from forming and to prevent the creation of trusts.

As we see this Bill it is the antithesis of the free market and the free enterprise system. We believe what the coal market needs is not more regulation but more competition. In this viewpoint I think we have the support of the Competition Board’s findings with regard to the South African coal industry. I want to spend a bit of time on this report because I think it is an important report, particularly for this industry. In its report the board found that the compulsory licensing required in terms of Government Notice 895 of 1983, which has now been replaced by Government Notice 2241, was a direct intervention in the supply and distribution of coal which restricted competition and could have harmful effects for the public interest.

The board could appreciate, and it said so, the Government’s intervention in the mid-1970s, but it faulted the Government for getting more and more deeply involved in the coal mining industry. I quote:

The board recommended that Government control over the coal industry should be phased out, and this recommendation was accepted by the Government.

On certain conditions.

Yes, on certain conditions.

Yet, despite those recommendations we have before us a Bill which gives additional powers to the Government. I want to submit that the Competition Board found that the existing powers were already too great, and yet the Government introduces a Bill to give itself even more power.

I believe that the Government, instead of leaving it to the industry to sort out the problems, will rely on more and more bureaucratic control. Instead of relying on the combined wisdom of many, we shall have to rely on the combined wisdom or lack of it of a few.

The Competition Board said something which I believe is so true and so eloquent that it bears repeating:

Are we really to believe that this coal industry, this highly sophisticated and, I believe, highly developed and efficient industry in South Africa, cannot overcome the problem of regular supplies and adequate stockpiling? When one looks at the retail and the wholesale sectors, one finds that they manage to get adequate supplies to the consumers at thousands of distribution points.

The reason is very simply that if they do not do that, then they will start losing their market, and no producer or supplier wants to lose sales. Demand can be underestimated, but that is a temporary phenomenon, and so long as in that particular area one can go to other producers, one will in fact be free. Then one will be able to be free to buy from the person who can supply, and the market will penalize those who judged the market incorrectly. The problem is that coal can be substituted, not in the short term but in the long term because if the coal industry is unreliable, people are going to replace coal with electricity, oil or something else.

I think the problem is that the Government will not allow this to happen. In fact, when one looks at the existing system, one finds demarcation of sales areas and barred entry. These are important elements of the department’s policy.

What do you imply by using the expression “barred areas”?

That people are given a particular area which they are told to serve.

We debar nobody.

Is the hon the Minister saying that anybody can come in? Well, I must tell him that the feeling of the small producers is that that is not so, but I shall come back to this.

Mr Chairman, may I ask you whether the gesticulations of the hon the Minister are parliamentary?

I did not hear or see anything. [Interjections.]

Sir, I shall not gesticulate in that manner again.

The hon the Minister says there is open entry, but I shall come back to that because I first want to argue about the regulations. No, perhaps I should deal with the question of open entry immediately.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said—I am not quoting him verbatim, but he can tell me if the sense is correct—that entry into any level of the coal industry was unrestricted provided that the Government was satisfied that all persons wishing to do so could comply with certain minimum standards.

He said these standards were set primarily to ensure a situation of equal competition in all segments of the industry. I want to probe this a little to find out exactly what the Minister means.

For example, if one establishes regulations which are geared towards big companies, then one effectively eliminates the entry of smaller companies into that market. One cannot, for example, anticipate that a small retailer should meet the same requirements as, say, Pick ’n Pay, Checkers or the O K Bazaars.

I am looking at Government Notice No 2241 and I think this is part of the nub of the problem that exists with this Bill. When I look at Government Notice No 2241 I assume we will continue to be ruled by much the same sort of regulation.

[Inaudible.]

It will be an important point in the hon the Minister’s reply if he can tell us to what extent those regulations are going to stay with us.

When I look at this Government Notice I ask myself why a distributor must get at least 50% of his coal by rail. What worries me even more is why he must be able to service the total market.

I would like to explain my dilemma here to the hon the Minister. As I see it, the reason why small businesses operate effectively is not because they can supply a total market in any particular area but because of a small gap in the marketplace which they exploit. In that particular niche in the market they can become more or equally competitive with the big companies. As a consequence they can give better service and they can get a foothold in that very small section of the marketplace.

However, if one was to turn around and tell them that they had to service the entire market spectrum in that particular area, I do not think that they could operate successfully. That would be against the whole ethos of marketing, business and economics.

It is no good saying that they will be allowed free entry into the marketplace to supply coal and then setting regulations which do not bar them legally but de facto bar them from competing.

The hon the Minister said there were two small companies. I think small companies are very important.

Not small.

Well, they are not as big as some of the very big companies.

There is an interesting point in relation to small businesses. A speaker of the Heritage Foundation who visited South Africa said that President Reagan’s deregulation activities were estimated to have created 600 000 new companies in the USA.

I am worried by the question of the small businesses and I think there are some small distributors that are very concerned about this Bill. The hon the Minister will know this; his department has been involved in legal wrangles with some of them. I want to ask him if he can assure us that there will be no attempt to prevent them from trading by instructing their suppliers not to supply them, as has happened in the past, or to prevent and restrict them by any other means without their first receiving a full hearing by the advisory committee.

This is very important. If the hon the Minister goes ahead with this Bill he will create an advisory body in terms of clause 2. Will the small businesses be given a hearing, and if it is found that they do not meet the requirements, will the hon the Minister give them a period of time, say three or six months, in which they can meet those specific requirements? I also want to ask whether he will give the small businesses representation on that committee. What we do not want, is a situation where only the very big companies are represented and the small companies are squeezed out. It is argued that we need to regulate the coal industry because this will lead to stable prices. When one looks at what is happening to administered prices in South Africa, I am doubtful whether this policy actually works, and not only in the present highly inflationary period. In 1969, for example, the price of petrol went up by 61,9%. In 1977 the price of electricity went up by 48%, and more recently we have had the 10% increase announced by Escom with the possibility of another 10% increase. We have also had the 40% increase in the petrol price. Those increases were based on the value of the rand being 46,5 cents. If the rand stays above 50 cents, will the hon the Minister not consider adjusting the price to take that into account, because I think that would help to break the grip of inflation on South Africa?

When do you want that reply?

The hon the Minister can reply now. A recent article in the Financial Mail showed that administered prices over the past eight years had risen far faster than the rest of the consumer price index. The Government has, in effect, through increased tariffs, prices etc contributed nearly 30% to the consumer price index.

If we look specifically at coal, there was an article which appeared in the Sunday Express of 4 November 1984 to which I want to refer. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of it but I have no reason to doubt that it is correct. In the article it is said that the Transvaal Provincial Administration hospitals had been supplied with coal on the recommendation of a technical committee and that they had payed R200 000 more than they could have obtained the coal for from other people. A comment ascribed to one of the officials was: “We had the choice of letting the coal market look after itself or allowing the public to pay higher prices to maintain infrastructure”. This week I had people in my office from Natal who told me—I would like to know whether this is true and whether the hon the Minister has investigated it—that hospitals in Durban falling under the Natal Provincial Administration are actually paying R165 000 more from May 1984 to May 1985 for coal compared to what they could have got it for cash.

This Bill is a very controversial one to the private sector. It has been opposed by important organizations such as the Chamber of Mines, the FCI, Assocom and initially also by Sasol, although I have not seen anything from Sasol subsequently. Moreover, although these bodies were allowed to comment on the first draft, they were not given the opportunity to comment on the second draft. I would like to ask the Minister, even if he does go ahead with the Bill—he has the power to steamroller it through—before he makes it law, to consult with the interested parties if he has not done so already to see if we cannot improve the Bill. The feeling I get is that they are very unhappy with this measure.

I can understand that there are those who are in favour of State control. If one has a demarcated area, I am sure that one will be in favour of it. If one is allowed a system whereby instead of allowing the coal market to look after itself one allows the public to pay additional prices to maintain one’s infrastructure, I can understand why one will be against a free market system.

What I think we have here is a situation where the Government found that they could not control certain small companies through existing legislation or existing regulations. They suffered one or two legal reverses at the hands of the small companies and they need these powers to control the industry as they want to.

This is what I believe this Bill is really about. We on these benches reject this Bill. Unlike the Government, we not only believe in free competition and free enterprise but we actually want to implement it and give the private sector the opportunity to implement it and to look after themselves.

Therefore, Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. (1) the excessively wide powers conferred on the Minister and his officials are circumscribed;
2. (2) restrictions are imposed on the Minister’s power of delegation; and
3. (3) the Minister has given assurances that the Bill—
   1. (a) is in accord with the recommendations of the Competition Board;
   2. (b) has been adequately negotiated with the private sector; and
   3. (c) is necessary in the light of other wide powers to regulate the coal industry in the Republic.”.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Edenvale elaborated most eloquently on this subject and put his party’s case. I do not at all doubt the earnestness of the hon member’s approach in respect of the problems he mentioned but I must respectfully say that I do not think that those arguments hold much water.

In the course of my speech I shall be devoting attention to the problems to which the hon member referred. He referred to certain principles involved such as the free market system, the wide powers of the State and other matters. This measure deals with coal. Coal is a particular mineral that plays a particular role in this country. It is a fuel that is used most usefully by various persons and bodies but it can probably also be described as one of the wonder substances from which a variety of byproducts can be manufactured. It is truly one of the exceptional products of nature.

The hon member for Edenvale also discussed coal reserves. This is certainly an important aspect that has to be considered in this connection. According to him, our coal reserves are practically unlimited. However, I gain the impression that the experts are starting to reconsider to some extent their earlier predictions in this connection. They are starting to come to the conclusion that the coal reserves that we have in this country are not inexhaustible. We know that science is progressing and it may happen that alternative sources of energy will be found. This is already so in the case of uranium or in fact nuclear energy. Nobody can predict what the future holds in respect of scientific progress in this connection. The fact remains—I just want to make this point—that I do not think that we can adopt the attitude that we in this country can do what we like as far as coal is concerned because we have unlimited stocks that will continue to last us for centuries. I do not think that we can regard these stocks as being inexhaustible.

I want now to refer to the Bill in regard to which the hon member for Edenvale and his party feel somewhat affronted. I agree that this measure contains certain provisions controlling the regulation of the coal industry as such and the prices and distribution of coal, and vesting the Minister concerned with certain powers in this connection. However, the fact remains that these same principles are contained in existing legislation. As a result of rationalization it is, however, desirable that these provisions contained in various laws should now be brought together under this body to control matters. There is a little further embellishment in this regard and a realistic approach is followed in regard to this product.

The hon member referred to the representations received from various persons and bodies. In regard to various subjects and matters in the past our experience has been that representations received in regard to a particular matter vary considerably. Contrasting points of view have been adopted. As the hon member has said, certain persons and bodies have objected but there are also persons and bodies who are very strongly in favour of this legislation. The hon member referred to the question of Assocom. I do not have time to read it but the organization Natal Coking Coal, for example, lodged the strongest objection to the point of view adopted by Assocom. They say that they have never been consulted. They say that the arguments advanced by Assocom are purely an academic exercise and that they have not been consulted in this connection at all. However, the hon member for Edenvale says that we should listen to Assocom. Assocom does not know what is going on in the coal industry.

I want to go further. The hon member strongly emphasized the fact that the principle of competition is being intruded upon in this Bill. He was very concerned about concepts such as the free market system and free enterprise. In this connection he referred to the United States of America. I want to tell him that even in the United States of America there is some measure of control over the coal industry. Perhaps he should do a little research in this regard. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to elaborate on this matter. The fact remains that the Government has stated repeatedly that it is in fact in favour of the principle of free competition, but we also have to be realistic. A product like coal is a particular commodity. It is a basic commodity used as a fuel. It is used by large consumers and it is also used by homedwellers who use it for heating purposes and even for preparing food. It is therefore not a product which can simply be placed on the market like any other commodity. It is important that there should be some measure of regulation in respect of this commodity.

The hon member referred to the Competition Board which has also apparently objected and stated that the ultimate aim should actually be also to allow the coal industry to function in terms of an open market principle. I think that that is the ultimate aim if circumstances warrant it—to make it possible for the industry to come into its own and to ensure that the consumer and even the small consumer is not detrimentally affected in the process.

The hon member referred here to the Competition Board and also quoted certain of its recommendations. However, he neglected to quote the third recommendation contained in the comments of the Competition Board. Therefore, I should like to quote it myself:

This is an important concept. The Competition Board may be correct in its point of view. This may possibly be an aim. However, the fact remains that at this stage it is not advisable that coal should be dealt with in this way.

The impression may possibly be created that in this regard the State is acting in conflict with the policy in regard to which it has already expressed itself. The question now arises as to why then it should be any different in regard to coal. In this connection I want to mention that one often finds—I have also said this in the past and I think hon members have experienced it very often— that when a Bill is considered, people foresee tremendous problems in its provisions. However, once that legislation has been placed on the Statute Book and applied, one hears no more about those problems. I have even experienced this in regard to provincial ordinances. For example, people stand up and say: “Something terrible is going to happen here as a result of these provisions.” I have told the entrepreneurs that if the legislation creates practical problems all they have to do is come back to us so that we can reconsider the matter. Over a period of 15 years we have not had one case in which anybody has come back and said that certain legislation has really resulted in certain problems, problems that had been foreseen.

That is why it is very important that the legislator should differentiate between theoretical, academic, imaginary and real objections. I think the hon member for Edenvale who made out a strong case here must also consider the matter in that light. I think many of the problems that he mentioned are of a more academic nature. [Interjections.]

I have already said that most of these measures are already contained in other laws. Therefore, the position is not going to change to any great extent. However, I do want to say that this alone is probably not sufficient reason to retain them or to extend them.

The question can quite rightly be asked: Why then is this legislation necessary? There are various reasons some of the most important of which I should like to emphasize. In the first place one must not lose sight of the fact that coal is a basic commodity that has to be utilized to the benefit of the country and the general public. In fact, it is the property of the people of this country. It is a product that is obtained from the earth.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member mutters so, I cannot hear what he has to say. It is used for a multitude of purposes. It is an earner of foreign currency. We manufacture liquid fuel from it. It is also useful for many other reasons.

The wastage of stocks by the injudicious exploitation of this mineral must be avoided. Wasteful exploitation which results in unused stocks in mines being destroyed by underground fires must be avoided. It is a fact that the method of mining, for example the pillar system, sometimes results in the fact that considerable quantities of unused coal remain in these old mines. Fires often start in these mines and then those stocks are simply destroyed. I believe that it is the duty of the hon the Minister’s department to ensure that coal reserves are not destroyed in the process.

The hon member spoke about the smaller dealers who may not be given a chance. However, he neglected to mention that the small consumer has also to be considered in the process. The dealers must ensure that adequate stocks are available in winter. It has already happened that coal has not been available in the winter. In certain cases hospitals have not had sufficient coal stocks. The State must therefore see to it that dealers ensure that there are always adequate stocks. This is also in the interests of the small consumer because we cannot allow this industry only to see to the interests of the fat cats. [Interjections.]

The free market system is important as long as it is not misused to exploit the buying public. It cannot be denied that the buying public are sometimes exploited in a subtle manner; sometimes in fact by those people who have most to say about restricting the system. There are various methods by means of which the buying public is exploited. Unfortunately, my time has expired. I see that I am getting some very concentrated stares from certain quarters. That of course means that I must resume my seat. [Interjections.] Oh, I have just learnt that I do have a minute or two left. In conclusion therefore I want to emphasize that in this case too it is necessary for the buying public to be protected. We must therefore not only emphasize the trade and free competition but also ensure that the interests of the broad public are not lost sight of in this process.

Mr Chairman, I find it a pity that it was necessary for the Whips of the NP to make the hon member for Welkom cut his speech short. I do not think that up to the present during this session we have had too little time to debate legislation. In fact, the whole of yesterday evening was at our disposal and we did not use it. [Interjections.]

Carry on with your speech, man.

I would prefer it if that hon member kept out of my hair. I shall come back to him later. [Interjections.]

This is not primarily a political debate. It is an interesting debate, I believe, on one of the most important pieces of legislation that has thus far been discussed by this House. Let me also say immediately that I do not think any party in this House will deny that the coal deposits in South Africa are one of our most important national assets. This is particularly so in the light of the particular position in which South Africa finds herself at present and perhaps will continue to find herself for some time in the future in regard to the outside world. For that reason I think it is necessary that the authorities should jealously guard the way in which this important asset of ours is dealt with, utilized and distributed.

However, I have no fault to find with the possible good intentions of the hon the Minister. I want therefore right at the outset to say that if in clause I under the definition of “Minister” there was no reference to the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs but in fact to the hon Danie Steyn, I would have far fewer problems with this Bill. What is going to hold good as the law of this country if this Bill is adopted is not the good intentions of the present Minister but the provisions contained in this Bill irrespective of who the Minister may be. When I look around me, I shudder at what could happen if some of those hon members were to be promoted.

In his very brief Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said:

The hon the Minister says that this is the eventual aim. All I want to say is that the provisions of this Bill are to my mind a somewhat strange way to start in the achievement of that aim. When one looks at the general content of this Bill—and we have to look at the content of the Bill and not at what is being said about it—we see that the Minister and his department are being given absolute and total control over every facet of the coal industry in South Africa. That is what is contained in this Bill and I do not think that any hon members opposite me can deny it. I want to repeat that in my opinion the present hon Minister—I know him too well to believe he would do it—will not misuse his powers in terms of this Bill, but that is not why one makes a law. Legislation also holds good for the future, as I have already said.

I think it would have been a very good thing if we could have discussed this Bill clause by clause in a Committee Stage, but that is no longer the practice. That is why you must permit me to refer to a number of clauses in this Bill and to express the doubts that we have even though, as the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, the standing committee did such excellent work.

Clause 2 which deals with the appointment of the advisory committee of the Minister is to my mind a somewhat strange provision. The Minister is being given the power to appoint an advisory committee consisting of persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, “are representative of persons or bodies with a direct interest in the coal industry and in coal consumption in the Republic of South Africa.” That is all very well and good but one would have expected—and if this is not so we should like to know the reasons why— interested persons to send nominations to the office of the hon the Minister from which the Minister could then make his appointments. However, there is no provision of that nature. What is even more important is that it is not specified whether the advisory committee will consist of one, three, 20 or 100 members. The Minister can entirely in his discretion and without his having to consult anybody at all—because in terms of the legislation he need not consult anyone— make the committee as small or as large as he pleases. In my opinion it is a shortcoming that the hon the Minister should appoint an advisory committee from people who in his opinion have a knowledge of the interests mentioned here, but that it is not necessary for the Minister to consult the organized interests in the industry when considering appointments.

In terms of clause 3 the Minister is empowered to determine a price irrespective of costs. In terms of this provision he is given not only a discretion but also very much wider power. He has absolute power to determine a price. My argument is that in the exercise of the Minister’s powers in terms of this Bill it will not at all be possible for any aggrieved person to subject the Minister’s decision to review in any court in South Africa. It will not be possible to do so.

Is that true?

Yes, it is true. If there are still any lawyers left on that side the hon the Minister can assuredly ask their advice. In terms of this Bill the Minister is not given a discretion but in fact absolute authority to fix prices. He does not even have to exercise a discretion. When we discuss another clause a little later on we will come back to this argument. We all want proper control to be exercised over so important an industry in our country, but we would have expected yardsticks and guidelines to be laid down in an important piece of legislation such as this to be utilized by the Minister if he has to exercise a discretion. Nowhere in this Bill is any yardstick or discretion determined which the Minister will have to comply with in exercising his powers. One does not find this in any clause in this Bill. If in the definition there was not reference to the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs but in fact to the hon Danie Steyn, I would perhaps have had less objection. However, that is not what is provided.

Clauses 5 and 6 give the Minister full and absolute control over the means of production as well as the export of coal. He is given absolute control, and in this case too there is no indication of any yardsticks the Minister has to apply in implementing the powers that he is going to receive.

[Inaudible.]

I will deal with that problem in due course. [Interjections.]

Let me deal immediately with that point. In terms of this Bill the Minister can delegate his powers either to the Director-General or any other person in his department. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon member for Boksburg knows what we are discussing at the moment. If he does not know then he should rather be quiet. Officials of the Minister’s department can be appointed by him to exercise the powers in terms of this legislation on behalf of the Minister. I am not so stupid as to think that the hon the Minister is not going to obtain the advice of his department, but what does concern me—and I still believe in democracy to some extent—is that in any democratic dispensation the rights of the individual must be protected against the dictatorial exercising of power on the part of the executive authority. This is necessary in any democracy, and it is totally absent in this Bill.

There are strange provisions in this Bill, and I refer the hon the Minister to clause 9. This is the strangest penalty clause.

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

No, not now. Clause 9 is probably the strangest penalty clause that I have ever come across in a Bill or in any law in all my life. We are told here that if a person selling coal contravenes the provision and sells the coal at a higher price than he is entitled to sell it, the Minister may—and I quote:

What does this mean, Mr Chairman? Here we have the hon the Minister having fixed the price of coal at Rx per ton in regard to which an offence is committed. A voluntary buyer has now paid too much for that coal. In terms of this particular provision, in such a case the hon the Minister can now make the seller of the coal concerned repay the buyer not the amount overpaid by the buyer but twice that amount.

That is to compensate for the loss they suffered because of Escom.

However, if that buyer can no longer be traced, or if his address is unknown, that money goes to the Exchequer. This is the strangest penalty provision that I have ever come across in my life. What is more, Mr Chairman, clause 14 makes provision for the fines that can be imposed in respect of contraventions of this measure. These include a fine of R5 000 which is considerable. Over and above this provision the hon the Minister or his authorized representative who in this particular case takes the place of the court, something one would not like to see happening, is given the right by way of a fine—I cannot describe it otherwise than as a fine—to have repaid to the buyer who overpaid, twice the amount that he in fact overpaid. This is really a strange provision to my mind and I should like to have some explanation in this regard either from the hon the Minister himself or from the standing committee.

Will that not discourage the sellers of coal from exploiting the public?

But there is after all a penalty clause in the legislation in terms of which a fine can be imposed.

However, what to my mind is still the strangest provision of all—as though the one to which I have just referred is not bad enough—is the provision that we find in clause 9(2) which is of application when there is a whole series of buyers and sellers of coal. What does this particular subsection provide? I want to quote its provisions which are as follows:

If I am interpreting this provision incorrectly somebody must please correct me. This means therefore that if A sells coal to B for a higher price than he was entitled to sell it to B, and B in his turn sells that coal to C— but within the limits of the price at which B is entitled to sell the coal to C—the hon the Minister nevertheless has the right to instruct A not to compensate B but to compensate C. Therefore, the compensation is not paid to the man who has been detrimentally affected in terms of the provisions of the hon the Minister.

In the long run it is after all the consumer who pays too much.

That may possibly be so. Nevertheless, this still remains an incredibly strange provision to my mind. The eventual buyer of the coal in terms of the example that I have used, who did not pay more for the coal than he had to pay in terms of the price determination, is now the one who has to be compensated. Why does the compensation have to be paid to him?

My argument is that if fines are in fact payable, they ought to be paid to the Exchequer and not to an individual consumer.

We shall see how the debate develops. I want to suggest that it will be impossible to try to have an order issued either by the hon the Minister or his authorized representative in terms of this provision in the Bill, referred to a court of law for review. That fact is even emphasized in this Bill. It will not do the hon the Minister any harm to listen to what I am saying. In terms of clause 10 the hon the Minister can withdraw an exemption without giving any reasons whatsoever therefor. He can withdraw an exemption without its being necessary for him to provide a single reason for having done so. Moreover he can do this without there being any recourse on the part of the person or persons affected thereby. Surely we are still a democracy, are we not? Here we have a right being given to the executive authority affecting the interests of the private individual, and it is provided expressly in the legislation …

Also in the existing Act.

In terms of the law it is provided that that man whose interests are affected will not even have the right to be heard. This is really a bad thing.

I want to conclude. I agree that it is necessary to protect this important asset of South Africa, and to regulate the utilization, exploitation and distribution of it properly. I believe that we can tell each other quite straightforwardly that in a country like South Africa with its strategic situation it was a pipedream ever to believe that the day would come when there would be no State interference in or control over the coal industry. I do not believe that will ever be possible. However, I do say that there must always be control but that the measures in terms of which that control is exercised must be such and so defined that they do not give absolute powers to the executive authority of the day. One would expect the provisions contained in this Bill to be used during a state of emergency when the normal rules of law no longer hold good. We know that the Government is in a difficult situation at the moment—particularly after what happened in Durban yesterday—but I do not think that South Africa finds herself in a state of emergency at the moment. I want to make the friendly suggestion to the hon the Minister that he should ask his advisers once again to give serious attention to the content of this Bill before it is placed on the Statute Book of South Africa because, as it stands here, we in the CP unfortunately cannot vote for its provisions.

Mr Chairman, we have listened attentively to the objections to the Bill advanced by the hon member for Barberton. Allow me to say right at the outset that it is really a pity the hon member for Koedoespoort, the representative of his party on the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs, did not raise these objections in the standing committee. I am not casting any reflection on the presence of the hon member for Koedoespoort on that standing committee; I am merely saying that it is really a pity he did not raise these objections, which are now being raised by the CP, in the standing committee. [Interjections.] It does sometimes happen on the standing committee that hints and ideas are listened to. [Interjections.] It is of course very, very difficult for some people to rise above the level of their intellectual capacity and ability to understand. I find it a pity, too, that one should look at this piece of legislation—and adopt a censorious approach towards it—without being completely au fait with the provisions contained in the Price Control Act, 1964, because one can understand and interpret this legislation correctly only if one is completely au fait with the provisions of the abovementioned Act. I do not know whether the hon member for Barberton has looked at that Act because had he done so, he would have found that the provisions contained in the sections of that Act and the provisions in the clauses of this Bill coincide to a large extent.

I should also like to mention that the hon member for Edenvale elaborated in the finest detail on the restrictive control measures which are already inforce in terms of the existing Act of 1964 and which are implemented by the price controller. What I now find somewhat contradictory in the hon member’s argument is that, while referring to these terrible measures regarding control that are embodied in the Act of 1964, to which coal is subject, he talks at the same time of “the sophisticated coal industry”. In terms of which Act did this “sophisticated coal industry” develop? In terms of the Act of 1964, the Act that made control possible. If those stipulations were so Draconian, so wrong, how did the coal industry manage to develop into such a sophisticated industry, as the hon member admits it has become?

The hon member for Edenvale refers, too, to what Assocom see as their major objection to the legislation. Assocom’s finding is as follows:

Let us tell one another now: Absolute freedom of the market or of the entrepreneur in the economic world is a myth. Surely we cannot base our arguments on a myth. This is not only what we maintain; the hon member himself admitted that in the USA, the exponent of the free market and free enterprise, a considerable degree of control is exercised by the central Government over certain sectors of the economy. [Interjections.] The idea that there must be absolute freedom is therefore a myth, and I repeat this.

This also links up with the ideas of great economists. I refer for example to the approach of J S Mill, who said in his Political Economy:

What does Adam Smith say in his world-renowned Wealth of Nations? Let me quote:

In spite of freedom, in spite of the freedom of the free-market system, in spite of free enterprise, these people are insistent that control be exercised somewhere.

Having said this, I want to go on immediately to say that before any kind of meaningful dialogue can take place on any aspect concerning coal, it is absolutely imperative for us to give a very clear account of what coal is used for in South Africa. Let us, then, consider the uses of coal.

Coal is the sole source of energy for the largest section of the population of the Republic of South Africa, especially the lower income groups. For many people in South Africa, coal is their warm blanket during the icy winter. It is the only source of energy they have to prepare their food. The cow, the donkey and the horse ceased long ago to be providers of fuel to these people. The wood from bushes and trees as fuel was used up long ago. These people are dependent solely on coal.

This need for coal is not limited to the areas in and around the cities and towns. It is not limited to areas near railways or busy highways. The need manifests itself wherever people live, in the most far-flung and remote areas. As it is the sole source of energy and the sole form of fuel, it is essential that coal be always—I repeat, always— available, and at a reasonable, realistic price.

It is absolutely naïve to believe that everything ought to be left to the free market mechanism to provide unfailingly for these needs, at reasonable prices, in the furthest outposts of our country. Anyone with the least knowledge of the circumstances of our country must grant that in light of the need for this vital commodity to be available everywhere and at all times, and at a reasonable price, control will have to be exercised by the authorities over the distribution, storage and price of coal. If not, there are going to be people in South Africa who will be cold during the winter and who will have to eat raw food because coal will not be available, or will be available at prices these people cannot afford.

Coal is also used as the basic raw material in the manufacture of liquid fuel. In light of the importance of this undertaking it is obvious to me that the authorities will keep a close watch on the supply and availability of such a strategically important commodity.

Furthermore, coal is one of our most important assets for export purposes. South Africa has gained renown in respect of two particular aspects of its exports: Firstly, for the outstanding quality it consistently maintains in all areas of our exports, and secondly, for the strict fulfilment of its contractual obligations. In the light of the above it is also obvious to me in this respect that control will be exercised to ensure the continued outstanding quality of our exports, as well as a certain measure of control to ensure that supplies for export and for domestic use will always be available.

I conclude by referring to the so-called wide powers the Minister is now acquiring in terms of the Bill. I repeat: If we are going to compare this with the provisions contained in the existing Act, there are no dreadful new additions, but what the hon members are losing sight of, and conveniently keeping quiet about, are the stipulations contained in clause 2 which deal with the appointment of an advisory committee. The following is stated quite explicitly:

In other words, the hon the Minister may not simply take a decision in principle without taking the advisory committee into account. Now the CP has another objection with regard to the members of the advisory committee.

Just tell us what the powers of the committee will be.

I should prefer not to answer the question because I have already made a statement in this regard and I do not want to repeat it. It is clearly stipulated that the advisory committee will consist “of persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of persons or bodies with a direct interest in the coal industry and in coal consumption”. After all, it would be ridiculous were the advisory committee to consist of only one member because he would not be able to represent both the industry and the consumer. Thus, when we look at the powers the Minister acquires in terms of the Bill—I repeat that to a large extent, they coincide with the powers accorded the price controller in terms of the Act of 1964—we must bear in mind that they are confined and restricted by the introduction of an advisory committee. What could the task of the advisory committee be, other than to advise the Minister with regard to consumption, prices etc.?

Mr Chairman, at the outset may I say that we will be supporting the Bill, but I want to make it quite clear that the original draft of the Bill was quite unacceptable to us.

Was it a caucus decision?

Yes.

All five?

Yes, the Big Five.

I want to repeat that the original draft of the Bill was unacceptable to us, but in the light of the alterations that have been made and which were submitted to the standing committee, we are able to support it now.

I think it is essential that one be realistic in regard to this legislation. In motivating my reasons for supporting the Bill, I want to indicate three particular points.

First, the Price Controller already exercises control over many aspects of the coal industry as contained in the Bill, and we cannot get away from it. The second point is that the other control measures such as production, storage and manufacture, can also be applied at the present time in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act of 1970, though I realize that this would fall under the control of the Minister of Trade and Industry. Thirdly, export regulations can be applied under the Import and Export Control Act.

The point is that the machinery already exists to exercise all the provisions contained in the Bill.

So why have it a second time?

Well we must ask ourselves whether this Bill is an improvement on existing legislation. The point here is: Does this House want status quo to remain?

We must also ask ourselves: Do we feel this Bill before the House is an improvement? Our reply to the first question is: No, we do not wish the status quo to continue and secondly we see that there is room for improvement and that this Bill is an improvement in that it consolidates overall control under the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. This is where it rightly belongs. We note with approval that provision is made for an advisory committee to be appointed by the Minister, and that the Minister must consult this advisory committee before he takes any decision.

We see this as the basis on which the whole scope of control of our coal resources can best be administered. This Bill is nothing more nor less than an attempt to co-ordinate the industry and, as we see it, to tie up the many loose ends that exist at present. Furthermore, we must bear in mind—and I strongly support this concept—that coal is a strategic commodity with considerable socioeconomic and strategic implications when applied to the domestic market in this country, notwithstanding the fact that this forms only a relatively small percentage of total coal production.

At the same time one must not lose sight of the fact that South African coal enjoys a high reputation on the export market and steps must be taken to ensure that this reputation is not jeopardized in any way. Reports indicate that the export market, or the world market, is becoming more and more competitive. There is no doubt that now the coal strike in Britain is over, Britain will be seeking export markets. She will now become an exporter of coal, and will no longer be an importer of coal.

The representations which were received by the standing committee were numerous and varied. Strong representations were received from the smaller participants in the industry—the smaller mines, the merchants, the retailers and the suppliers—who indicated that they were extremely unhappy with the present position. Recent court decisions have proved that their complaints are not entirely without foundation. I, for one, gained the impression from the small coal dealers that they felt they were being victimized. If the hon the Minister will give me his attention … [Interjections.] Let me repeat that from the representations that were received by the standing committee one could not help but gain the impression that many small dealers in the coal industry felt they were being victimized. To put it crudely, they felt that the “Small Guys were being called upon to Bite the Bullet” while the “Big Guys were Sitting Pretty.” I should like an assurance from the hon the Minister that this will be one of the first aspects his advisory committee will be looking at when it is formed.

We see the advisory committee as playing an important role and I appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that the representation on this committee covers a wide field and particularly that provision is made to accommodate on this committee the small merchants and small operators in the coal market. I would be grateful if, in his reply, he would give some indication of the basis on which he sees this representation being made.

I wish to return to the report of the Competition Board and, I feel it is necessary to link it to this legislation. The report of the Competition Board reveals that there are many grey areas in the industry and, one notes that it recommend the Government’s “disinvolvement” from the industry, in relation to the supply and distribution of coal on the local market, in favour of a system more oriented towards free enterprise. We note too that the Cabinet has accepted in principle the report of the Competition Board. I want to point out that we do not feel that the Government should withdraw in “one fell swoop” in that it has the responsibility to ensure that there will always be a stable circulation of coal to meet the needs of the country. It is correct that, in the long term, free market enterprise must play a greater role, but monopolistic cartels must never be allowed to obtain a stranglehold on the industry. We must also bear in mind that the generation of electricity is largely coal-based. Furthermore the oil-from-coal process of Sasol plays a very important role and will play an even greater role in the future in providing the fuel requirements of this country. This again indicates that the availability of coal supplies on the local market must be ensured. One must also realize that coal must be readily available for domestic and household use. Finally, coal must at all times be available to meet the needs of industry itself.

In closing I would like to express a few comments about the advisory committee. We look to it as an active committee whose representations must be heard and it must not be regarded merely as a shield behind which the Minister and his department can hide.

It is for these reasons that we find ourselves able to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I shall, during the course of my speech, be dealing with the various points made by the hon member for Mooi River.

I want to kick off by taking issue with the hon the Minister over what he said in his introduction to this Second Reading debate. The hon the Minister said this Bill is an “excellent example of the success of the consultative process between the Government and the private sector”. He also said it illustrates the valuable role of the standing committee system; and he congratulated the standing committee on “their valuable assistance in presenting this legislation in its present, acceptable format”. For the hon the Minister to have made those statements, he must have been very poorly advised about the proceedings and the standpoints put forward at that standing committee. [Interjections.] There was, after all, no consensus in the standing committee. Those of us from the PFP who served on that standing committee were bitterly opposed to this Bill from start to finish. The member of the CP was opposed to it. The NRP did a “flip-flop”, as is common practice with them. [Interjections.] However, there was absolutely no consensus …

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

No.

You were not even there.

I voted against the principle, and participated in most of the discussions, and the hon member knows that.

As I was saying, there was no consensus among the members of the House of Assembly on this matter, even after a series of meetings. [Interjections.] Certain of the representatives from the other Houses also had problems. However, they can speak for themselves. As far as representatives from the private sector are concerned—their representations were invited, and a stack of responses were received—some two thirds of them were opposed to this Bill. Some of them bitterly opposed it; they even came with delegations.

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

No, I did not interrupt that hon member when he made his speech. [Interjections.]

As I was saying, about two thirds of the representatives from the private sector objected to the Bill in its original form. Then some changes were made, and I shall come back to these later. [Interjections.]

I went and counted them. [Interjections.]

You counted wrong.

When the Bill was amended—and it was not extensively amended—there was a refusal to send the amended Bill back to the private sector, even only to those who had responded to the first Bill. There was a vote taken, and we in the PFP voted for it to be referred back to the private sector. In the light of the fact that this Bill in its slightly revised form was rammed through the standing committee, without any further reference to the private sectors, I find it surprising that the hon the Minister can say that this is a good example of co-operation with the private sector. In the newspaper this morning it was said that the hon the Minister, together with the Chief Minister of the House of Delegates, is receiving a delegation of people who are aggrieved. Members serving on that standing committee also received a very irate—to put it mildly—telex from the FCI when it was announced that the Bill was going to be debated in the House of Assembly.

For all these reasons, I would say that, far from this being a good example of co-operation between the Government and the private sector, this is an example of trying to stuff something down the throat of the private sector, against a considerable body of opposition.

Exactly.

No.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs whether it is correct that there is a delegation coming to see him, as was reported in the Press.

Which delegation?

Well, I refer the hon Minister to the Cape Times.

The FCI.

Is the FCI seeing the hon the Minister?

Yes.

And the body of Indian traders from Natal?

No.

Well, they are obviously going to see only the Chief Minister of the House of Delegates.

The fact remains, there is considerable …

Order! I cannot recall there being a Chief Minister of the House of Delegates. Presumably the hon member is referring to the Leader of the House. The hon member may continue. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the changes that were brought about after the first Bill was published. It was on the basis of these changes that the NRP did their flip-flop. [Interjections.] What was actually changed? Firstly, the name was changed. It was changed from the Coal Control Bill to the Coal Resources Bill. However a rose by any other name smells just as sweet or sour. Secondly, instead of having a controller who is a State official, it is now the Minister who holds all the powers, but he has the power to delegate these powers to a State official. There is therefore no material change in that. It is the same principle, simply slightly softened.

Then there is this creation of an advisory committee which, on the face of it, sounds like a step forward. It is a marginal improvement but I believe there is already an informal advisory committee. There is no detail as to how this advisory committee is to be composed nor is there any reference to its powers. The hon member for Barberton set out the shortcomings in respect of this advisory committee admirably.

It seems to me that the hon the Minister can establish as big or as small a body as he likes. He only has to consult with them on a matter of principle and need not take any account of what they have to say. This advisory committee has no powers whatsoever. It has no general advisory function and, as far as I can make out, can only be called in to advise on matters that are specifically referred to it. Above all, there is no indication as to how this advisory body is going to be composed.

The composition of traders in this industry is made up of a small number of large companies and a large number of small companies. The old 80:20 general rule tends to apply in this industry. In broad terms, 20% of the total supply of coal is handled by 80% of little people who perhaps own one truck and a small facility. How is the hon the Minister going to give representation to the large number of small traders? It is very easy to give representation to the small number of large traders. In fact they already have a tremendously strong access to this department and the Ministry, and it is a point of contention among the small traders that they do enjoy this access. It is in fact the small traders’ fear that this access is going to be strengthened by this advisory committee, unless they can find some form of representation there.

It is also significant that most of the people who responded and who were opposed to this Bill, were small traders. A few big traders were, in fact, in support of the Bill. There is a moral in this. There is a danger that the pattern of big traders being in favour of the Bill and then getting representation on the advisory committee will be followed through. In the meantime the small traders who are complaining will still be at a disadvantage. Their position may perhaps be even worse than before.

The hon member for Edenvale has explained—we also repeatedly referred to this in the standing committee—that we object to the broad principle of extending Government interference in what has traditionally been, and certainly should be, a free market situation.

That has never been the tradition.

The hon member says that has never been the tradition. Until 15 March, 1983, this was one of the freest markets in existence in South Africa. Until that specific date, for decades the coal industry had been a free market. People could enter the market, they could supply as they wished; they could set their prices, subject only to the Price Control Act which did not include all the categories of coal and small bagging suppliers. However, until that date on which Notice No 895 was published in the Gazette, this was, to a large degree, a free market. What caused the Government to issue that stringent notice in March 1983, which was followed up on 12 October 1984 by Notice No 2241 which placed an even stronger imposition on this industry? What happened? It is a very interesting speculation, but one hard bit of evidence is to hand. In the responses that were received by the standing committee there was one from a company called McPhail. McPhail is probably the biggest coal supplier, certainly on the Reef, if not nationwide. It is one of the big ones. McPhail is in favour of this Bill. It is the company which I believe retained the services, on an advisory basis, of the present Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. McPhail also featured in some press reports in the Sunday Express towards the end of last year, which on the face of it reflected an extremely cosy relationship between McPhail and the department.

What did McPhail say when they submitted their evidence to the standing committee and motivated their support of this Bill? They made some very interesting statements. They said that the W & A Investment Corporation of which they are a subsidiary—and I am quoting now from a letter they wrote:

A question which arises is why the department entered into an agreement with a private company to introduce a rationalization scheme in the coal industry. Why did that happen? Why did the Government work together with one private company on such a basis? Was it to rescue them? They say here that the requirements which were part of this rationalization deal:

They then go on to make a very revealing comment. Point 4 of their submission, inter alia, says:

Point 5 reads:

Unhealthy price cutting; unauthorized participation in the market—these are key principles.

Why is price cutting unhealthy?

Ask a consumer whether price cutting is unhealthy. Ask the man who buys coal to keep himself warm. That hon member pleaded for the interests of the small man. Let him ask the little people whether they are against price cutting. They do not want Government control which keeps the price at a high level; they do not want Government control which keeps little people out of the industry.

What has been the effect of these Notices? Why were there all these objections to this proposed new Bill? There were small companies operating in the coal industry. By “small” I mean a man with a truck and a little backyard who buys a truckload of coal and transfers it by hand into small jute bags tied with a piece of wire, and who is prepared to sell that bag cheaply. He is prepared to operate with absolutely minimal overheads and he is providing a service. If we talk about promoting the free enterprise system, if we talk about encouraging the informal sector and involving other sectors of the community fully in the economic life of this country in terms of the free enterprise system, if we want to save the free enterprise system, then we must encourage that small man, whereas these notices squash that small man. These notices effectively require that, unless one has a big machine, unless one has a bagging plant, unless one has trucks of a certain standard—and even a siding—one cannot operate. It means that that small man with his trucks and his pliers and wire and jute bag cannot operate. In response, some of these smaller operators took the department to court to challenge these notices and to plead for the right to continue to exist, and the department lost these cases. One suspects that this Bill arises directly out of the fact that the Government lost those cases. They now seek to get their way by introducing legislation into this Parliament. This is Draconian legislation that gives plenipotentiary powers to the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

The hon member for Barberton set out the legal objections to this Bill, and I will not take those arguments any further other than just to underline the fact that there is no appeal to the courts in terms of this Bill. Clause 9 of the Bill gives a ministerial order the automatic force of a civil judgment. I am not sure how many other examples there are in the law where a Minister, by ministerial order, can raise himself above the courts, and where his order has the force of a court with no powers of appeal. We find that to be a completely unacceptable situation.

I think it was the hon member for Welkom who advanced the argument that the Government must have ultimate control over an important strategic resource. The point is, however, that the Government already has ultimate control over this resource. It has control over all important resources in terms of the Strategic Mineral Resources Development Act. In times of national emergency the Government has all the power it needs to regulate any strategic resource. This Bill, however, provides powers which are as, if not more, far-reaching than the powers of the Strategic Mineral Resources Development Act in peacetime. In the normal marketing situation it imposes these powers, and it is a massive interference in the free-market system. In terms of what stands in this Bill, it is also a block to the little man becoming involved in this industry. It is for all these reasons that we find ourselves most opposed to the Bill.

As my hon colleague has spelt out, we believe that we should be following the considered recommendations of the Competition Board. Why do we have a Competition Board? It is becoming a farce. This Competition Board investigates problem areas, it makes recommendations, and the Government simply sails on regardless. The Government is killing the Competition Board by ignoring it. In this case it has actually gone even further. Not only have they ignored the recommendations but they are also flying in the face of these recommendations. The Competition Board said the Government should withdraw rather than try to regulate this industry, but this Bill actually makes their involvement deeper and more extensive. Far from a withdrawal, far from even leaving the status quo, it takes State involvement further. That is an unacceptable situation.

Perhaps the last word should be given to FCI. FCI sent a telex to all members of the standing committee, and I believe that some of their points deserve to be highlighted. They say:

They go on to highlight their key objections:

They end off by saying:

This party is also vigorously opposed to the Bill.

Debate interrupted to enable the Minister of Law and Order to make a statement.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity afforded me of making the following statement.

I regret to have to announce that a most unfortunate incident took place at about 10h00 today, when the police were forced to open fire on a crowd of people estimated at between 3 000 and 4 000 near Uitenhage in the Eastern Cape. Seventeen people died and nineteen were injured.

A crowd armed with stones, sticks, petrol bombs and bricks was marching towards Uitenhage along the highway from the Langa Black township. They were led by a person dressed in black and carrying a brick. About 1 km from Uitenhage a police vehicle manned by nineteen men in charge of a lieutenant confronted the marching crowd. The officer in charge climbed onto his vehicle and told the leader of the crowd that the march was illegal in terms of the prohibition on open-air gatherings. He instructed the leader to order his people back but his instructions were ignored. When the crowd was about 5m from the police the commanding officer fired a warning shot into the ground next to the leader.

It still had no effect and the police were suddenly surrounded and pelted with stones, sticks and other missiles, including petrol bombs. The police officer had no alternative but to order fire in self-defence. Three R 1 rifles and some shotguns were used. The crowd retreated and firing ceased immediately. Six R 1 bullets, 27 shotgun cartridges and ten pistol shots were fired. Eleven people died during the incident, while six others died later in hospital. Nineteen people were wounded.

The police later found traces of exploded petrol bombs as well as an unexploded petrol bomb. Fingerprints were found on the unexploded petrol bomb.

I am particularly perturbed that notwithstanding the fact that the police and my office informed the media of the correct facts as quickly as possible after the incident, it came to my notice that grossly exaggerated messages stating that the police had opened up with machine guns and that wounded people had been shot dead in cold blood were relayed to the media. This is a calculated distortion of the facts.

Mr Chairman, there are several points regarding the whole question of burials that are not clear, and I should like to ask the hon the Minister for certain information in this regard. Would the hon the Minister perhaps inform the House whether permission was given for a burial, which was originally to have taken place on Sunday, and whether that permission was withdrawn and an instruction given that the burial had to take place today? It appears to me as if this was one of the rumours that created a lot of confusion in that area. Does the hon the Minister perhaps have at his disposal more reliable information in this connection?

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I do not have information available at the moment regarding the final and actual state of affairs there. I hope, however, to obtain those facts somewhat later this afternoon, when I return to my office.

I am indeed aware, however, that the magistrate decided that three burials would take place today in the Uitenhage area. I received representations from the hon member for Uitenhage yesterday that I should reconsider the matter after he, too, had received earnest representations from responsible people in his constituency; in particular from people involved in industry. We gave immediate attention to that, and only last night I received written confirmation that all possible efforts were being made to allow these burials to be shifted so that they could be held on Sunday. This was done with a view to causing as little disturbance as possible in the sphere of labour; that is to say, in the factories and elsewhere.

I regret that I had not received the final report on this before coming to this House. It would have informed me whether those arrangements for Sunday had in fact been finalized or not. Nevertheless, this is a matter which is receiving my attention and as soon as I have more information at my disposal, somewhat later this afternoon, I shall inform the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition fully.

Mr Chairman, in pursuance of what the hon member for Constantia has said I want to reply to him first before I confine myself to the subject matter of the Bill.

He referred to a so-called free trade situation, as he called it, which existed up to 1983 and changed subsequently. I should like to ask him immediately whether he does not agree that the coal resources of South Africa are one of the most strategic resources of the country. If, therefore, they are dealt with in a reckless fashion, we have to do something to regulate the matter. It appears to me as though the hon member did not consider that aspect. That is why I put this question to him because regulation is the purpose of this Bill. With a view to the future it seeks to regulate one of the most strategic and most vulnerable resources of South Africa.

When the private sector goes ahead with something which one knows may possibly come to an end at a certain stage, one cannot permit future generations to be detrimentally affected because we have acted in a reckless fashion. That is why we on this side support the Bill.

At the start of his speech the hon member also said that the standing committee was completely opposed to this Bill. However, that is certainly not the impression I gained on that standing committee. The people who were opposed to it may have been the members of the PFP who did their level best to convince the representatives of the other Houses to agree with them. However, they did not succeed in doing so because those people thought for themselves. My interpretation of what happened on the standing committee was that there was a great deal of unanimity in regard to what we eventually submitted to the hon the Minister. That is why I want to tell the hon the Minister that I do not think he should concern himself to any great extent in regard to the point raised by the hon member with reference to the large measure of opposition that there was to the Bill.

I also want to tell the hon member for Mooi River that we are grateful for the support they have given to this legislation. However, I want to revert firstly to what the hon member for Barberton had to say. I am sorry that he is not in the House at the moment. At the start of his speech the hon member made it apparent immediately that he was going to find fault with everything this afternoon. In the first place he asked us why we could not discuss this legislation in the evening. He also objected to the fact, for example, that we had not dealt with it yesterday evening. However, his party did after all support the motion not to sit last night. Today he is unhappy because we did not sit last night. One cannot always follow the reasoning of the hon member for Barberton from day to day. That hon member—and also the PFP—is opposed to the fact that in terms of this Bill the Minister is apparently being given too much power. They linked this to the democratic dispensation under which we are living and contended that the democratic rights of the individual were now being affected. I want to tell hon members of the opposition parties that that is after all why Parliament is here. That is after all why this Parliament can appoint a Minister but can also call that Minister to account if we as a democratic community are in any way dissatisfied with his actions. So I want to tell the hon members of the opposition parties that they can come back here year after year and if they find that the democratic rights of individuals have been detrimentally affected, they can put that fact to Ministers in this Parliament by way of questions. They can adopt standpoints and move motions and take all sorts of other steps to air their grievances. In the case of legislation such as this they can therefore use a variety of methods to defend the democratic rights of individuals. Therefore, that sort of argument does not hold water as far as this side of the House is concerned.

I want to come back now to the hon member for Edenvale who moved an amendment which, as far as I can see, forms the basis of the argument of the Official Opposition. He said, inter alia, that before the Bill is adopted, the hon the Minister must give the assurance that it is in conformity with the recommendations of the Competition Board. They elaborated to some extent on this subject and on how we had apparently not listened to the representations made by the Competition Board. In association with other hon members who have also discussed this matter I want to say that the Competition Board was after all not the only witness to submit evidence to the standing committee.

As a body of Parliament the standing committee gave proper attention to all the evidence submitted to it, including that of the Competition Board. That is why we have no fault to find with the actions of the hon the Minister in respect of what he then had written into the legislation. We are satisfied that he can deal with this resource of South Africa properly by means of this legislation.

In the next portion of his amendment the hon member wants the hon the Minister first to ensure that there is adequate negotiation with the private sector. Those hon members were after all members of the standing committee. Can they tell us whether they believe that there was adequate negotiation? Was not stacks and stacks of evidence submitted to us?

What about the question of revision?

The hon member is now raising the question of revision, and I accept it, but I think that we also discussed this matter adequately on the standing committee. I think it was only that hon member and his colleague on the standing committee who voted against it. The rest of the standing committee were all in favour of it. I think therefore the hon member should concede the point. He cannot continually go from committee to committee and then eventually seek to advance the same argument in this House as well. The stage must be reached where we will have given sufficient attention to his arguments.

I should like now to make one or two remarks about the Bill itself. I give this Bill my wholehearted support. The price, the production, the obtaining, the storage, the supply, the sale and the delivery as well as the export of coal provide in my opinion job opportunities and an income for thousands if not millions of people in South Africa. Therefore, when one adds to this the secondary industries which also make a living out of this industry, one has to look at the whole matter very seriously indeed, as I said at the start of my speech, because it is not only a strategic resource of South Africa but also a resource which provides an income for so many people in this country.

We must ensure that all the aspects dealing with the utilization of this raw material are arranged in an orderly manner. We on this side of the House considered this matter thoroughly on the standing committee and we are satisfied in this regard. It is therefore important that the industry be regulated and not controlled.

The hon members of the PFP had a great deal to say about whether the word “control” or “regulate” should be used, but they were unable to give the standing committee a proper definition in order to make it clear what the difference was that they saw between the words “regulate” and “control”. Therefore they were unable to convince the standing committee that it should make any changes in this regard at all. The evidence submitted to the standing committee confirms this statement, and that was why it was easy for us to reach consensus in regard to the fact that the industry ought to be regulated.

In contrast to what the hon members of the CP wish to give to understand, I must admit in the House that it was to the advantage of the standing committee that Coloureds and Indians were members of the standing committee. They made it impossible for the points of view of the fat cats to carry the day on their own. Those fat cats have put their points of view to us once again and we can see what they are all about.

The members of the other two groups on the standing committee also informed us what the situation was in regard to the small dealer and consumer—that man who goes along to buy coal with his bucket in his hand. That also convinced us that it was necessary to listen to those inputs as well and give them the necessary attention in the legislation before us. It was important that we could have those inputs in regard to the distribution and availability of these small quantities. We as Whites have already forgotten what it means to be dependent upon coal for heating, for the cooking of food and for the heating of water.

Dealing with this legislation on the standing committee proved that we had to create machinery to enable us to develop this important raw material to the advantage of every South African and also, as I have already said, in the best interests of our future generations.

In 1983 coal production in South Africa amounted to 145 million tons. Experts have told me that if we want to visualize just how much coal this is we must imagine a stack of coal 200 metres high on one ha of land. After five years that heap of coal will be as high as Table Mountain. It will of course not be as bulky as Table Mountain but in fact just as high on one ha of land.

Of that heap of coal, 43% is used for the generation of electrical power in our country; 20% is exported; 16% is converted into liquid fuel; 3,6% is converted into coking coal or used in the coking of coal, which is used in steel production; and only 2,8% is available to small dealers and households. This forms an interesting picture of the mountain of coal that we have.

The lastmentioned small percentage figure would be as high as the H F Verwoerd building on one ha of land. This gives one an idea of why it is so important to regulate the distribution of coal so that the small consumer participating in the economy throughout the country can obtain this source of energy and also make his contribution to the development of the other economic resources of our country. I am grateful that I am also able to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I do not understand how the hon member for Boksburg could stand up and say it is necessary to have this particular Bill for South Africa’s strategic needs. Those strategic needs, as the hon member for Constantia has said, are well covered by other legislation. What we are really talking about here is the domestic supply and distribution of coal. One can control the export of coal through mechanisms other than those contained in this Bill. There is such control; maximum standards of 40 million tons a year were set. This was then increased, and the line to Richard’s Bay is currently being improved in order to carry extra export tonnages. The Government controls this in terms of mechanisms which it already has.

This Bill goes directly against the recommendation of the Competition Board. I think we should read that recommendation again. It reads:

If the hon the Minister will undertake to do this, he will get rid of many of our objections to this particular piece of legislation.

I find it very strange that, while the hon the Minister of Finance is doing his best in the Budget to assist small businesses, the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and his officials are doing their level best, and have been doing so for some time, to put small men out of business. As soon as one makes all these regulations that people have to have sidings, they have to keep stocks, they have to have X amount of stock on hand, and they have to supply the whole market, one makes entry into the market that much more expensive. When one has to pay 25% on prime overdraft rates and one has to spend R100 000 to establish oneself in this business, one’s interest bill alone will be R25 000 a year.

What will this mean? It will mean that the public will have to pay more for its coal and it means that many small men who would otherwise have liked to get involved cannot do so.

Where do you read that in the Bill?

I will tell the hon the Minister exactly where I read it. I will get to it.

The history of this department’s handling of the sale of coal over some time is a prime example of meddling with market mechanisms by people who have never been in the marketplace, know very little about it and therefore cost everybody money, including the taxpayers. The President’s Council has been asked to investigate laws and regulations which cost the taxpayer money to administer and do not work. At the very same time this hon Minister comes along with precisely such a Bill. It is beyond belief. This Bill appears to be nothing less than the result of sour grapes in the department. Because of lost court cases they now seek wider powers, which will make it increasingly difficult for the small man. Let me tell the Minister exactly what I mean by this.

Proclamation R895 was issued in March 1983, but was found to be invalid in terms of present legislation by a court of law. It was withdrawn by Proclamation R2241 in December 1984. That was taken to court and, as I understand the situation, judgement has not as yet been given on the validity of that particular proclamation. In terms of clause 5 of this Bill the Minister shall have the power to “regulate in such manner as he may deem fit, including the imposition upon any person of any duty in connection therewith, or prohibit, the production, the manufacture, acquisition, storage, distribution, supply, sale, delivery or disposal of coal”. In terms of this Bill, Proclamation R895 would have been valid. I want to ask the hon the Minister if that is true. If this provision had been in effect at the time Proclamations R.895 and R.2241 were issued, would they then have been valid regulations? That is the point and that is why we have this Bill.

Your answer is in the judgement of the court.

Judgment against R895 has already been given by the court. I ask the hon the Minister: If this Bill had been law when R895 was ruled invalid, would it have been invalid?

Read the judgment.

One does not get an answer from this Minister.

The history of the Bill is interesting. Once upon a time a major group bought the four major coal distributors on the Reef and called themselves McPhail. They raised prices by 40% but by doing so they created opportunities for many new entrants to the market. There was fierce competition and prices dropped from R38 per ton to R26 per ton. McPhail suffered but Government came to their rescue with Proclamation R895. As a result, merchants were forced to stockpile and service bulk and bag coal buyers, thus adding to cost, and no sign of a better deal for buyers occurred. After court cases successfully challenging the validity of R895, it was followed, as I have said, by Proclamation R2241 in October 1984.

Coal has always been an exempted transport item in terms of Government Notice No 7973. This means that one does not need a permit to transport it by road. But this Minister knows better. Proclamation R2241 lays down that a coal merchant must receive at least 50% of his coal by rail, thus negating what is laid down in road transportation laws. Then, in Government Notice No 9172 of 5 April, a maximum price was set of R8 per t/km for road transportation. What a gross interference with the free market system that such a price should be set! Why this should be thought necessary for the strategic benefit of the country, is simply not understandable. Why is it of strategic importance to the country that coal should be transported at no more than R8 per t/km? Why is it of strategic importance that 50% of coal merchants’ coal should be transported by rail? In December’s Road Transportation one distributor says:

Another coal merchant says:

This is the history of this legislation.

In the meantime the department was helping McPhail. It helped them to get a R2,5 million contract, as my hon colleague said, to supply the Transvaal Provincial Administration. This was the highest tender price. It ended up in a court case. I want to quote again from the magazine Road Transportation of December 1984:

A certain official who is named:

This is the history.

The next event in the history is the Coal Control Bill. The Coal Control Bill was a shocking piece of legislation, and thank goodness it has been withdrawn. It is even worse than the bad Bill we have before us at present. I assume that the hon the Minister had the Bill approved by all his Cabinet colleagues before this Bill came to this House. Is that correct? Whoops, he is not answering! May I ask him whether the Ministers from the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives approved this? Still no answer.

Order! The hon member is talking about a Bill which has been withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I am dealing with the background to the Coal Resources Bill, and that is definitely part of the background.

The hon member must speak closer to the Bill under discussion.

Right, Sir! That particular Bill established a coal führer. That has been done away with in the new Bill. As I said, fortunately it has been withdrawn.

The department appears determined to interfere in the coal market, against the advice of the Competition Board. So, we have the present Bill which is still an unwarranted interference in the free market. All of South Africa will be the poorer if this Bill goes through. The small purchasers of coal, whether they be in the White suburbs of Johannesburg, in the White suburbs of Cape Town or in the Black areas, in Langa, Guguletu, Soweto or wherever, will be the poorer if this Bill goes through. This Bill, as my hon colleagues have said, must be scrapped. The interference by this Government in private mechanisms and private market places must be stemmed. I do not understand the need for it. We know the history of this Government with its control boards and how they put up prices when they have surpluses. They are establishing the same thing here. How many officials are going to have to police this Bill? What is it going to cost the State in employment to have the officials to handle it? Prior to this the distribution of coal to the retail purchasers was handled perfectly adequately by the market mechanism.

At good prices.

At much better prices, as the hon member says. I am not suggesting that we fire the staff that are involved in this. They could surely be transferred somewhere else to play a more useful and productive role. Mr Chairman, I support the amendment of the hon member for Edenvale.

Mr Chairman, after listening to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central one is more than ever convinced that this Bill ought to be placed on the Statute Book, and that the Minister and his Director-General and staff have gone to a lot of trouble—in the standing committee too—to be able to give us this Bill. If you consider the reasons for this, no one has spelled them out better than this very hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. It is a question of specific deficiencies that must be eliminated. It is a question of the regulation, production, acquisition, storage, distribution, supply, sale, delivery and exportation of coal.

The hon member spoke of irregularities there, but is he aware of the irregularities committed by the smaller man in the coal industry? A poor Black man wants to buy coal, but does not have a bag in which to put the coal. The supplier then actually asks more for the bag than for the coal inside it. The biggest disgrace is that this takes place in both the rural and urban areas. It is with just this kind of thing in mind that we want to introduce adequate protection.

The PFP quoted again from the Sunday Express. They will still be able to quote from it until Sunday, because after that there will no longer be a Sunday Express.

I want to say that it is important that we have adequate reserves of energy resources for individual daily needs and for our industrial needs. Here I call to mind in particular Escom, the petrochemical industry, the SATS, the shipping industry, etc. These enterprises would not be able to make a living if our coal reserves were not protected. Next to gold, coal is the resource that earns the most foreign currency. That is why coal is referred to nowadays as black gold.

I learned only this afternoon that in 1984, R1 600 million was earned through the export of 36,5 million tons of coal. More than 95% of Escom’s power is generated by coal. Coal meets 85% of our total primary energy needs. We have coal reserves of 110 000 million tons which must be protected. Then there is a further 57 000 million tons to be recovered. This Bill has as its objective the protection of those very reserves. In 1982— the hon member for Boksburg also quoted these figures, but I am just doing so again— 144 million tons were produced. Of that amount 100 million tons were used locally and 37 million tons were shipped.

Do hon members know that at the moment South Africa is the second largest exporter and the fourth largest producer of coal on the world market? We have already earned ourselves a very good reputation because we are such a stable supplier. We export to Europe, the East, Taiwan and Korea. Even America has in the past had to improve its infrastructure to supply coal. In Australia strikes occur and difficulties are experienced with the result that even Australia, which is close to the East, is not always able to supply coal. We are therefore building a bridge for the future with coal, not only for South Africa, but for the whole world.

One must take into account that 26% of the world’s energy needs are already supplied by coal. Gas, hydro-electric power and nuclear energy all supply a smaller percentage of the world’s energy needs. [Interjections.] It has recently been discovered that the years from 1985 to 2000 will be the most critical years as far as coal is concerned. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please not continually interrupt the hon member. The hon member may proceed.

It has been ascertained that in the year 2020 an estimated 740 million tons of coal will be needed in certain respects.

I am therefore asking the hon members to give their full support to this Bill. I think that this is a brilliant hon Minister. I do not think we could say anything against him at the moment. He and his staff, together with the study group and, ultimately, the standing committee, have introduced an excellent Bill. We must place it on the Statute Book today.

Mr Chairman, one could listen to today’s debate and discern the different ideas of the respective participants. One could see how they read the legislation, how they examined it and what interpretations they attached to it. Some people interpret this Bill as if it is protecting a strategic mineral as far as quantities are concerned. They also read a number of other aspects into it.

This Bill actually provides for control over the sale of coal, its price, the way it is sold and who may purchase it. This Bill contains an ordinary trade practice restriction, and that is precisely what is worrying me. I want to agree with the hon member for Barberton. If one deals with the hon the Minister and his officials in the normal course of events and they ask one to pass legislation, one does not like to refuse to support such a bill. Then one is inclined to say to oneself that one does not want to deny them that; there may be good reasons for the legislation.

I am a person with many years of experience of this industry. By this I do not mean that I have been engaged in working in this industry myself but that I know a great deal about the industry because many people who are active in the industry have discussed their problems with me. The greatest problem of all time is experienced by the small businessman who has a small mine and who wants a market for that mine’s coal. He is then faced by the situation that the large companies are not interested in that coal. He does not get a quota from the SATS to export through Richards Bay either. He must then approach the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association or other people hat in hand and make them an offer by saying to them: Gentlemen, do you not want to buy my coal too? I can get a large market for it abroad, for example in Taiwan, at a tremendous price, but I am not allowed to do that.

Then I advised some of them. I asked them why they had to ask the SATS for a quota. They then told me that the large companies do not use their quotas. If they have a quota for so many thousand tons they do not use it, and consequently that quota remains unutilized. I then told them they should not be stupid. I asked them what price they could get in Taiwan, and I worked out for them that they could use the ordinary railage by transporting their goods in containers.

†I pointed out to them that, by using the ordinary containers, they could export the same coal to any country in the world, provided they were reasonably assured of getting the container back. One does indeed run the risk of not getting the container back. Thus the transaction could involve more money than was anticipated, and one could subsequently find that one was unable to do one’s business properly.

What do we now find in this Bill? The Minister may now decide—and I am not referring to the individual—whether or not one may charge a deposit. Why? What for? What is strategic about a deposit on a container? This is an ordinary business practice aimed at keeping certain “fat cats” from running this country. [Interjections.] Attempts are made by some big coal merchants to restrict other people. Why on this earth must a Minister and other people decide in which area one should sell one’s coal? Why on earth is it necessary for a man to say that I cannot, for instance, sell coal in Durban, or that I cannot sell coal in the Transvaal? There are definitely certain people there who are in a position to decide that they will not allow anybody to enter the market in the Johannesburg area. We know what the company’s name is. They decide who they want to sell to. Reference has also been made to the poor Blacks, the poor Whites and others, but all these people must go cap in hand to the company I have referred to and it decides whether it will or will not give them coal.

Will they fail you?

However, the Minister has to regulate certain things. Certain people make representations, and the bigger companies can most certainly present a better case than the small man. However, the law is there to look after the small man. When a man feels that he is really in the dog-box, he is free to approach the court to help him out of his predicament, but in this instance that is not the case. I think it would be wise to read clause 9(3) in this regard:

Is it possible that in our day and age we are now giving a Minister the right to interfere in the jurisdiction of the court without his even giving evidence? Is it not possible that in this instance the Minister may be wrong? Is it not possible that the official to whom the Minister may delegate his powers may be wrong? Why cannot there be the right of appeal in these cases? Why not? [Interjections.]

A further problem is that we also have the Competition Board. In this regard they say the following (Report No 12, par 165, p 34):

*Whose opinion have I just quoted? These are people who have been investigating these industries for the past five or six years. These are the people who advised the small entrepreneur in the industry to take his problems to the Competition Board, to talk to them and to see whether they could not help him. But these people have now said that the Government’s “involvement” is counterproductive and is not in the interests of the public. But listen to what the Competition Board went on to say (par 166):

†This is exactly what I said a few minutes ago. This has been going on for many, many years. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the Minister must have certain powers when it comes to production. We have to give the Minister the right to control production and most certainly, if it is in our interest not to export coal, he must have the right to say that only a certain amount may be exported because we need it for Sasol or something else. However, it is a different matter for the Minister to fix a deposit on containers, to work on a day to day basis and to become a law unto himself. I most certainly feel that we should not give those rights to the Minister. Again I wish to say that the representations of the big companies as such may be overwhelming because they can afford to pay people to go into …

To pay the Ministers.

No, they do not say things like that. They can pay people to go into the trade and get representations at every level and to convince people to accept as being right things that are wrong.

*We cannot support this legislation. It is not in the interests of South Africa to have such an Act on the Statute Book. I believe that the State has every right to take action in an emergency and to promulgate any Act to protect an individual, but this does not apply to business and business transactions. I do not believe for a single moment that the Department or the hon the Minister is of the opinion that these large dealers should be protected, but I am asking the hon the Minister to take another look at this legislation, because it could lead to the protection of people who do not need it and who must act openly.

Mr Chairman, I think that right at the outset I must convey my sincere thanks to all the hon members on our side, the hon members for Boksburg, Kimberley North, Rosettenville and Welkom, for their contributions and support; I could in fact let what they said, suffice.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Mooi River very much for supporting this measure. He made a very valuable contribution because he highlighted most of the very salient and important points in respect of this Bill as well as the general objectives. I thank him very much.

I enjoyed the discussion of this Bill very much. The hon member for Edenvale in his amendment really put a challenge to me. I want to come to an agreement with him and he must say yes or no. If I can meet his challenge, will he support this measure? What he really said in his amendment was that, if I could assure him that I would meet his objections he would, as I understood him, support this Bill. Before I start, I want him to indicate whether he would do so because, if he did not, he would not be honest.

*I am going to test his honesty now, because he said very explicitly that he would be able to support this Bill if the Minister could satisfy him in respect of points 1,2 and 3 and a few subdivisions. If I give him the assurance that …

Well, give it to us.

I will give it to him. That is verbal. The hon member for Groote Schuur must keep out of it.

Order! I think the hon member for Edenvale is being addressed and I am quite sure that he is quite capable of speaking for himself.

It is an agreement…

I am representing the caucus.

Ah, wait a minute! It is an agreement between the hon member for Edenvale and myself because he has put the amendment to the House and he said that, unless and until I meet his objections, he will not support me. If I meet these objectives given here, I want him to agree that he will support me.

And if you do not, will you withdraw the Bill? [Interjections.]

Never, but I am confident that I will meet them. I am prepared to enter into an agreement with him.

You started talking about honesty; now we are testing your honesty.

No, it is not honesty. It is not my amendment; it is the hon member’s amendment. [Interjections.] He is challenging me, and I am accepting his challenge.

*Mr Chairman, that is extremely interesting. I stand by the statements I made in my Second Reading speech because as far as I know the opposition in the standing committee came from one quarter only; the other representatives advanced no objection. For that reason I stand by my statement. This is another indication of the effectiveness of the standing committee. Moreover, the original legislation was sent to interested parties for their comment. Virtually all the recommendations contained in their comments were accepted and incorporated in the amending legislation.

Oh no.

Oh yes, I have no doubt about that.

*But what is even more interesting is that the objection advanced by those hon members derives from two quarters only. The one is the recommendation of the Competition Board. [Interjections.] Those members state that the board is worthless; only a moment ago I heard it being commented at the back over there that they are not worth anything. That is their first source. Their second source is one solitary dealer. The words used by those hon members correspond exactly to the wording of a letter of request I received from one dealer. Hon members use the arguments advanced by that one dealer—let us say there are two—as if they were representative of small coal distributors in South Africa. Now I want to tackle those members. I want to quote to them the comments in a letter received from those two dealers after I had negotiated with them.

What dealers are those?

They know full well what dealers I am referring to. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon member for Constantia know full well which dealers I am referring to. Let me quote to this House what the representative of those two dealers said to me after we had conducted lengthy discussions:

I have reverted to them. Their verbal comment subsequently was: “Sir, you have solved 95% of our problems.” That is the one so-called small dealer to whom those hon members referred.

Let us look at other small dealers. I conducted discussions at which 87 of them were present. We spoke for almost two hours and at that meeting only three out of 87 dealers present were opposed to this legislation; two from the Transvaal, and one from Natal. The letter of the one from Natal I have just quoted to you. The other dealers were all in favour of the legislation.

We now come to the interesting point. It was announced here, with great to-do, that this legislation does not protect the small dealer because the small dealer does not wish to fall under the Act since it only protects the large dealer. What, however, do the small dealers tell us? They say, “We accept that legislation, but, please, we want more protection. You do not go far enough with your legislation; we want more protection.” I am now speaking on behalf of the many small dealers whose representatives, from Upington to as far as Swartwater and Vaalwater, sat with my officials and myself in my office. We spoke for hours. Representatives of small dealers from the Waterberg region, too, were present. They said: “Sir, please, for the sake of the small dealers we are seeking more control—your legislation does not go far enough. I say that in terms of this Bill I now have the power—and all the small dealers agree with me—to protect the livelihood of the small dealers. Those are the facts of the matter.

The hon members opposite base all their arguments on two matters only; firstly, on the minor recommendation of the Competition Board. However, we have never quarrelled with the Competition Board; on the contrary, to tell the truth, this Government accepted their recommendation.

†I think the hon member for Mooi River really put the matter quite correctly. The process cannot be stopped overnight. Regulation has to be phased out gradually. As the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, I agree.

*We have never found fault with the recommendations of the Competition Board. In that regard, therefore, I wish to differ with the hon member for Langlaagte because it is untrue that we ignore them. Indeed, in terms of this legislation we are creating for ourselves a mechanism we can utilize to implement the gradual phasing-out—and I shall elaborate on this further in a moment— without creating risks for the consumer. That is of cardinal importance. I think the hon member for Mooi River referred to that and he was quite right in his reference to that aspect.

Let us now move a step further. That was the first problem, and I hope I have succeeded in casting light on the matter. Hon members of the Official Opposition who mentioned these two cases did not, therefore, speak on behalf of the small dealers. They spoke on behalf of two solitary consumers, and not on behalf of the small dealers. I do speak on their behalf because I met 87 of them from throughout the length and breadth of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? I gain the impression that he is saying the private sector supports this Bill. Do the FCI and the Chamber of Mines, for example, support this?

That is a very valid point but let us look at the other bodies, those that one can refer to as the opposition.

*Let us see who is the major representative of the coal distribution industry in South Africa. Surely it is none other than the South African Coal Depot Operators Association.

You were born in the 19th century.

Order!

They represent 85% of the distributors of coal in South Africa. I think the figure is 82% but I make it 85%, since that is a nice round figure.

It is a little high.

Is it a little high? Then let us make it 82%, that would be better. These people, then, represent 82% of the volume of coal distributed by dealers in South Africa. What is their point of view? They support this legislation one hundred per cent because it is an improvement.

Secondly, let us look at Assocom, which is supposedly objecting so vehemently. I now ask those hon members—and the information at my disposal is reasonably authentic— on whose behalf they are speaking, because Assocom did not consult a single coal dealer. On whose behalf does Assocom speak? Assocom is merely repeating the whole story of the Competition Board—that is all it is saying, and what is more we have never rejected the recommendations of the Competition Board. However, we say that we cannot allow the process to take place in a disorderly fashion. Control must be phased out in an orderly fashion. Therefore Assocom is not speaking on behalf of the coal industry. Indeed, they themselves admitted that they had not even consulted the dealers. Now I ask, with tears in my eyes, whether I have to listen to the comments of an organization in regard to an industry when in fact they have not even taken the trouble to consult the people in that industry. Honestly, I really cannot accept such comment.

Let us look at the following organization; let us look at the role of the FCI. What has the FCI to do with the small dealer in the coal industry?

They are users.

The FCI may be users, but they have nothing to do with the coal distribution industry in South Africa. Moreover the FCI has only one comment and that is that of the Competition Board. I repeat, and I shall continue to repeat: We have never had problems with the recommendations of the Competition Board.

I now come to the names of the few— there are not many of them—who objected to the legislation. It is interesting to look at the history of this legislation. The hon members for Port Elizabeth Central and Constantia in particular and, to an extent, the hon member for Edenvale as well, have persistently referred to the existing regulations. That, in fact, is the essence of the problem. In the proposed legislation there is nothing new that has not already been included in an existing Act. There is absolutely nothing new.

What is the difference? If I were to withdraw this Bill today we should revert to the status quo, and the existing regulations would remain unchanged. I have no control over them because the Act which at present controls the regulation is not my Act but that of my hon colleague, the Minister of Trade and Industries. He appoints the controller and he makes the regulations. It is not I; I have no control over that. I am responsible for the management of the industry.

We wish to regulate the coal industry in accordance with its own legislation. We want to repeal the regulations which have been applicable for years in terms of other Acts and make provision for them in the new legislation. We want to do so to enable us to manage the industry properly in future. I shall come to that in a moment.

It was said several times that we are now acquiring enormous powers. The hon member for Barberton referred to this. That hon member astonishes me. He is a lawyer, but he does not know that the clauses of this Bill have existed in other laws for many years. There are no new provisions except for clause 2. That is the only new provision; the others are as old as the hills and were derived from the National Supplies Procurement Act, the Price Control Act and so on. Clauses 10 and 17, among others, were derived from those Acts, incorporated in this Bill and refined somewhat. I shall refer to the refinement again.

Now the hon members say that this legislation gives me more power than any Minister has ever had in this country. [Interjections.] I want to quote to those hon members just one section from the Mining Rights Act, 1967. Section 170 deals with the refinement of coking coal and provides:

The section then goes on to deal with the powers of the Minister with regard to coal seams.

These are age-old laws. Some of them have been on the Statute Book since 1967, and I think that some are even older. Surely what the hon member for Barberton said is not true, viz that we are now coming forward with new legislation which is suddenly giving the Minister dreadful powers and imposing dreadful control over the coal industry. There is nothing in this Bill which has not been incorporated in other laws for years.

Let us look at the only existing objection. It is that of the individuals from Natal. I held discussions for hours with these people about their objections. They object to the status quo. They do not wish to accept the regulations made under the present dispensation, over which I have no control. I said to them: Do you want to retain the status quo or do you want to create a situation in which we can change it by consultation? They had no answer to that, and most of them said: No, we do not prefer the status quo. One group said that all their objections to the status quo remained but they nevertheless preferred to retain the status quo. That is the alternative. If we withdraw this legislation the status quo stands and then the Price Controller will have all the power. In terms of the existing Act the Minister who appoints him cannot even give him instructions. He has full powers and can do just what he wants, when he wants, as he wants.

We as a department felt that we should at least have certain guidelines within which we should operate. We felt that in order to manage this industry we should rather amend this Act to enable it to be regulated by way of consultation with the private sector. That is the origin of this measure. It has nothing to do with powers to authorize regulations. I want to give the hon member the virtually categorical assurance that if this legislation is adopted and is placed on the Statute Book, those regulations will disappear.

I want to refer to one of his requirements. This brings me to clause 2 about which the hon member also made such a fuss. Hon members say that they do not know how this advisory committee will be composed. This was done deliberately. Surely this legislation does not only concern the distribution of coal; it also concerns its exploitation and utilization. It also concerns its distribution among private sector consumers, consumption by the synthetic materials industry, consumption by exports and consumption by the electrical industry. Surely the Act also relates to the striking of the balance among those users.

I shall go into this further in a moment, but to begin with I just wish to say that we shall not in future be able to permit coal reserves—many of the hon members mentioned how important an asset this is—to be sterilized. After all, we have already sterilized many tons—thousands of tons—of coal, but that does not mean that the industry is being poorly managed; by no means. Worldwide the industry is one of the best controlled and best managed industries managed by the private sector alone. I know what I am speaking about because I have been in a few foreign mines too. I know what the foreign mines look like and I know what our mines look like.

However, that is not the issue. Modern technology enables us to extract the maximum amount of coal. However it is not only the coal that is extracted that is influenced by the process. On the surface, which is used for farming …

Eastern Transvaal.

Yes, in the Eastern Transvaal the fields suddenly begin to sink. Where there is a field of maize today, tomorrow there is a dam of water. Surely we must protect those farmers’ interests, too, by way of legislation. After all, we cannot simply say to the mine that they can extract coal, whereas the farmer using the surface gets up one morning to see his windmill askew, the borehole water gone and his cattle dying of thirst. That is the total strategy that forms part of the control for which this legislation makes provision. It is important, therefore, that we should have a say. By a say I do not mean that we ever wish to prescribe in any way and that is why clause 2 is important.

Now hon members ask what clause 2 entails. They ask: Why do I not specify in the legislation how the advisory committee is to be composed? We do not wish to do so, and I deliberately deleted this. Why do we not wish to do so?

Let us just take a few hypothetical examples: Say for example a new mine is to be started in the Eastern Transvaal, Northern Natal or the Northern Free State. It is going to apply stripmining techniques, and moreover the fields are beginning to collapse. Surely, then, I must have advice on how to deal with this matter. What regulations and guidelines am I to lay down in terms of which this matter must be dealt with? I must specify this. Surely I cannot—the name MacPhail has been used so much recently—appoint MacPhail and Alutem, those people, to my committee to advise me on mining techniques which will influence the farming industry. Surely I must appoint people from the mining industry to my advisory committee. I must involve the Chamber of Mines and the agricultural unions. Those are the people who will have to advise me.

That, too, is why the hon members will not find a time scale in that clause. Even though I have already consulted these people I may want advice on the subsequent occasion concerning the distribution of coal in Natal. Then, if I want advice on the distribution of coal in Natal it is surely pointless to appoint people from, say, the Northern Cape and Cape Town to my advisory committee. Surely I have to appoint people from Natal to my committee. Then I must be able to say to them: Look, I have this problem in Natal. Advise me on how to approach it. This is the aim of clause 2. It has deliberately been phrased in such a way that I do not have specific representatives; that they do not have fixed terms.

If I were suddenly to have a problem in regard to exports it would not help me to approach the distributors and similar people. In such a case I should have to have the SATS, the Richards’ Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) and the people of the Durban terminal on my committee. They would have to tell me, for example, that I could not export more coal because the terminal at Richards’ Bay could not handle it. The SATS must be able to say to me, for example, that their railway lines are not yet capable of accommodating more exports. To be able to grant an export quota I should have to appoint to my committee people who do in fact have to deal with the coal—the Transport Services, the harbour services and the mines, the specific individual mines which have new quotas—so that they could advise me on what guidelines I should use. That is the purpose of the legislation. There are no ulterior motives. An attempt has been made to incorporate a degree of flexibility in the legislation to enable advice to be obtained from the source where a solution is required.

When I look at the first two parts of the hon member’s amendment I can say very clearly to the hon member that this committee will, depending on the powers, be able to lay down guidelines.

The first committee I appoint will very probably be very broadly representative. What would I like that first committee to do for me? I should like that first committee to lay down for me as Minister certain guidelines in regard to how I should I approach and deal with the advisory committee in future. Therefore that committee must be able to say to me whether, with regard to a certain activity, for example—after all, this is not merely an issue of distribution, but also one of exploitation, production and refinement—we should remain at the 28/27/26 joule levels or whether we should distribute it.

This first committee will lay down certain guidelines for me as Minister and tell me, for example, “Sir, for these specific aspects of the coal industry the guidelines we wish to present to you are as follows …” I am prepared to publish those guidelines. Thus, if I were to deal with the second part of the hon member’s motion according to those guidelines I should say that when I delegate—and after all, I cannot do everything myself—I am able to delegate in accordance with specific and explicit guidelines and norms. The power that this delegation involves will be confined to those guidelines. The delegation will not be able to exceed those guidelines. I repeat that I am prepared to publish those guidelines. Before these regulations come into effect, with regard to certain practices in certain areas, they will be published for comment in the Gazette. These are the regulations that consumers in specific areas will have to comply with. Only after that will they come into effect or be legally enforceable. These are the kinds of guidelines that the first committee will lay down.

The third part…

We shall support it.

Then the hon members are now going to vote in favour of it. Thank you. The third part of the hon member’s amendment is totally acceptable to me. I have no problem in that regard.

†In fact, there is very little in the speech of the hon member earlier on that I disagree with or could criticize, but I think the main point that was made was that our ultimate aim was to obtain control of the whole industry, where necessary, within the ambit of the department responsible for it, and not rely on sections in certain Acts under the control of Ministers of other departments. That is of vital importance.

I consider it important too, to look at a specific policy aspect. What does this Bill provide for under the exemption clause? If the advisory committee, which I appoint to advise me on, for instance, the situation in Natal, advised me to deregulate Natal completely, I would have the authority to do so.

*I asked the 87 people who approached me in my office in this regard whether it was necessary for everyone in South Africa to have access to coal throughout the year. Their reply was “yes”. I then asked them whether they as distributors were prepared to guarantee this to me and to my department. Their answer was “no”. They were not prepared to do so because they were unable to do so.

I have before me a series of telegrams about cases in which the department has had to step in over the past few years because the dealers were unable to provide coal to the consumers. It seems to me as if the telegrams have become misplaced among my papers. However, the important point is that we have in the past received telegrams from consumers warning us that they foresee an acute shortage of pea coal in certain parts of the PWV region. The consumers warned the department that acute shortages of pea coal will be experienced in the PWV complex in June this year. The question is why they tell us this. Why do they not deal with the matter themselves? Because they are unable to deal with it themselves. I can mention several cases in which we had to step in during the winter last year to deal with this kind of regulation. However we are prepared—and I say this categorically today—to investigate and identify regions through this Advisory Committee and, where possible, to provide subsequently that we will totally abolish regulation in a specific region. This will be subject to specific conditions, viz that the regional authority must ensure that coal will be available to everyone so that anyone will be able to obtain any quantity of coal. These are the basic principles underlying this Bill.

Clause 9, which the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Langlaagte objected to so strenuously, and in accordance with which the Minister now takes over the role of the magistrate, has been applied for decades. It has been applied for decades. It is nothing new. It is as old as the hills. It has merely been taken over from a different Act. We have been applying it for decades. My good friend the Whip tells me that I must finish now, but I do just want to make one final remark. I think that the hon member for Edenvale made an important speech and I do not think there is any difference between what he said and what the hon member for Mooi River had to say. It is the same thing. The hon member for Mooi River did not only say that he had confidence in me; he showed it too. It is pointless people telling me they have confidence in me and then not showing it. I want the hon member for Edenvale to prove what he said. I have now conceded every point he made. Every last one. [Interjections.] I accommodated his amendments. As far as the first one is concerned, I said that we were laying down guidelines with regard to the power. As far as the second one is concerned, we said that the delegation would be effected within specific limited guidelines. As far as the third point is concerned, we said that we accepted all of them—I assure him that we have no problems. Now, if we are going to divide at this point I want that hon member to vote in favour of this legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should just like to know from the hon the Minister why he has to specify the maximum deposit on a container.

That is very easy to answer. I do think that the public should know what the deposit on their containers is and what they can get back when they return that container. This is something that is susceptible to exploitation on an enormous scale if the public, the consumer, does not know what the deposit on the container is.

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