laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Railway Construction Bill [No 92—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Transport Affairs).
2. (2) Second Railway Construction Bill [No 93—85 (GÁ)]—(Standing Committee on Transport Affairs).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

presented the Second Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

Your Committee makes the following recommendations:

1. (1) That Mr Victor be permitted to retire on pension from the Parliamentary Service with effect from 1 October 1985.
2. (2) That the vacancy caused by Mr Victor’s retirement be filled by the appointment of Mr A J de Villiers, MA, B Ed, LLB, Deputy Secretary, as Secretary to Parliament, with effect from 1 October 1985.
3. (3) That the post of Deputy Secretary be not filled at this stage: Provided that the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders are authorized to fill the vacancy in the post of Deputy Secretary, and other vacancies caused thereby, during the recess on the recommendation of Mr Speaker.
4. (4) That, in addition to the existing vacant post of Senior Under Secretary, two posts of the same rank be created and that Mr G P C de Kock, BA, Under Secretary, and Messrs M J Burger, BA Hons, B Ed, and R C Douglas, BA, Assistant Secretaries, be appointed to these three posts, with effect from 1 October 1985.
5. (5) That Mr C J P Lucas, BA (Juris), Deputy Head, Legislation and Proceedings Section, be appointed to the vacant post of Under Secretary, with effect from 1 October 1985.
6. (6) That the designation of the three vacant posts of Assistant Secretary (owing to the death of Mr I J van Zyl and the promotion of Messrs Burger and Douglas) be changed to Under Secretary.

J W GREEFF,

Chairman.

Mr Speaker’s Chambers

Parliament

23 May 1985.

stated that unless notice of objection to the Report was given at the next sitting of the House, the Report would be considered as adopted.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Health and Welfare, relative to the Members of Parliament and Political Office-bearers Pension Scheme Amendment Bill [No 78—85 (GA)], as follows:

N W LIGTHELM,

p Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

22 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Health and Welfare, relative to the Associated Health Service Professions Amendment Bill [No 82—85 (GA)], as follows:

Your Committee is of the opinion that the Bill should be proceeded with, and it reports accordingly.

N W LIGTHELM,

p Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

22 May 1985.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, relative to the Finance Bill [No 80—85 (GA)], as follows:

Your Committee wishes to report further that consensus could not be reached on Clause 3 of the Bill.

Your Committee is of the opinion that the Clause be retained, and it recommends accordingly.

CH W SIMKIN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

21 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr Chairman, I think it is now a suitable time to reply to certain of the ideas hon members raised in speeches thus far made in this debate.

†Allow me therefore, Mr Chairman, to begin by referring to the hon member for Walmer. I want to thank the hon member for Walmer—although in a qualified manner—for what he had to say. He certainly criticized the Government. However, he had every right to do so, Mr Chairman. The hon member also referred to certain positive steps taken by the Government. He referred among other things to the improved position of Blacks in the business and industrial fields, and he also made mention of the improvement in the quality of life of Black people. I therefore do want to thank the hon member for the positive things he said in this regard.

The hon member again took a stand against the process of decentralization, and we know, of course, that that has been his point of view for a very long time. I do not think, however, that decentralization is the entire solution to our problems attached to industrial development. It forms an important part of that solution though. There will always be people moving to the metropolitan areas of our country. That, I do not believe, can ever be stopped. That is also why we are taking another look at urbanization in the wider sense of the word.

Furthermore the hon member for Walmer referred to what he described as the worst financial and economic slump in this country in 50 years. I must say though that I do not agree with the hon member on that particular score. Hon members of the Official Opposition also made mention of the same phenomenon last session. If I remember correctly the hon member for Yeoville even said that the then slump was worse than that of the early 1930s. Is that correct?

That is correct, yes.

Right! In the end, however, it was proved that we had a growth rate of 4% during the then current year.

Do you not think this year is worse than last year? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member must allow me to conclude what I am saying. It appears certain that we will have a huge trade surplus this year.

And high unemployment too! [Interjections.]

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I am convinced that we will have positive growth this year—perhaps even a growth rate of 2%.

The hon member for Walmer also made mention of unemployment. The whole question of unemployment may, of course, form part of the cause of the present unrest in the country. The hon member should, however, also remember that we are also dealing with the problem of inflation. Inflation, to my mind, is even more dangerous than unemployment. When I say this, Mr Chairman, I also want to stress the fact that we give compassionate consideration to the problem of the unemployed, and for this particular reason the Government has provided an amount of no less than R100 million for the creation of extra job opportunities.

Be that as it may, Mr Chairman, I do nevertheless want to thank the hon member for the points he drew to the attention of the Committee, and especially for those few positive aspects which he mentioned.

*The hon member for Waterkloof, the chief spokesman on our side, referred very competently, and in a very thought-provoking and well-considered manner, to the question of disinvestment. Hon members on the other side pointed out that the hon member for Yeoville could possibly be entering the debate today and that he would perhaps be expressing a few ideas about that. It is with interest that we look forward to hearing what the hon member has to say about that.

I liked the positive manner in which the hon member for Waterkloof referred to this matter. He said that disinvestment should create new possibilities for us. I want to agree wholeheartedly with that.

The hon member also indicated why the United States of America invested in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that that investment does not take place because the USA wants to help us; it simply takes place because the profits in this country are better than they are anywhere else and because the investment in this country is more secure than it is anywhere else. The hon member brought this clearly to the fore.

The question is, of course, what we must do about that. I do not think that we can be indifferent to it, because its psychological effect can permeate to other countries that have not launched this type of campaign. So what should our strategy be? I think that we should, firstly, mobilise the available funds that we do have at our disposal in this country.

If we bear in mind that in this country we have savings, in the sense that in the savings accumulating, the amount involved is R40 million for every working day, we have money to invest, because if we merely consider the money flowing to the insurance companies and pension funds, we see that it is an amount of R40 million for each working day.

I want to refer to a very important aspect and that is the poor or unproductive use that is made of capital in this country. This capital, a means of production that is in short supply, is unproductively employed. Just the other day I examined one of the research papers and saw that the productivity of capital had decreased by 1,1% per annum in the period from 1960 to 1982, the latest date for which figures are available.

Our major problem is therefore not one of a lack of capital. To tell the truth—I think the hon member referred to that—foreign concerns are quite frequently launched here specifically with South African capital. What I am saying is that our major problem is therefore not a lack of capital, but a lack of entrepreneurs.

The truth is also that the seed-bed in which our entrepreneurs should be cultivated is often awash with measures making it difficult for small-scale entrepreneurs to reach maturity and eventually become large-scale entrepreneurs. I am therefore glad that the President’s Council is also taking a very definite look at this aspect of entrepreneurship.

Is that an own affair or a general affair?

The best counter-measure to disinvestment is a soundly-based economy, and I also think that is something the hon member for Waterkloof would wholeheartedly endorse.

Is that own-based or generally-based?

The hon member for Rissik would do well to calm down a little. I intend making one or two references to him at a later stage, if he behaves himself now; if not, I shall not be referring to him at all.

The hon member for Sunnyside entered the debate and said that the financial aspects of own affairs consisted largely of transfer payments. He pretended that this was an extraordinary situation that the departments entrusted with own affairs have been saddled with. There is nothing extraordinary in this. Let him look at the Votes. In the case of Manpower he will find that R51 million out of a total appropriation of R102 million involves transfer votes. In the case of Mineral and Energy Affairs he will notice that the total appropriation is R627 million, of which R539 million involves transfer votes. In the case of Constitution Development an amount of R5 336 million has been appropriated, with R5 200 million representing transfer votes. Let me therefore just tell the hon member that he should not be so obsessed with that aspect in his efforts to belittle own affairs. He should just take a slightly broader view of things.

The hon member also tells me that I do not lodge any pleas for the Whites. Let me ask him in what sphere he wants me to lodge a plea for the Whites. Does he want me to go from platform to platform selfishly making a great fuss about White privileges? That is a certain way of jeopardizing the privileges and the position of the ‘Whites. I do not need to plead their cause in that way. Together with my colleagues from Finance and the own budgets it has been made possible for me to participate in the decision making process to look after the interests of the Whites.

The hon member also referred here to the 8,4% increase in pensions. It is not a question of my not wanting to see a bigger increase granted. Of course I would like to see more given. There is not a single hon member in this House who would not like to see a larger increase granted. The 8,4% however, is precisely what the Exchequer can afford. I think I have now replied comprehensively enough to the points which the hon member raised and to which one can give an answer.

Let me now refer to the contribution of the hon member for Gezina. He said that we should have total involvement in the economic development of the country. That is quite correct. Own affairs must also form an integral part of that development. The hon member referred to section 84 of the Constitution dealing with the financing of own affairs. He referred to the amount involved in the formula. Let me just tell him that the Financing of Revenue Accounts Act, Act no 120 of 1984, provides that the budget amount for this year, 1985-86, must be the same as that for 1984-85. This is actually regarded as a simple formula. The hon member also referred to future escalation. Let me just say that in our efforts to find a formula it is extremely difficult to make provision for escalation. I want to say, even at this stage, that the question of escalation is largely a matter about which one will have to negotiate from time to time. I can tell the hon member that at present the Ministers’ Councils are engaged in investigations and in evaluating the situation in order to determine a formula for the following year.

The hon member also referred to the allegations about general affairs supposedly having a prior claim on the Exchequer. I have also heard such allegations. That is not, however, the case. In terms of section 84 (a) own affairs has absolute priority, because the money is not voted, but credited to the own revenue accounts of the Administrations. In regard to the additional amounts and special allocations in terms of section 84 (b) and (c) we shall, however, be competing on a priority basis with general affairs. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

†The hon member for Umbilo says that the two of us, by voting yes in the referendum, took the burden of own affairs on our shoulders. However, I want to ask the hon member whether we should not refer to this not as a burden but rather as a possible solution. Then we can face this problem with confidence in the future because nothing better has come forward so far. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

He also referred to the transfer of functions from the provincial administrations to the Ministers’ Councils and, inter alia, he also mentioned health services. He asked that problems be sorted out properly so as to prevent hardship to the public. I can give the hon member the assurance that we are looking at this exercise of transfer in that light exactly.

He also referred to compulsory school fees and asked that these be deductible for income tax purposes. I am sorry that I cannot promise the hon member that. As a matter of fact, I am against the erosion of our tax base. However, what I will say is that we shall deal with all those kinds of levies in a carefully considered manner and treat them with great circumspection. The hon member also referred to electoral matters at local government level. That will of cause be a function of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

*The hon member for Paarl referred here to a report that appeared in The Argus yesterday evening, a report in which it was intimated that certain people of colour were not welcome to participate in the festivities at the Taalmonument. I also read the report, but because it is a newspaper report, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. To tell the truth, the hon member for Paarl just happened to walk past me here and say that it could very well have been an incorrect report.

I think the symbolism of that Taalmonument very adequately comments on the arguments we have heard and on any other arguments. [Interjections.] I did a bit of research into the symbolism of the Taalmonument. It is described as follows:

Definitely a general affair!

If the hon member for Langlaagte still has any problems with common ties, let him read Dr Heese’s book. That will give him some more information about that. [Interjections.]

I hear that you and I are both in that little book.

Yes, we both feature in that book. [Interjections.]

Order!

I think I have now given hon members enough to think about for a while. They can now keep quiet for a while and think about that. Perhaps they will come to light with some original ideas.

I should also like to refer to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South who referred to the struggle against inflation.

†He referred to the price and income policy as a method of curbing inflation. He also referred to the expected rise in inflation, and he suggested that it should all be negotiated and controlled in a voluntary manner. I must say that I agree with him wholeheartedly. I have no problem with that whatsoever. However, I do not think it is possible for the State to be held responsible for taking all the initiative. I do not think that is viable; I do not think it is possible. The State, employers, employees and the unions must work together. They all realize what the problems are. If it is all left to the State, we shall have to use fiscal and monetary methods and, if we have to depend on fiscal and monetary methods alone, it will be all the more painful, as we are experiencing at the moment. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

*The hon member Dr Venter, who apologized for not being able to be here today, made a good speech about the financing of welfare services. She referred to the possibility of keeping pace with the escalation of such costs, and that is indeed the case—there is no way whatsoever in which we can go on doing so. Africa is relying on socialism as a way of dividing up wealth. It is clear to us all that this will eventually lead to nothing but poverty.

The hon member made the positive assertion that it was possible to generate strong own capital and to build up an independent welfare fund from the private sector. Honestly, this is one of the most positive statements about this I have ever heard in this House. Her question was then whether ample tax concessions could be made for this purpose. Once again let me say that I personally oppose the erosion of our tax base, because there are a tremendous number of deserving cases that would have to be given equal treatment under such circumstances. I am, however, a strong advocate of helping people or organizations who help themselves, and tax concessions are not the only form of assistance. This can be done in other ways, and I would be glad if the hon member would consider this matter again in a new light. I shall also be referring this speech to my colleague, the Acting Minister of Health and Welfare.

I should also like to thank the hon member for De Kuilen very sincerely for his contribution to this debate. He referred to the fact that everyone’s contributions should go towards enhancing South Africa’s prosperity. He also referred to the importance of own affairs in the autonomy of communities. Own affairs are there for the very purpose of reinforcing self-determination. I know the opposition parties do not agree with us about that. One man, one vote, however, is not viable either. I dot not think there is a single hon member in this Committee who can say today that we can expect any solution by way of a situation involving one man, one vote. If no alternative comes to light, I think that group autonomy, as embodied in this dispensation we are now embarked upon, is the only tangible and workable dispensation. I thank the hon member for having allowed this point to penetrate.

The hon member for Greytown referred to my speech in which I spoke of collective bargaining. He did not asked me the following question: If it is collective bargaining for the Whites, from whom do we then take money? Do we take it from the Coloureds or from the Indians? My reply to him is this: No, collective bargaining at that level means that we all bargain jointly and that it is not necessary for one to be given preference at the expense of another. The hon member said that we could expect to remain an outcast in the eyes of the world. If the hon member thinks it is even possible to satisfy the outside world with what he himself has in mind, what he wants to do, let me just tell him that it is not. What we are doing, we are doing because we think it is reconcilable with the maintenance of stability, expertise and civilized values.

The hon member for Welkom said the public had difficulty in comprehending the operation and functions of own affairs administrations. Let me tell the hon member that in the Administration we are drawing up a comprehensive brochure that will carefully delineate the functioning of the administrations. As soon as it is ready, we shall make it available to hon members. He also referred to the RDACs, ie the regional development organizations, and I want to thank the hon member for having done so. To tell the truth, I also referred to them in my second reading speech when I said that we should also see how own affairs administrations could meaningfully be involved in this.

All I want to tell the hon member for Rissik is that he would do well to take note of the lesson in patriotism given to him by the hon member for Walmer. I hope the hon member takes it to heart.

Mr Chairman, may I please put a question? I just want to ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with the hon member for Paarl about dragging the language question into this political party debate.

About the language question, to which the hon member has just referred, let me just say the following: I acknowledge the communal nature of language. It binds us together. I therefore also acknowledge this when it comes to people of colour. That is my reply to that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Caledon pointed to the interdependence of groups …

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

No, Mr Chairman, our time is very limited.

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

We are family, after all.

Since the hon member says we are family, surely he can put his question to me later in a friendly discussion. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Caledon pointed to the interdependence of groups in South Africa when it comes to ensuring peace, stability and prosperity. I want to thank him for having emphasized that. He also gave an explanation—and he did so in the correct way—of the involvement of the Ministers’ Councils in financial matters and in the question of seeking financial consensus. I thank him … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Koedoespoort tell the hon the Minister he is an old smelter? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

I want to thank the hon member for Caledon very sincerely for the illustration he gave here of the involvement of these Ministers’ Councils in the overall negotiations and in the process of seeking consensus on financial matters. This was not common knowledge and I thank him for that.

In conclusion I should very much like to refer to the hon member for Worcester. The hon member referred, in particular, to section 14 of the Constitution dealing with trade and argued strongly that own affairs, as embodied in that measure, guaranteed group autonomy. The hon member was particularly well-prepared, had done a good amount of research, and his speech, which we all found convincing—including the Chairman—took stock of Esthonia, Cyprus and Belgium. The hon member emphasized that there was no clear-cut model for South Africa’s constitution. It must depend on consultation and a search for, and research into, not an ideal solution, but a workable one.

Mr Chairman, it is not so easy to follow the hon the Minister, because afterall I cannot fight with him, and he has not said anything to make me want to enter into an argument with him.

The hon the Minister has just dealt with two very important matters in the course of his reply, viz tax and levies. I should like to exchange a few views on that. Tax is hard earned money which people have to make available to the State, reluctantly and unwillingly, to provide the public and themselves with certain goods and services. These are things they cannot do for themselves. It is essential that tax be utilized in the most productive way because it is money belonging to others who have worked hard for it. That is why it was gratifying to hear in the speech the hon the Minister made yesterday that the directorate concerned with efficiency services in his department is particularly concerned with clearly identifying needs, dividing functions logically, establishing a healthy organization, accurately determining establishments, rationalizing procedures and methods, applying dynamic management and fully utilizing the potential of workers. For this the hon the Minister makes use of inter alia the principles of work study and officials to achieve as much saving and efficiency as possible. Accordingly we want to convey our best wishes to the hon the Minister and his department, particularly this directorate, that has to see to it that this tax and these funds that have been made available to them will be employed with the maximum efficiency and productivity.

At the moment farewell speeches are being made in the provincial councils of at least two provinces at the last sitting of the provincial councils. As a former member of a provincial council let me say that it is with sadness that one realizes that this is the end of an era. As this department is now taking over the functions of these councils, and as new jobs are being added to the hon the Minister’s responsibility, I want to ask him to take note of a few matters relating to the efficient application of tax.

Firstly, I want to ask that the overprovision of services be guarded against. I should like to mention a few examples. We took pre-primary education away from our welfare organizations and made it the taxpayer’s responsibility, at a very great cost. We provide dental services at schools, and however adverse our economic circumstances, I do think our parents are in a position to see to the dental care of their children.

We should also take a look at the oversupply of teaching facilities. Let me explain what I mean by an oversupply. At present we are providing gymnastic halls for our schools through the provinces—I hope that this will be looked at as well during the rationalization process. In my constituency, for example, there are three of these gymnasiums attached to three different schools and they are a mere stone’s throw from each other. They have been installed at tremendous cost. I do not think the taxpayer could feel satisfied that his tax is being utilized in the most productive manner.

There is also over-administration. This brings me to the levies of which the hon the Minister was speaking. There was a suggestion that parents could in future be expected to make a contribution of 10% to the cost of their children’s education. Of course parents should contribute to the cost of the education of their children. The 10% contributed by the parents, however, has to be administered and consequently there are work study officials to see to it that the money is administered in the best possible way when it is collected. If, however, we do not collect the 10% but leave it to the parents to provide the books and stationery required by their children, the Department of Education would still be saving and all the work involved in collecting the 10% would fall away. I contend that the contribution of 10% to the cost of education and its administration could be better replaced by the parents of schoolchildren providing books and stationery. In this way we would save on the administration and on the officials that are needed to collect the 10%.

A third matter to which we should pay attention is the issue of standards. The Committee will agree with me that standards are too high in some cases and too low in others. I want to refer to buildings in particular. The example which I want to mention fortunately was not the work of the Government, any of the hon the Ministers or the administration of the House of Assembly. Speaking of oversupply—I am sorry for the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs now—the finest example is probably the palace in Megawatt Park. I think it is the finest example of oversupply in the entire country.

Do not be nasty.

Yes, I do not want to be nasty now, but I am trying to make a point. At the same time there is a possibility that we could also spend money on goods and services at standards which are too low, which would again entail additional expense.

As a consequence I think that it would be of tremendous value if we were to consider cutting costs by means of a work study as far as the administration of tax and the expenditure of the funds of the department are concerned. I think it is nonsensical to spend funds in the best possible manner if that specific expenditure was unnecessary. I tried to show this with my example that parents should bear the costs in regard to the provision of books and stationery rather than having to pay the 10% levy. I also think that officials themselves could make a major contribution to this matter of saving. Iscor, which makes use of a very well known system, viz financially rewarding officials for suggestions on how to effect savings, is possibly the finest example of this. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

In the first instance, may I say to the hon member for Hercules that I think he has raised some very interesting and, I think, important points. Whereas I may not agree with everything he said, I think he actually gave the hon the Minister of the Budget something to think about because the whole concept of seeking to raise levies and taxation and to make contributions which involve the creation of a vast bureaucracy in order to do so, is a matter which in my opinion needs our attention. The same principle that the hon member for Hercules has touched upon in regard to the bureaucracy needed to collect the 10% school levy—which, by the way, I am utterly against because I think it is a wrong concept and a retrogressive step—applies to the bureaucracy that will have to be created in order to collect the turnover tax and the employment tax. Nobody has yet told us who is actually going to collect it, who is going to be responsible for that bureaucracy, who is going to administer it and what it is going to cost in order to do so. I maintain that there are alternative means of taxation which could bring the same amount of money without having to create an additional bureaucracy.

The reality is that one of the tendencies that exists—and exists at the present moment under this new Constitution—is that instead of going back to where the then Prime Minister said that he wanted rationalization in order to reduce the size of the bureaucracy, we are now increasing the size of the bureaucracy. Unfortunately that is the case and in this respect I must agree with the hon member for Hercules.

There are a number of things which the hon the Minister said which I believe cannot go by without some comment. Some were challenges and some statements of fact and I am going to respond to them as such. Firstly, his statement that this is not the worst economic position in which we have been for 50 years, can only be based either upon a complete lack of knowledge as to what is happening in the economy or, alternatively, upon an attempt to bluff the people of South Africa. That is all; it can only be one of the two possibilities. [Interjections.] I do not agree with the hon member for Bezuidenhout who says it is due to pure stupidity.

I think it is both of them!

It cannot be for both reasons, because I really do not believe that the hon the Minister is so stupid. I will not accept that he is that stupid. However, he then goes further and says that we are going to have a 2% positive growth rate this year. I assume the hon the Minister was referring to the growth in the GDP. Is that correct? Or was the hon the Minister perhaps referring to the GNP? Which one was he talking about? [Interjections.]

The general one.

The general one? Which one is that? Is it GNP or GDP?

GNP.

Well, Sir, that is fascinating! Bearing in mind how the difference is constituted between the GNP and the GDP, that is even more unlikely. The tragedy is that I think the hon the Minister is merely throwing figures away here without relating them in any way to what is in fact happening in the economy. However, Sir, with your permission, I am prepared to put some money on the table if the hon the Minister will do the same. I challenge him to put his money on the table to back that forecast. I am prepared to match what he is prepared to wager on the fact that there will be a 2% growth rate in the GNP of South Africa during this year. I hope, Mr Chairman, that you will permit us to put our money on the Table of this House.

Order! Yes, provided the Chairman will be entitled to take the proceeds! [Interjections.]

The Chairman can be the stakeholder, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Well, Sir, we will give you a commission! [Interjections.]

Let me go one further and say that the hon the Minister made a statement which I think was probably one of the most callous statements any Minister has ever made. He said—and I wrote his words down when he said them—that inflation was more dangerous than unemployment. Mr Chairman, a person can only say that sort of thing if he is not unemployed and he has never been unemployed. It is obvious that such a person does not know what it means to be unemployed, hungry and desperate, and to have to go home without having been able to find a job. I think that to say that inflation is more dangerous than unemployment is typical of what is happening in South Africa today. One of the reasons for the endemic unrest in South Africa which the people of South Africa have to know about is the high level of unemployment that exists in South Africa.

I said that.

It is not the only reason. It is part of the reason. It is a deliberate action on the part of Government policy to have that situation, and here we have this statement made by a callous Minister who does not care. We on these benches, however, are concerned about the unemployed and about endemic unrest. We think that this is a most callous statement for anybody to have made.

[Inaudible.]

What is your problem, old chap? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must refer only to hon members.

Hon old chap! [Interjections.]

Order! All hon members are entitled to be referred to as such. The hon member may proceed.

Yes, Sir, however old they are and however much they seem to show signs of senility before their time!

Let me deal now with another challenge the hon the Minister issued and to which the hon member who interjected had referred. The hon the Minister said that I should talk about disinvestment and about the legislation that exists. I shall certainly not seek to avoid that challenge. We on these benches have made our position very clear namely that we oppose apartheid and we oppose discrimination. We do so here, and we want to do so by peaceful and constitutional means in order to bring about reform in South Africa. That is our philosophy. However, we object to what is not correctly described as disinvestment legislation but which I regard as being punitive legislation. It may be of a disinvestment nature but the actual legislation is punitive. For instance, Congressman Wolpe was reported in the Press here as having said that he was supporting this measure in the Congress of the United States because he wanted his value standards to be applied. I want to ask what his value standards are and what he wants to be applied.

There are some very important questions which I have been unable to get answers to, either here or in the United States. The issue is not whether one is for or against apartheid as far as we are concerned, because we are against apartheid, but the issue is—here comes the first of the questions to which one cannot get an answer: How does one want the change away from apartheid to take place? Does one want to change away from apartheid by reform or does one want to change away from apartheid by revolution? The reality is that if one is going to create a situation in South Africa which will affect the economic growth of South Africa, one will be encouraging the forces of revolution in this country. On the other hand, if one assists economic growth in the right direction in South Africa, one will be assisting the forces of reform. The issue is, therefore, not whether one is for or against apartheid but how one wants the system to be changed.

Then there is a second question to which one cannot get an answer at all. When one has done away with apartheid, what does one want to put in its place? None of the gentlemen who talk so strongly about using these punitive measures, are able to tell us what they want to put in its place. All they talk about is abolishing it. What is more important to me, is what is going to replace apartheid. When I talk to the ordinary, decent American who is not involved in this for some ulterior motive, for a political purpose—I have said this before—I come to the conclusion that he does not want a system which is the antithesis of what is in the United States. I think he believes that by fighting this campaign he will get a democratic system, a system similar to his own value system. What he does not seem to understand and what one does not seem to be able to convey to him, is that revolutionary change in South Africa will not mean the introduction of a democratic system in South Africa. It will actually mean the very antithesis of the American system. It will probably mean the imposition of an autocratic system of a one-party nature and of some extreme form of socialism. It will not be a form of democracy. The very value standards Congressmen Wolpe talks about will not be the value standards which will come about in South Africa if there is change by means of violence.

Then comes the third question: Who is actually sought to be punished by this punitive legislation? Is it the Government of South Africa? Is it the people of South Africa? Or do they not actually care? I venture to believe it is the last. Senator Kennedy says that he does not want to punish the people of South Africa, but when he was asked by the chairman of the banking committee in the US Senate why he then includes provisions which do not affect the Government of South Africa but the people in regard to employment, he could not answer that question. When he was asked the second time, he fussed around it again. The reality is that nobody there is really applying his mind to the real issues involved. It has become a local political issue where the ordinary decent American is being carried along on an emotional wave against apartheid as such and nobody is answering the crucial questions which I tried to put there, and which I have also put now.

What we have to guard against is that we do not have a counter-reaction here with people saying that as far as we are concerned they can disinvest if they want to and that we will go it alone. The reality is that, firstly, I do not believe that the people of South Africa want to be isolated. Secondly, I believe that if we get the kind of growth which is needed in South Africa in order to solve our problems and create the jobs, we do not have sufficient savings to get the capital for investment to create jobs at the rate at which we have to create them. That means we have to create jobs at the rate of 300 000 a year not only to provide for the new job-seekers but also to cope with the tremendous pool of unemployment to which the hon member for Walmer referred yesterday. In order to do that there is a tremendous trade-off between consumption expenditure on the one hand and savings on the other hand. We need the consumption expenditure to create the demand so that we can build up our own industries and so that we can employ more people, while on the other hand, we need the savings in order to have the investments to enable us to create the very industries which will provide the necessary employment opportunities. That trade-off between consumption on the one hand and savings on the other hand is of vital importance to South Africa, and the solution to this problem is found in the axiom that we do need foreign capital in order to supplement our savings. We want that foreign capital. We need it.

Anyone who is indeed genuine in his belief that there needs to be peaceful reform in South Africa will want to encourage people to invest that capital in South Africa in order to create those jobs that are needed—not for the Whites, not for the privileged people of South Africa but indeed for the underprivileged people, those people for whom the plea is continuously being made that their interests are the reason for the punitive legislation proposed against us. That is why I firmly believe that we have to put this issue across—not merely by means of the Government endeavouring to defend its indefensible policies but on the basis of those of us who are against apartheid having the courage to show that the best way in which to fight apartheid is indeed by investing in South Africa. That is how I see the whole situation. That is also how I respond to what the hon the Minister has said.

I should like to come back now, Sir, to the issue of own affairs because this Vote is really quite a remarkable one, and I hope that in the years that fie ahead we are actually going to be able to debate the Vote of the hon the Minister. I say this after looking at a speech with which I was furnished kindly enough because I could unfortunately not be present here in the House yesterday. I tried desperately to find something in that speech to which I could respond. However, other than the hon the Minister’s concern about typewriters and things of that nature, there is really nothing much in that speech. The real issues with which, I believe, we have to deal today …

What about the Taalmonument?

No, please! I do not think it is fair to bring the issue of the Taalmonument into this debate. [Interjections.] All right, I shall say it here and now. My attitude in this respect is quite simple. If the hon member wants to know something about the Taalmonument I will tell him what my attitude is.

I am an English-speaking South African. I received an invitation to attend the proceedings at the Taalmonument. I intend to accept that invitation. I have in fact already done so because I want to respect other people’s traditions and languages in the same way in which they should respect mine. That is why I am very happy to go there and to take pleasure in what must be a very important occasion for the Afrikaans-speaking people of South Africa. That, as far as I am concerned, is the end of the story. Nevertheless, I will be there.

Hear, hear!

Much better than that fellow from Paarl!

But you are not going there, are you, Jan?

If you stay away, I shall go too! [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to ask the hon the Minister what he is actually able to contribute to the debate in regard to the issue of provincial councils. I should like to ask specifically how the issue of the division of the assets of provincial councils is going to be resolved. There are many aspects relating to the activities of provincial councils which fall within the ambit of Schedule 1 of the Constitution, while others may form some little grey area. There are, however, assets and liabilities which will have to be dealt with and which, I think, the hon the Minister should tell us about.

I want to touch upon one little aspect which, to me, has quite some sentimental value—I believe it also has the same sentimental value for the hon member for Hercules and for other hon members sitting in this House—and that is the Raadsaal in Pretoria. I should like to know what is going to happen to the Raadsaal. I should also like to make a suggestion in relation to the Raadsaal. I want to suggest that the Raadsaal and its adjacent committee rooms be used for the sittings of the standing committees of Parliament when they sit in Pretoria so that the Raadsaal will continue to be part of the machinery of government in South Africa. I should like to see that happen, Sir. I really do hope that the hon the Minister of the Budget will agree with me even though he is a Kapenaar and does not have quite the same sentimental attachment to the Raadsaal. I do believe of course that he has a sentimental attachment to the Raadsaal—an attachment which goes back a long way into history, arising from his erstwhile connections with that building.

We just do not want mixed groups in our Raadsaal! [Interjections.]

I want to go a little further, Sir, because one of the things which I do not yet understand—and I hope the hon the Minister will enlighten us in this regard—is the question of what is actually going to happen in respect of the administration of those matters which are going to be taken over by own affairs. Are we going to have the Executive Committee exercising for example functions in regard to education and hospitals? Who is going to exercise delegated functions? Are these functions going to be exercised directly by the own affairs administration?

There is a reference—I have it here—which says that the suggestion was that these things, for example education, which were going to be transferred to the appropriate Minister of own affairs, would be administered by a locally based political functionary. What is that supposed to mean? Is it somebody different from the Administrators or different from the Executive Committee? As I understand it, the Administrator and the Executive Committee members are going to be general affairs men, so who is this locally based political functionary? Is it some kind of a Gauleiter or what is going to be put there? I do not understand what they have in mind, and I think the hon the Minister should tell us. All it says is:

All words, but what do they mean? What are we actually going to do?

What document is that?

I am reading from a statement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

I should like the hon the Minister of the Budget to tell us how we are going to divide it up, how we are going to deal with it, who is going to run it, how it is going to be run and oil what delegated basis it is going to be run. Some of the things which are there are vital to the wellbeing of South Africa, the wellbeing of the sick in South Africa and the wellbeing of our children. They are essential things for the whole administration of the country. Therefore I believe that the hon the Minister should fake us into his confidence and tell us how far this has gone and what his plans in regard to the problems are.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville had something to say about taxes and tax collection, and in doing so gave the impression that tax simply walks into the Exchequer by itself on two little legs without one having to do anything about it oneself. I heard no suggestion from his side across the floor of the committee this afternoon about what we were supposed to do to ensure that this tax simply comes in, or how he was going to reduce the staff of the office of the Receiver of Revenue by 80% or 90%. I think he owes us a reply as to what, according to him will cause these taxes to flow into our coffers without us having to go out to collect them. The hon member did after all have the opportunity to tell us what he suggested, but he did not tell us anything.

One thing I do want to congratulate him on is his view on the Taalmonument and the festival that is going to take place there. To me it is really a good way of looking at it, much more so than I can say of other hon members in this committee who do not sit in the benches on this side.

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

No, Sir, I only have 10 minutes available to me.

Today I just want to concentrate on efficiency in the public sector, because I think it is something that is bothering all of us. In stating this I just want to say right at the outset that effectiveness is not simpley a monstrosity or a problem in the public sector. I think we should immediately add that we are all very concerned about efficiency in the private sector.

It is so easy to criticize and to say the Public Service is unwieldy and cannot organize its affairs properly but I think that is extremely unfair. When I see what private bodies are doing and how we and also people who are in the public sector criticize them, then I think that we have the same problem.

There is a second aspect of this which I think we should spell out very clearly, and it is that productivity is not efficiency. We are so inclined to confuse these two concepts.

I think if one looks at efficiency in the public sector one could say it means that we should aim for the highest possible degree of satisfaction of the essential needs of all people of our country. Along with that one should take into account the limited resources available. Then of course it should also be subject to the maintenance of public responsibility, democratic requirements, reasonableness and most important, fairness. As far as fairness is concerned, I think that Whites should not claim everything for themselves, just as people of colour should not claim everything for themselves either.

Productivity of course is most certainly not the equivalent of efficiency. It should merely be seen as one element in the striving for efficiency. Efficiency is the final goal we pursue while productivity is merely a link in the chain of that pursuit of ours.

If we pursue greater efficiency I feel it can only succeed if our human resources in the public sector are at all times geared to that. As in the private sector, it is people alone who eventually determine whether one is efficient or not. It does not mater how good the productivity improvement programmes which one designs are, it does not matter how well one utilizes one’s instruments for measuring that programme: If one’s human material is not equal to the task, no programme, no auditing, no machine and no computer will improve one’s efficiency. On the contrary, if one has a good programme, good computers and other resources, and one’s human material does not keep up with these things, one weakens one’s effectiveness. One’s human material should therefore develop along with one’s efficiency.

By and large there are two mainstreams in the development of our human resources in the public sector: Firstly, development in a technical sense; and secondly, development in the management sense.

I should like to express a few ideas on the second aspect, development of the management expertise of our human resources in the public sector. Once again there are two facets here: Firstly, self-development where the individual is given the opportunity to develop himself; and secondly, development and training formally offered by the employer himself. In my opinion there is room for improvement in both cases, which ultimately could only contribute to greater efficiency. Before the individual can improve himself and become more efficient, however, he has to know what his shortcomings are. It is here where I feel that the public sector is less than successful. We have wonderful merit assessment systems, merit promotions etc. However, when we assess a person, it really has to be done according to certain principles. Certain norms this in regard should be laid down. If we want to assess a person there should be quantitative yardsticks according to which we do it.

First of all I think that there are very few officials who, at the beginning of a merit period, know what the aims are that he has to achieve and according to which he is going to be assessed. He is therefore assessed according to a norm about which he knows nothing. Nor has he had any share in its determination. The issue here is what is called the principle of mutual goal management, according to which the subordinate confers with the supervisor about his goals. If this is done, the official knows what his priorities are and what he must aim for.

Secondly, the present practice is not only to refrain from saying what the individual goals are that he has to aim for, but also to omit to tell him, during the period involved, where he falls short and where he could improve. Moreover, at the end of the period he is not informed as to what his supervisor regards as his weak spots. It is a highly confidential document that goes only to the head office. The employee never sees it. In addition, it is a document upon which he may make no comment. Officials often feel it is a document which “shuts them up”. In effect, therefore, it is counterproductive and only leads to a drop in efficiency.

I therefore want to advocate a system of management in which joint goals are set and a merit system that makes provision for the information which goes to a higher authority, to be made completely public. The employee must know where he fails and how he can improve himself. The employee must be allowed to see his merit assessment. If we want to go so far, he should be allowed to even sign it because by doing so he states that he knows what has been said about him. Only then can our merit system help to improve and ensure efficiency. As far as the public service is concerned we are doing a great deal as far as formal training is concerned, but I think we are placing too much emphasis on technical aspects and too little on management aspects. Every supervisor is a manager to a greater or lesser extent. Management only has four facets: planning, organization, control and leadership. These four facets embrace all the other facets of management. To the best of my knowledge the public sector offers very little encouragement, financially speaking, to officials who wish to improve themselves in that respect. Private institutions reward their people very well for qualifications such as an MBA, because in that is contained the essence of efficient management, and ultimately it means greater efficiency on the part of the individual, particularly in supervisory positions. It is a recognized fact that the higher the position of the supervisor, the more of his time is taken up by the management aspect.

In the present dispensation, where we are going to be handling many of our own affairs, and particularly in this important department, it is essential to pursue greater efficiency, and the optimum development of our human resources should enjoy the highest priority.

Mr Chairman, I find it a pleasure to reply to the few hon members who took part in this debate.

Let me refer in the first place to the hon member for Hercules who said that tax that has been collected should be utilized in the most effective way. I could not agree more with this very point. I think I can also say without contradiction that it is the point of departure that we have diligently been trying to pursue in the overall programme aimed at cutting State expenditure. As I am dealing with that, I think I should also make this point: This hew dispensation is often criticized for supposedly duplicating expenditure.

It does!

The hon member for Bezuidenhout immediately reacts and says it does. I do not want to deny that it has possibly given rise to certain additional expenses, but I do not think it is possible to introduce any new dispensation—even if it were the PFP or the CP which was doing it—which would not cost something extra. What is illuminating, however—and I am saying this for the benefit of the hon member for Bezuidenhout—is the fact that this particular dispensation is now being covered for the first time by the Appropriation which has just been introduced for the 1985-86 financial year. Interestingly enough the expenditure has not, however, increased in real terms. Now what does the hon member have to say about that?

You have 12% more staff.

The fact is this: When one speaks of greater expenditure one should at least see these things in relative terms. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Hercules referred to the overabundant provision of services, and I think it is a warning one should heed. Let me also tell the hon member that I am, in fact, paying attention to this. In a large organization—any large organization, including a large private organization—the possibility that there could be a over abundant provision of services is a real problem, a real danger. I want to thank the hon member for specifically raising it in this debate.

He also made a second point by referring to excessive administration which is really linked to over-provision. With regard to that he referred to parental levies which could be imposed. He suggested that in order to cut out administrative costs to a large extent, we should rather return to the old system of the parents having to pay for their children’s school books. I think it is a sensible suggestion the hon member made. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, has repeatedly said that this issue of school fees would be negotiated with the parents and the parents’ association, and I do not think there is anything wrong with making such a suggestion to a parents’ association. I therefore thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Yeoville criticized my speech more than he paid attention to his own speech on disinvestment—which I was looking forward to a great deal because of the great deal of experience he has had of this as a result of his visit to the United States. The hon member strongly criticized me for having said here that I regarded inflation as a greater danger than unemployment. I think, of course, that the hon member will concede that I was talking about a high rate of inflation—no one would say that inflation of 5% or less than 10% was such a great danger. I made this statement, however, because I believe that inflation is more dangerous than unemployment. The hon member then started right off by saying: “He does not care”.

†What nonsense! I said specifically that this Government has compassion for unemployed people, and that is why, under circumstances like these, the Government provided an extra amount of R100 million for job creation.

It is a drop in the ocean and you know it.

How much did you want?

How many people are unemployed?

Mr Chairman, the hon member had the opportunity to put his side of the case and it does not take much for the hon member to talk about unemployment. I wonder if the hon member has taken cognizance of the fact that a large number of Black people are at present employed in the informal sector, although this is not on record anywhere. Does the hon member know this? I have seen the results of an investigation which was conducted at Crossroads, and according to the statistics that have reached me, up to 60% of the Black people of Crossroads live off earnings generated by the informal sector in the community. They are most certainly not counted as being people who are employed. Hon members have to realize that we are in Africa and that we are faced with a problem unique to Africa. Let me once again tell the hon member: Inflation can mean the total ruin of a country’s economy, and what picture will unemployment then present?

And unemployment can destroy a country!

When inflation has reached the levels it has reached at present, we no longer have a choice—then it is a painful process to have it reduced.

And whose fault is that?

No, we do not have to apportion the blame—it is the fault of all of us. The hon member for Yeoville also buys too much.

I buy too much? [Interjections.]

I think the hon member would have acted as a good ambassador for South Africa in the USA, where he has just been. I thank the hon member for the contribution he made here in connection with disinvestment. I also thank the hon member for the viewpoints which he brought to the fore and to which he also referred in his arguments with American citizens. This brings one to a very important question. When we deal with this new dispensation which we have introduced with a keen awareness of reality so as to tackle the problems of this country—which is indeed happening—and it is then argued that we should get rid of it, the important question that arises is what could then serve as an alternative.

The other day I also had the opportunity of holding a conversation with an American visitor here. I told him: Sir, if we found ourselves in your country’s circumstances we would do exactly what you are doing. We would also have thought along the same lines as you. We are also democrats like you, are we not? The most extreme form of democracy is a system of one man, one vote—and no one can argue with us about that—the only difference being that a system of one man, one vote does not lead to democracy in Africa. As a consequence I could fully agree with the hon member when he asked the Americans what the alternative was. Yes, we ask: What is the alternative with which we have to replace this system we are very realistically trying to apply here?

The hon member has asked how the assets of the provinces are going to be divided up. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also wants to know how it is going to be divided up. It is being divided up amongst general affairs on the one hand and own affairs on the other. I take it that is what the hon member for Yeoville had in mind. [Interjections.] The hon member for Yeoville has suggested that the Raadsaal in Pretoria be utilized in the new set-up for the normal purpose it always served; ie for possible meetings of standing committees. I do not think it was a senseless proposal that the hon member made and I shall certainly forward his suggestion to the department concerned.

The executive function of political functionaries at the second tier of government on own affairs will be performed by functionaries who will fall under the control of the Minister’s Council. That is all I can say in answer to that.

Will they be political people?

They will be political functionaries under the control of the Minister’s Council for own affairs. I hereby thank the hon member for the contribution he made.

The hon member for Stilfontein, who was the last to enter the debate, referred to the issue of efficiency in the government sector. He first of all referred to productivity. One could almost say that productivity was most certainly an overwhelming problem for a large organization such as the Public Service because it is a massive organization. It is not a problem unique to the public sector, however, but one also shared by the private sector as far as productivity is concerned. So it would not be advisable for the private sector to point a finger at the public sector when it comes to productivity. They experience exactly the same problem. A large number of protection measures that we have to adopt in regard to imports—and I repeat that we should help and protect our young industries—are part of the lack of productivity we still suffer from in this country. The hon member has lodged an appeal to have employees know what the findings about their particular level of productivity and job competence is. I think it is a suggestion we should also take a look at.

The hon member ended up by taking a look at management and training which goes hand in hand with that. Management is probably the element where the highest degree of unproductivity is found. If our management could reach a high level of productivity, even employees of a weaker calibre could suddenly begin improving. I am therefore in complete agreement with the hon member that we should pay a great deal of attention to management. In concluding I just want to tell the hon member that we in my department are very aware of this. Before we promote any official to the level of director he undergoes a six week course at the University of Pretoria to enable us to make a thorough evaluation of him. I also want to tell the hon member that as far as training is concerned there are many hundreds of people in our administration who are undergoing training at the moment, some on a full-time basis, others on a part-time basis and by means of in-service training in the department. With that I should like to thank all hon members who participated in the discussion of the debate on this Vote.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 6—”Improvement of conditions of service”:

Mr Chairman, I just want to spend a few minutes discussing this Vote of the Improvement of Conditions of Service. A small sum is allocated under the Vote of this hon Minister, some R2,5 million, which is aimed at the educator or improving the conditions of service of the educators in the coming year. This is part of the R235 million allocated for the Improvement of Conditions of Service under the Vote of the hon the Minister of Home Affairs in the general section of this Vote and is made up of two sums, one of which is a direct allocation to the Department of Education and Culture but the second sum of R1,9 million, is the augmentation of subsidies, grants and financial assistance to State-aided institutions.

I think the first question we must ask is which State-aided institutions are we looking at as receiving this R19 million and what, in fact, it is for. I think we need to get into perspective the allocation of this sum of money together with certain other sums for the improvement of conditions of service. It is made up of two basic sums: R110 million in respect of all teacher educators for their improved salaries in October/November last year which are being paid out currently, in April and May this year. The other amount is R125 million for general affairs which is allocated to certain lower paid staff, lower qualified teachers and so on.

I should like to look at the conditions of service of the educators in general. First of all I should like to make passing reference to the condition of the so-called CS educators (college and school educators) who received an increase, as I say, in October/November last year which was deferred to this year. I think the Government accepts now that it was a most unfortunate set of circumstances which led to this deferred payment because it has brought fairly considerable problems and a degree of discontent in the teaching profession.

I think far more important than that is to highlight a very real problem now. If the hon the Minister cannot answer me across the floor on this question then he could possibly refer it to his colleague, the Minister of Education and Culture. It is the problem of the conditions of service of university staff. It is only in the past two weeks that the so-called White universities have been informed of their subsidies for the financial year 1985-86. Hon members may or may not know that the subsidies have in all cases been reduced on a percentage basis by between 11% and 17%. In those terms the universities are in for a very rough ride this year and I anticipate for the next few years.

The salaries of university staff are being affected in particular. Because the university staff are being affected, they are having meetings on campuses around the country—this the hon the Minister should also know. They are very upset because the situation is quite plainly that the universities cannot meet the salaries that the university staff should be receiving. University staff are saying that they can earn more money at colleges of education, in the Public Service or at schools, and therefore they feel they must get out of the university system. I want to spell out the very real danger that this kind of economizing and not looking in great depth at the university staff, has a residue effect. A very bad reaction has also been caused by the very late announcement of the subsidies to universities.

I would like now to turn to the whole policy for educators. The Roe Venter report of 1981-82 which is a report on the working life of the White educator in South Africa makes a very important point of which educators and I would say the bulk of the Public Service sometimes lose sight namely that in determining the total remuneration, the compensation inherent in security of tenure and the service benefits attached to a job in the public sector must be taken into account. It is therefore important to note, and we in this party are certainly aware of it, that when it comes to the remuneration of the Public Service the two factors of market forces and security of tenure need to be balanced out and taken into account. We need constantly to update this type of market-relatedness.

In view of my contacts in the recent past with my former colleagues in the teaching profession I feel there is one point I must make—I know the Margo Commission is looking into this—and that is the whole question of tax relief for the working married woman. The hon the Minister is well aware of this issue. I see the hon Mr Justice Margo has made passing reference in the Press in the recent past to the fact that in order to equalize the taxation of men and women, to separate married women as it were, would cost the State R450 million—I think this was the figure he mentioned. However, I want to warn that against that there is the very real danger of the married woman simply opting out of the system. We all know that the education system in South Africa is maintained mainly by married women.

It is the joint income of married women and their husbands being brought together that is now creating considerable difficulties. I know of individual cases where senior members of school and college staffs have to go to their principals and rectors and simply tell them that they cannot pay their tax bills.

They have to say that they cannot pay the R3 000 additional tax that is now being asked for by the Receiver. This issue therefore needs to be looked at in its broadest sense.

I would like to make a brief reference to negotiating mechanisms for the improvement of conditions of service. We have experienced considerable difficulties in the Public Service this year over the whole question of negotiating conditions of service, particularly negotiating the cut that was announced by the State President earlier this year.

In this instance I would like to quote a brief extract from a speech by the then chairman of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. He makes what I think is an extraordinarily valid point and one which I am afraid this Government loses sight of time and time again. It is the need for initial contact before planning takes place on the conditions of service. He said the following at a university graduation at Rhodes:

We know, Sir, that three of the four measures have in fact now been withdrawn for the education sector.

Mr Stonier makes the point—and we agree—that

I think that if that negotiating mechanism is going to introduce cuts or make amendments on a short-term basis—I know the Government has a set plan for conditions of service, and with regard to the public sector it is now staggered over a two to three year period in advance—it should do so together with representatives of the Public Service Association and of teacher organizations.

In connection with these cuts in the bonuses of the staff in the public sector as a whole, including education—and this is my final word on this issue—I should just like to ask a question. However, possibly this hon Minister cannot answer it. I understand that representatives of the SATS have been told that it is possible that the bonus cut could be repaid at some time in the future. Sir, if that is the case, I think we need a statement with regard to whether the cut to the bonuses in the public sector will be repaid.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown referred to a few matters here which really fall within the sphere of my hon colleague, the Minister of Education and Culture. I do not know whether the hon member for Pinetown actually mentioned them during the discussion of that Vote but I will certainly pass the remarks on to him.

*The hon member referred to the conditions of service of university staff, which actually falls under that department. He also referred to the question of the reduction of the bonuses, and to the profession’s view that this should be done in consultation with them. I have no criticism against this. The question concerning the possibility that that money will be repaid by the SATS is not the responsibility of my department either and therefore I cannot give the hon member a decisive answer. The information I have is what I read in the Press—as in all probability the hon member did.

In actual fact this Vote concerns provision made for career differentiation and especially for our educators. May I merely say I think all of us have accepted that the State has to follow that method if we want to compete, and want to ensure that we get a rightful share of the trained people of South Africa. This amount only makes provision for the relevant year if we cannot obtain those increases from the ordinary votes. This amount will no longer appear under this Vote next year; it will become part of the Education and Culture Vote.

I hope that I have illustrated the needs of this Vote with these few explanatory words.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman I should like to kick off by saying that the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, and the relevant institutions that have dealings with the department, have really had a turbulent year in which the officials of the various organizations in the department have, at times, had to work under very great pressure. I should therefore like to take the opportunity of very sincerely thanking the officials of the department, Escom, Soekor, Mintek, the SFF, the old SOF organization and the AEB for the excellent work, under great pressure, which they did during the past year. We on this side of the House greatly appreciate it. There have also been private sector bodies that gave us very able assistance during that period, and we also thank them very sincerely for the fine co-operation the department and its institutions obtained from them. We trust that in the future this will take place on the same basis.

I should like to make a few announcements. The first relates to the Electricity Council.

Friday, 24 May, 1985 is a significant milestone in the history of electricity supply in South Africa, because that is the day on which the Electricity Amendment Act, 1985, (No 50 of 1985), comes into operation. The commencement of this Act is, in a very specific sense, the culmination of the activities of the Commission of Inquiry into the Supply of Electricity in South Africa. The amending act gives expression to the government decisions on this matter contained in the White Paper in which the following very important aspect is mentioned:

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be able to announce that I am appointing the following people to serve on the Electricity Council. Firstly, as chairman I am appointing Mr John Maree who is at present still Executive Chairman of Barlow Rand. On this occasion I think it would be only fitting to express our great appreciation to the Barlow Rand group for having been prepared to relinquish such a very senior executive officer, who must undoubtedly be of very great value to the organization, to act, in this very important position, as chairman of the new council in this new era that Escom is now embarking upon.

†Mr Chairman, Mr Johannes Bernardus Maree is currently executive chairman of the Barlow Rand Building Supplies, Steel and Paint Division, which in 1982 had a turnover of almost R700 million. Mr Maree was born at Middelburg, Cape, and attended the University of the Witwatersrand. In his final year at university he was awarded the Alexander Aitken Medal for the most distinguished graduate in the Faculty of Commerce. He also attended the Harvard Business School in the USA, and is a past president of the Harvard Business School Club.

Mr Maree joined Barlow Rand in 1970 as executive chairman of Rand Mines Properties. Previously he was managing director of Union Free State Mining and Finance Corporation and deputy chairman of Calan Limited. He became a director of Barlow Rand, South Africa’s largest industrial company, in 1974, and was the executive committee member responsible for the fledgling electronics division, which subsequently became the country’s major supplier of sophisticated electronics equipment.

*Mr Chairman, we greatly appreciate the fact that Mr John Maree has been prepared to relinquish the very senior post he occupied in Barlow Rand, and for which he received a tremendous amount in remuneration, in order to accept this new position in the interests of South Africa and the electricity consumers of South Africa.

The other members of the Electricity Council are Prof I J Lambrechts, Professor of Business Economics at the University of Stellenbosch, Mr Aubrey Dickman, Anglo American consulting economist, Dr R P Fockema, executive deputy chairman of Gypsum Industries, Mr R B Savage, chief executive officer of Haggie Ltd, Mr G Y Nisbet, executive director of Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company, Mr F J Malan, chairman of the S A Agricultural Union’s electricity committee, Mr P J Botes, Roodepoort’s City Electrical Engineer, Dr J W L de Villiers, executive chairman of the Atomic Energy Corporation, Prof D Konar, co-professor in Accountancy at the University of Durban Westville, Mr R Webb, director of companies, Mr Richard Castle, stockbroker and director of companies, Mr J F Haak, consulting attorney, Dr J H de Loor, Director-General of the Department of Finance, Mr B J Groenewald, Deputy General Manager of the S A Transport Services and Dr D C Neethling, Chief Director: Energy of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. A further two members will be appointed in due course.

I want to take this opportunity of congratulating these gentlemen very sincerely and expressing the wish that it will be possible for them, with their exceptional knowledge, experience and insight, to make a valuable contribution to the functions of the Electricity Council.

The three longest-serving members of the Electricity Commission, who are retiring, are Mr J H Smith, chairman of the commission, Mr D J Malan and Mr E Pavitt. It is fitting for me, on this occasion, to pay tribute to them for the valuable service those three senior members of the commission have rendered to Escom over many years.

I have in mind, firstly, Mr J H Smith, who since February 1980 has been chairman and whose career at Escom began as far back as 1950. In the period of 35 years the electricity transmitted from the Escom power stations has increased more than sixteen-fold, an indication of the increasing demands made on the members of the commission. We owe them a debt of thanks for the way in which they have carried out the tremendous task entrusted to them. It has not always been an easy task.

The industry supplying electricity is one that has to think far ahead and operate accordingly. Under the leadership of Mr Smith, who joined Escom in 1950 and became general manager in 1974, before being appointed to the commission, some of Escom’s greatest achievements have come about.

Throughout the years Mr Smith has directed his efforts at achieving a nation-wide transmission system that has linked consumers throughout the country to the Escom system. As far as the supply of electricity is concerned, this has made South Africa one of the forerunners, and industrial development was assured of an electricity supply, regardless of the geographic position.

He was also involved in the utilization of South Africa’s hydro-energy potential and the link-up of Cahora Bassa and Ruacana, including other link-ups between Escom’s network and those of neighbouring states. Under his guidance Escom entered the new era of coal-fired power stations which, amongst other things, ensure the better utilization of our coal resources.

Mr Smith also made a tremendous contribution towards placing Escom’s financing structure on a sound business footing. As far back as the early seventies he saw that financing would be one of Escom’s great challenges and directed his efforts at establishing the capital development fund which, in later years, played an indispensable role in ensuring that Escom’s financing demands could be met with a sufficiently large degree of internal financing, at the same time increasing Escom’s prestige in the foreign capital markets.

Secondly I wish to express my appreciation to Mr D J Malan who became a member of the commission on 20 November 1968. As consulting actuary Mr Malan specifically distinguished himself as someone with a searching analytical ability who could penetrate to the very core of a problem. His balanced views in the difficult years of Escom’s existence have made a tremendous contribution to meaningful decision making.

I also want to pay tribute to Mr Ted Pavitt who, since 1 April 1979, has acted as spokesman for the mining industry which, even today, is the third-largest consumer sector of Escom, for the services he rendered in his capacity as a member of the commission. His considered opinions and support have also proved indispensable to Escom.

I pay tribute to these three people and specifically want to convey the Government’s thanks and appreciation to them. So much for Escom.

The second matter that I want to deal with very briefly involves the rationalization of the Atomic Energy Corporation. Hon members will recall that the AEB after its establishment in 1959, and Ucor since its establishment as an independent State corporation in 1970, were exceptionally successful with their declared programmes and strategies.

Since 1978, however, certain circumstances have changed radically, with the international isolation of South Africa in the sphere of nuclear energy and technology, and the USA’s refusal to furnish Escom with enriched uranium for the manufacture of nuclear fuel for Koeberg, drastically changing the programmes and strategies of Ucor and the AEB.

The activities of both the relevant organizations have also progressed from a research and development strategy to a more commercial approach aimed at the local establishment of a full-fledged nuclear industry with a view to making South Africa independent as far as its nuclear energy programmes are concerned.

As a result of the above-mentioned decisions, the budgeting for and scope of the activities of both organizations increased significantly, with every effort being made to meet the demands of the new programmes, particularly in regard to the pre-determined time-scale.

By 1979 the scope and nature of the activities, and the concomitant financial implications, compelled the Government to launch an investigation into whether control of the two organizations ought not to be centralized with a view to ensuring a more efficient set-up through which the demands on the Exchequer could be curtailed.

On 21 May 1980 the Cabinet appointed the Committee of Enquiry into the Restructuring of Nuclear Activities in the RSA and Related Matters, its terms of reference being to investigate and report on, amongst other things, the desirability or otherwise of restructuring those nuclear activities in the country funded by the State and also on the nature of changes that need to be introduced to ensure a more efficient set-up.

The result of the committee’s recommendations was that on 23 June 1981 the Cabinet accepted the recommendation that a single control structure should be brought into being, on a corporative basis, for nuclear activities in the RSA. It was also accepted in principle that the existing functions of the AEB and Ucor should be grouped into three separate subordinate corporative bodies.

With the establishment of the AEC on 1 July 1982, the chairman of the AEC was also requested to expedite the latter investigation so that a decision could be taken on the most efficient set-up to ensure the optimal utilization of manpower, equipment and funds.

With the full co-operation of the general managements of the subsidiaries, in-depth consideration has been given, over the past two years, to the future objectives and strategy of the AEC and to the systematic organizational structure to ensure the optimal utilization of assets and the co-ordination of activities to prevent the mutual duplication of functions within the AEC and its subsidiaries. Various steps have also been taken, in the interim, to ensure that the scope of the expenditure, seen against the background of the overall shortage of resources in the country, is indeed necessary and that all funds, staff and equipment are being employed in the most efficient manner, and then only in carrying out activities which are indeed vital to the achievement of the objectives laid down.

As far as the organizational structure is concerned, there has been consensus about the fact that because similar functions are performed by the subsidiaries in various work spheres, greater efficiency can only be achieved by central co-ordination and control. This implies that the present set-up in terms of which each subsidiary, with its own management structure, functioning under the control of a separate board of directors, should make way for an organization consisting of one board of directors and a single management structure under which all programmes and functions can be carried out.

It has therefore been decided to rationalize nuclear activities as follows: Firstly the AEC organization will be restructured on a centrally co-ordinated basis, resulting in the fact that the major subsidiaries, ie the Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd and the Nuclear Development Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd and their respective boards of directors being done away with. Secondly the control of the AEC will, as at present, continue to be vested in its board of directors, as provided for in the Nuclear Energy Act, No 92 of 1982, as amended, under the control of a full-time executive chairman. Thirdly, the activities of the corporation will be divided up into three programmes, each falling under the control of an executive general manager. Provision will also me made for certain central staff functions of the board to fall under the chairman.

By way of such an organizational set-up all activities of the AEC will be co-ordinated and managed on a centralized basis by its top management, consisting of the chairman, the three executive general managers and certain other general managers, although the implementation will be done on a decentralized basis.

I therefore have great pleasure in announcing the new board of directors of the AEC, namely: As chairman, Dr J W L de Villiers—Executive Chairman of the present AEC—as vice-chairman, Dr J A Stegmann—Deputy Chairman and Managing Director of Sasol—as members, Dr L Alberts—Director-General: Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs—Mr P K Killen—Director-General: Department of Foreign Affairs—Mr W W Malan—Chairman: Kebkor—Dr W J de Villiers—Director of Companies—Mr Marius de Waal—Chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation—and Mr John Maree—Chairman designate of the Electricity Council.

I should also like to take this opportunity of expressing my heartfelt thanks to Dr N Stutterheim and Mr P D Sole who are now retiring as members of the board of directors. Dr Stutterheim, who made his mark as a scientist and industrial leader, will be celebrating his seventieth birthday this year, and I must add that I have never yet seen such a young seventy-year-old. He was a valuable member of the board who also served on the interim board of directors during the establishment and structuring of the AEC, a capacity in which he made a particularly significant contribution to the functions of the board. Ex-ambassador Sole, with his keen insight, made an equally valuable contribution to the functions of the board. I want to express my sincere appreciation to these two gentlemen and wish them everything of the best for the future.

My long stories have now come to an end. For the rest I shall be very brief.

†The next announcement I would like to make is in connection with the Central Energy Fund.

As hon members will recall, the State Oil Fund Amendment Bill, 1985, was promulgated on 24 April 1985. In terms of these amendments an overall control body, namely the CEF (Pty) Ltd, was established to subject the whole structure of crude oil purchases and other connected financial transactions to co-ordinated, effective control with provision for auditing by the Auditor-General and the submission of a report to Parliament.

The affairs of CEF (Pty) Ltd are managed and controlled by a board of directors. The responsibility that has been assigned to the board is of importance to Parliament and I regard it as appropriate to announce here today the names of the persons who will serve on the board. The appointment of the members of the board is with effect from 23 May 1985, that is today.

Mr D R Vorster is being appointed as chairman of the board. Mr Vorster has headed the SFF Association as a part-time member of seconded IDC personnel since March 1984 and has already shown his expertise, especially in respect of crude oil transactions. He has also been a general manager of the IDC since March 1980.

The other directors are: Dr L Alberts, Director-General of Mineral and Energy Affairs; Dr D C Neethling, Chief Director: Energy of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs; Mr M MacDonald, General Manager: IDC; Mr J C Senekal, General Manager: Foreign Exchange, SA Reserve Bank; Dr J A Lambrechts, Director: Competition Board and Mr S P Ellis, Chairman and Director of several companies.

The board of directors is responsible for, among other things, the following matters: Firstly, the take-over and/or consolidation of SOF (Pty) Ltd, SFF Association, the Equalization Fund and the share capital of Soeker; secondly, a submission to Cabinet on the structure and managerial aspects of CEF (Pty) Ltd and the manner in which the IDC should provide services in this regard; thirdly, the compilation of a budget for 1985-86 together with recommendations regarding the budget of Soeker, and, fourthly, the preparation of a five-year plan on the future development and planning of applied research on energy projects and the concomitant promotion of proven new technologies such as, for example, (i) the fluidized bed combustion technology of Prof Robin Judd of the University of Natal in order to develop this research project to the demonstration phase; and (ii) the Mossel Bay, AECI and Gencor projects.

I wish to congratulate the board of directors on their appointment and trust that they will enjoy a fruitful and most successful term of office.

*Mr Chairman, it takes a long time, but this announcement is the last, and it is important. It concerns fuel-saving measures.

Fuel-saving measures have been implemented since the end of 1973 and have consistently been amended so as to disrupt the country’s production activity as little as possible. During specific times of crisis we have depended heavily on the motorist’s co-operation, and it is only fair that where possible the motorists should be met halfway. During 1984 certain fuel-saving measures, such as the speed limit on freeways, was abolished.

To link up with this the following measures are also being abolished with effect from 24 May 1985: Firstly, the restriction on petrol and diesel oil being received, transported, stored or transferred to another vessel; secondly, the provision that no one under the age of 16 years should be in possession of petrol or diesel oil; thirdly, the restriction on the use of Avgas for advertising purposes; and fourthly the restriction on the use of petrol, diesel oil, gas or Avgas for competition purposes.

Of the present package, only the following regulations will therefor remain in force: Firstly, a provision that no additional payment may be levied when petrol or diesel oil is sold; secondly, a prohibition on the supply and receipt of fuel by a reseller in the tank of a vehicle on credit; and thirdly restrictions on the use of gas in vehicles that do not comply with SABS specifications.

Although the statutory restrictions on the use of petrol, diesel oil, gas and Avgas for competitive purposes are being lifted, the situation will still be closely monitored, and the organizers of such competitions are still required to notify the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs in advance of any meetings. If there is a considerable increase in the number of meetings held, the decision to lift the present restrictions will have to be reviewed.

I want to emphasize that although fuel is more readily available at present than has been the case in the past, this still requires large amounts of foreign exchange, which could be used much more profitably, for example, for industrial development. To do this, it must continue to be the priority of each citizen of the country to save as much fuel as possible.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Mr Chairman, before I react to the speech of the hon the Minister, I want to say that I am sure you and all the other hon members in this Committee were shocked to hear about the tragic accident that occurred at the Sasol depot in Pretoria West. I should just like to take this opportunity—it is the first formal opportunity I have had—of extending both my personal and my party’s sympathy to the family and friends of those who were killed in that tragic accident.

In reaction to the hon the Minister’s speech, I would just like to say that we too welcome the people to the new boards. We wish them success in their positions. We would also like to extend to those who are retiring—and I think here particularly of Mr Jan Smith and Dr Stegmann—our every good wish for the future.

I think the hon the Minister made a very important point about the appointment of Mr Johan Maree, because I think it has been one of the shortcomings of the South African political system that we do not seem to draw the business community, with their expertise, into the Government or into public positions. Of course, in the United States the position is completely different. There, in many cases, a part of one’s career path in a private company in fact entails involvement in public life. I think the fact that we are drawing in a person of Mr Maree’s undoubted calibre is very good. I hope that this is but the first of such appointments.

With regard to the relaxations that the hon the Minister has announced in respect of fuel, we welcome those. As he is aware, our particular point of view in regard to this portfolio is that the more regulations that are scrapped and the more relaxations there are, the happier we tend to be.

Finically, I should just like to ask the hon the Minister something. He has a very beautiful carnation there and I would like to know whether it is real or whether it has been made by Sasol. [Interjections.]

It smells real.

When one looks at the past year—1984—one realizes that despite the fact that it was a poor year for things like diamonds, uranium and asbestos, 1984 was a very good year for the South African mining industry. Sales were up by roughly 17% to R19 billion. Exports were up by 16,8% to R16 billion. We talk about the importance of the mining sector. However, sometimes I think we do not really appreciate how important it is. When one looks at that export figure, one realizes that it is significant that out of every R3’s worth of goods we export from South Africa, R2’s worth of those goods are actually metals and minerals.

That is, of course, not the only important role that the mining sector plays as the backstay of our balance of payments. The mining sector is also a large employer, and during a period in which we are suffering from unemployment, this is obviously important. One also tends to forget the very large multiplier effect that the mining industry has on the rest of the economy. A very simple thing like the stores that are bought by the mining sector which run at between R5,5 and R6 billion a year is of significant importance to a number of industries and companies in South Africa.

Not only has the mining sector been important to us but it is likely to continue to be important. When one looks at the South African economy one sees that traditionally any improvement in the South African economy has been export-led. Virtually every one of our recoveries since the beginning of the Second World War has been export-led. Seeing that minerals account for two thirds of our exports one can see why this is so important. There are many people who do not realize how important this sector is to them because they tend to think that the mining industry really just affects a very small number of people.

To sum up, in 1984, as in many other years, the mining sector continued to be the backbone of the South African economy. However, I do not think we should be lulled into a sense of false security because of that. I say that for a number of reasons one of which is that the upturn can to a large extent be attributed to the fact that our rand actually declined in value. This made many facets of our mining industry a great deal more competitive.

I think we should be aware of the fact that significant changes are taking place in the world economic order which have an impact on this particular sector. I think the first important point to note is that there is a world trend away from resource-based economies. When one takes a look at countries like the USA, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, one notices that there is a move into new fields such as biochemistry, robotics, informatics and highly sophisticated financial services. It is interesting to note that in the USA today something like 70% of the labour force is now employed in the services sector. This, of course, has had an impact on the traditional demand that one would anticipate for many of the primary products. It has also had an effect on South Africa. Normally an upsurge in the US economy would have led to a very large increase in the demand for many of our export products but in this last upsurge it has been coming through a little slower. One sees it in other instances in real terms. The price of commodities has actually declined over the past ten years if one discounts the impact on inflation. It is a sobering thought to think that in 1983 world iron ore output was the same as it was in 1970; in fact, it was slightly lower. This, as I say, obviously has an impact.

I have mentioned the new technologies. One thinks of things like graphite epoxy and one thinks of some of the traditional elements we have known such as glass, ceramics etc which are now being used in more refined forms, often as metal substitutes. One must also note that there is a worldwide trend towards the conservation of resources, and later on in my speech I should like to come back to that. Therefore we need to reflect upon and look at the contribution that this very important sector should be making to our economy.

Let us accept that many of these new technologies are not going to be developed by us in South Africa; we shall have to import them in order to remain competitive. The belief that one can compete with highly sophisticated industries by substituting labour for capital is a myth. If we are going to compete in many areas in the outside world we shall have to have the technologies that are as sophisticated and as efficient as those of our competitors. If one has to import those technologies one has to find the finance to pay for those imports. We have to develop the export base of our economy.

Traditionally that role has been fulfilled by the mineral sector and I see no reason to believe that that is going to change. However, we have to ask ourselves if we are making the utmost use that we can of these vast natural resources.

There is a feeling among some—one can go back to the Kleu Report—that we still export too many of our products in an unprocessed form and that there is in fact still considerable scope for beneficiation. There is no doubt that if we could beneficiate more of our mineral resources and then export them it would be of considerable value to South Africa.

The situation has changed. The hon the Minister will recall that when we think of the 1960’s when many of the beneficiation processes took place—here I think of the ferrous, alloy and smelting industries as well as the building of the Richards Bay and Saldanha harbours—we remember that we had low inflation, low transport costs and very low increases in electricity costs. When one goes back to the period between 1967 and 1974 one finds that the cost of electricity in South Africa escalated by 3,21% per annum. That of course had tremendous impact because it made us very competitive indeed in the outside world. However, things have changed since then. The hon the Minister will know and it is stated in the De Villiers report that since 1974 the cost of electricity has escalated to over 19% per annum. Transport costs have gone up and inflation has escalated. We now have an inflation figure which is two to three times that of our trading partners. Obviously all of this has an impact on our ability to compete as effectively as we did before.

There is one point I would like to leave with the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I do not think we can have a debate on this because I think it actually relates more to the hon the Ministers’s colleague the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry. I think we have to look at the question of whether we cannot develop industries which use those resources. I remember the time when I was much younger than I am today and working as an economist for a bank. One of the matters we had to consider—and I did the study for it—was the impact of the “rampant” inflation on the gold industry of South Africa. At that time inflation had been running at about 4% for three or four years and we were concerned about the impact this would have on the gold industry. The interesting point was that we were exporting the gold and there were certain countries, Italy in particular, where they were manufacturing it into jewellery and receiving six times as much in the finished form as we were receiving. This is quite a simple illustration of the problem.

There is much talk about industrial development in South Africa. I think we have to look at the mineral resources we have and ask ourselves what the most effective way is in which we can use them and what industries we can develop that are linked to them.

I would like to say to the hon the Minister that whatever we do about modern technology, we cannot see out the end of the 20th century with the policies that were applicable at the beginning of this century. Here I refer specifically to labour. I am not exaggerating when I say we are talking of the policies of the beginning of the 20th century. The House may recall that in 1907 the Government of the Transvaal Republic introduced a Bill which limited blasting to Whites only. In one of the first Acts passed by the Union Government in 1911 the concept of a scheduled person was introduced. By definition a scheduled person was a White, Coloured, Cape Malay, St Helenan or Mauritian Creole. In terms of that definition of a scheduled person there are a number of occupations—I think 11, if I remember correctly—which exclude Blacks from doing those particular jobs. We know that there is a shortage of skilled labour. We simply have to go back to the Wiehahn report to see that since 1964 there has in fact been a shortage of skills in the mining industry.

Under the particular heading of “Labour” on page 18 of the annual report of the department it is pointed out that little progress has been made between employers and employees in sorting out this problem, and much the same was reported in the previous year. I do not believe that we can continue in this way. We have waited for a number of years for the employers and the employees to sort out that problem.

When one looks at the mining industry in South Africa—and particularly at the gold mining industry—it becomes clear that they are entering a very interesting period because negotiations are going to take place soon between the National Union of Mineworkers and the Chamber of Commerce. We have already had a fair number of strikes on the goldmines—fortunately they have been of short duration. The gold-mining industry is going through a delicate stage at the present moment and this industry is of vital importance to South Africa. I spoke about the exports of which R11,88 billion came from the gold-mining industry. Sir, the question of labour is vital. There was recently an article in the Wall Street Journal where the comment was in fact made that American investors are wary of investing in South African gold shares because of the potential for labour strikes. We also know from the disinvestment lobby that they will use any ammunition that they can against us.

I believe that job reservation is an anomaly in modern South Africa. It has gone in the industrial sector and I believe that it should go, and go soon, in the mining sector. I am not saying—and I do not want to be misquoted—that if one removed statutory job discrimination there would be no more strikes on the gold mines. I am not at all saying that. What I am saying, is that if one does remove it, I believe a climate will be created in which it will actually be better and easier for employers and employees—I am thinking particularly of Black employees—to find a solution to their problems.

I should like now to come to the energy section of this Vote. Traditionally we have relied on coal to supply our energy needs. There has been a remarkable increase in coal production. This year, for example, we produced 162 million tons of coal of which 38 million tons were exported. The latter figure is very significant because in 1975 we exported only 2,7 million tons of coal. It is thus a very impressive performance indeed. I believe it is actually a tribute to a very dedicated mining industry and also to the labour force because we have had remarkable labour stability in the coal-mining industry. One need only think of the impact that labour instability has had on the British or Polish coal-mining industry. We also have a transport infrastructure which has allowed us to take advantage of opportunities. In 1983-84 we had a situation where we were able to move much faster than the USA in servicing certain export markets. That gave us a new opportunity to make progress in those markets.

There is no doubt that coal is important, but it is very difficult to establish how much coal we have. There is an intrinsic difficulty in working out what one’s resources are and whether there are going to be new discoveries and whether they are going to be discovered fast enough to replace existing resources. We know that our reserves are large and that there is no foreseeable danger of shortage, but we also know that they are finite and non-renewable. The two key questions we have to ask ourselves are, firstly, whether our coal resources will last long enough for us to find an alternative supply of energy; and, secondly, whether we can use coal more effectively than we are at the moment—in other words, should we be using coal to generate electricity or should we be using coal for the development of Sasols or plastic technologies. I do not believe we need to rush to find an alternative for coal, but there is a danger: We have grown used to it, we like it, we have become complacent about our coal resources. One of the reasons is because it is the cheapest form of energy there is.

It is estimated that natural gas costs £2,75 per million British thermal units. Oil costs £4,30 per million British thermal units. South African steam coal costs £1,84 per million British thermal units. For the sake of the hon the Minister, I want to point out that I am assuming that we get 21,67 million British thermal units per ton of steam coal, Which I think is a relatively conservative assumption.

It is therefore clear that coal is much cheaper than any other form of energy and one tends to say that one should continue using coal in that way. However, I think we should be looking for alternatives. One of the alternatives we have to consider is nuclear energy. I am neither pro nor anti nuclear energy and, if we are going to have a debate about it, we must do so in a cool, calm and rational manner. It is a subject which generates tremendous emotion. I know that there are problems with nuclear energy such as freak accidents, radiation, evacuation and storage of atomic waste, the transport and storage of various by-products etc. We also know that nuclear energy is expensive. In the United States it is estimated that nuclear power costs 65% more than coal power. We also know that nuclear plants are in fact very expensive to build. In fact, it is interesting to note that the learning curve does not seem to apply when it comes to nuclear power plants because it is estimated that their costs are doubling every four years.

From a reply given by the hon the Minister to a question by the member for Constantia we know that electricity generated by Koeberg is much more expensive than electricity generated by either an inland or coastal power station. It is much more expensive now because we are basing our present cost on plant that was developed years ago at much cheaper prices. I am also aware that in the United States and Europe there is tremendous disenchantment with nuclear energy at the present moment. On the other hand, when one looks at Japan and remembers what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is interesting to note that it is estimated that by 1986 Japan will get 34% of its energy from nuclear power plants.

When one has a look at countries like South Korea and Taiwan, one finds that they anticipate generating an ever greater proportion of their electricity supply from nuclear power. France has perhaps gone even further than anybody else. At the present moment they generate 40% of their electricity from nuclear power plants, and they are budgeting to generate 75% from nuclear sources by 1990.

When we are debating this question of nuclear energy, I believe we have to be cool and calm. At some stage—whether we like it or not—we will have to find a substitute for coal. As I say, I do not believe we need to rush because we can learn. We have time too to learn from overseas experiences. I am told that Japan has the safest power stations in the world, and it is important that we learn from those people. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that I have no no problem when he closes down Koeberg because I would much rather he closes down Koeberg and makes sure that there is no threat to the people of the Western Cape, even if he is being over-cautious, rather than to allow it to continue to operate, even if there is the slightest possible chance of any threat. I believe we must also look at what France is doing. France seems to have been able to contain costs in relation to nuclear power plants far more effectively than any country in Europe or even the USA.

There is one point we sometimes tend to forget. We talk about the danger of nuclear energy but we often forget that coal energy is also dangerous. In fact the degree of radiation emitted by a coal power station, I am told—and I am not an expert on this subject—is far greater than that emitted by a nuclear power station. The hon member for Witbank will be able to tell us about the problem coal power stations cause by their emission of sulphur dioxide and other dangerous substances. Coal power stations also cause hazardous smoke pollution. There is a problem in this respect. We sometimes look at all the disadvantages of the one, while we tend to forget about the disadvantages of the other. I am told that when the new power stations are ready their combined emission of sulphur dioxide in the Eastern Transvaal will be 221 tons per square kilometre per year. The significance of that figure becomes clear when we take note of the fact that this figure in respect of the Ruhr Valley is 260 tons per square kilometre per year. We know what has happened to the Ruhr Valley as a result of acid rain. It has actually virtually destroyed the famous Black Forest.

It is sobering to note that the first environmental action was actually taken against people who used coal. In the thirteenth century in England, Edward I issued a decree which actually banned the inefficient use of coal with its by-products of smoke and fumes. In fact imposed the death penalty on anyone burning coal for fuel purposes. Mr Chairman, I am nervous about mentioning this because I have noticed that the hon the Minister likes to regulate the coal industry. I really hope he is not thinking of imposing the death sentence on anyone! [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, we should not only look for new sources of energy but we must also conserve and use carefully those sources that we have. I believe that for far too long the objective of Escom has been to produce lots of cheap electricity at cost. We have to change that, and I am delighted to see that this has been highlighted in the De Villiers Commission report. The best reason I can think of for changing our attitude is to be found in that report by the De Villiers Commission. They say that if the increase in electricity consumption can be reduced from 7% a year to 5% a year then, between 1983 and 2003, the saving will be R105 000 million. Mr Chairman, that is an awful lot of money! If we do not spend that money on electricity generation we can actually use it in other areas of the economy.

Obviously we have to launch some sort of national campaign to make people aware of the need to conserve energy resources. The other thing which we have to do is to improve the efficiency of existing electricity supplies. I am glad to note that Escom is aiming at 77% availability by 1989. If this can be achieved, it will help to reduce that demand from 7% to 5%.

I also note from the report that there is a campaign for energy conservation. I have seen the adverts myself and they seem to be relatively good adverts [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, having had the opportunity to listen to a number of speeches delivered in the House over the past couple of days, we really feel like posing the question as to what the actual role of an opposition party is. I am saying this because many a speech pointed to the total negative approach of some of the hon members of the Opposition, but after listening to the hon member for Edenvale, I am really hopeful that this system whereby Opposition members can contribute to the debate can work in the interests of Parliament and the country as a whole. I should like to thank the hon member for Edenvale for the most constructive and responsible speech delivered by him this afternoon.

*In the course of my speech I shall elaborate on some of the ideas he expressed here.

On this occasion I want to associate myself with the sympathy he expressed regarding the families affected by the accident at Sasol. I also want to pay tribute to the two deceased scientists, viz Drs Ampie Roux and Meiring Naudé. During the past year they often sat here in the visitors’ gallery to listen to debates when this Vote was discussed. We want to express our sympathy towards their next of kin.

I also want to add my thanks to that of the hon the Minister when he sincerely thanked the departmental officials under the leadership of Dr Louw Alberts for the work they have done and are still doing. We can say with great confidence that a pleasant spirit of co-operation is developing here, and without exception each of these people is working towards improving the image of this department and an alliance, which can mean a great deal, is developing. We have particular experience of this in the standing committee.

In the standing committee we have experienced—this then is our opinion—that the executive and the legislative authority are being brought closer together in a position of trust, and in my opinion this augurs well for the future.

I also want to tell the hon the Minister that each of us who deals with him often, wants to assure him that we greatly appreciate the frankness of the discussions we often conduct with him.

The Government made a wise decision in the late seventies and early eighties to combine the energy components in one department and to link that total energy function to the mining industry. It is very clear that that is rationalization which has not only borne fruit already, but which will continue to do so in future. In the course of this session we took this liaison further with amendments of the law which resulted in the fact that this department is now to administer certain legislation which was administered by other departments in the past. In the process we have therefore tried to link those things that belong together. This linking of associated functions lends itself eminently to the implementation of a total mineral and energy strategy, and co-ordination of the functions and disciplines of this department can be done profitably in the interests of South Africa.

Then I want to express a few ideas in respect of geopolitics. It is well-known that the eyes of the world are on Southern Africa, and the Soviet Union’s share in this connection is not a small one. The Soviet strategy for Southern Africa is widely known and contains many facets. I merely want to refer briefly to a few of them.

In the first place we must know that the Soviet propaganda machine works with masterly precision. The propaganda attack must not be underestimated. We take cognizance daily of threatening decisions taken in council chambers throughout the world. Decisions such as those taken in August 1981 by the East German government with its Solidarity Committee of the Republic in co-operation with the UN’s Special Committee against Apartheid, remain part of the strategic onslaught on South Africa. This includes a few matters, inter alia: Sanctions against the Republic; an oil embargo; and the blocking of loan facilities to the RSA.

Secondly, I think the supposition that Soviet Russia is not so eager to lay its hands on our enormous mineral resources physically in following up the minor or major successes it had with the partial appropriation of the oil sources of the Middle East, is correct. No, Sir, Soviet Russia will be satisfied if it can merely succeed in preventing the Western powers’ entrance to the wealth of the RSA. That is all they need to gain the upper hand in that respect.

In addition we must not underestimate the role of the Western World in the propaganda and war of nerves against us. It is not necessary, after all, for a Western World to store mineral supplies as reserves as is the case at present. It is not necessary, for South Africa has always been and still is a trustworthy trade partner and supplier. Despite the enormous capital required to do so, the Western World is probably trying to show us in this way that they are not as dependent upon us as we think.

These are only a few of the facets we have to take into account in finding a counterstrategy in respect of mineral and energy affairs. This does not make our efforts at negotiation any easier, and once again we must take off our hats to everyone who has perfected negotiation diplomacy to a fine art throughout the difficult years.

I want to come to Escom, Escom which has become a dirty word in recent times. The news columns of daily newspapers have borne a heavy burden of criticism concerning Escom and recent happenings within that organization. Some of that criticism was indeed justified—we admit that—but most of it was presented in an extremely unfair way which wrenched the whole Escom debacle out of context. It gave the enemies of the Government every excuse to get at the Government. In the process a very important organization suffered. Suddenly what Escom had meant to each of us and had brought about in the course of many years lost value for certain people. The unfair critics forget that because of good planning, etc we have never had to deal with a really significant power cut in the country. They forget about power standards which stand like monuments across thousand of kilometres as part of a sensibly created infrastructure. They forget that very few countries have cheaper electric current than the RSA and that those countries depend mainly upon hydro-electric power.

It is Jan Burger’s right to know whether or not the State’s money is being spent in the correct way. Inevitably an organization such as Escom will have to be investigated now and again, and the question can then justifiably be asked: What should we do to get a good return on the enormous capital investment in Escom? These questions and the fact that Escom supplies approximately 93% of the electricity in South Africa and provides work for more than 6300 employees, has made the Government decide to appoint a commission of inquiry into electricity supply in South Africa. Parliament has already begun to implement the recommendations of this commission by means of amendments which have been made to existing Acts during this session.

I assumed that the hon the Minister would tell us who the members of the Electricity board would be and indeed he did so. We not only want to congratulate the people who have been appointed to that important board, but also to wish them the best of luck in the important task that lies ahead.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Whip.

It is a pity that we had problems with Koeberg after the initial achievement of the first working stage was so excellent. The hon member for Edenvale’s requests were complied with, and very careful action is still being taken. This will also be the policy in future. That is why the station has been closed for a considerable time for in-service inspection and testing of those rustfree steel pipes and accessories in the primary circuit after ferritic inclusions were discovered in the pipe elbow of the second reactor’s pipe run. We hope that shortly Escom will be able to go to the AEB with a satisfactory report in this connection with a view to issuing a licence in order to feed power from that source into the high-current flow once again.

The subject of energy consumption and requirements brings me immediately to the departmental annual report. Apart from all the interesting information contained in the report and in other documents we have to hand, the design of the cover strikes one immediately. If one were to look at the cover, one would see these words repeated in small print: Use energy sensibly. We should ask ourselves whether we do use energy, in the broadest sense of the word, sensibly in our country and whether we carry on wastefully as if we have never experienced shortages. We should not neglect to ask ourselves that question often and repeatedly.

This brings me immediately to the petroleum industry, for when one thinks of saving one also thinks of fuel saving. If one exchanges views on this, one is amazed at how our Ministers, our officials and our negotiates have managed to clear the hurdles of oil boycotts since the oil crisis. We can look back on that thankfully and count our blessings. A few days ago the hon member for Welkom effectively pointed out the importance of the petroleum industry, and all indications are that hard work concerning exciting alternative fuel projects is in progress. In this connection I merely want to say it is quite important to note that at present there are more gas than oil sources in the world. This fact cannot be discounted in future planning. The hon the Minister also made certain announcements in connection with the CEF etc. We believe that every cent from the funds appropriated from this source for bodies such as Soekor will be spent correctly and well and that those projects will be greatly benefited from that source we created.

In addition I want to associate myself with the hon member for Edenvale and say a few words about a matter which I think should receive attention from various quarters, viz the role of gold and refining. Gold has contributed figuratively to the general image of a sunny South Africa. A few evenings ago we had the opportunity of watching a television programme which placed the role of gold in perspective. It is clear, however, that most experts agree that the glitter of gold is already fading, but fortunately it is true that for obvious reasons during the past tax year gold has played what I want to call a “saving role”, as in the past, as an earner of income for the Treasury. The hon member for Edenvale referred to this as well. One of my hon colleagues will elaborate on this however.

With this information as background, we can justifiably ask why South Africa has not been able to develop into an industrialized or First World power thus far. I do not have time to enter into all the possible reasons for this, but I also want to ask the question asked in that television programme, viz whether we have not leaned too heavily upon gold and been obsessed with it as it were as being the “only mineral commodity”. To me it appears that this was the case, and possibly we have let opportunities slip through our fingers in the process. I do not think it is farfetched to give this as one of the reasons we have not been able to develop from a Third to a First World power.

What are the prerequisites for developing from a Third World power to a First World power? I shall not be guilty of giving an oversimplified answer to the question, but I do want to mention four requirements which should be investigated urgently in my opinion, of which we must remind one another, and which, despite the attention they receive, should probably be investigated even more urgently.

Firstly, if we do not succeed with our population development programme, we have no chance of moving into the framework of a First World power. We must therefore succeed with the programme and attain our objectives within the suggested times as projected, in respect of the socioeconomic elevation of all the members of the RSA’s population, including the TBVC countries. In addition we shall have to succeed in combating the uncontrolled increase in the population in Southern Africa. We have excellent plans which are merely awaiting speedy implementation, and we may not allow the poor to become poorer and the rich richer; we must do everything in our power to narrow that gap.

Secondly we must speed up our national education plan across the whole educational and training spectrum. What we have achieved thus far is praiseworthy, but not enough.

Thirdly, we must extend our manpower potential and utilize it fully. Career and trade orientated training are at the root of the success we can attain and, in contrast with the general world tendency, labour intensive projects will have to receive high priority.

In the fourth place I want to mention another important prerequisite, especially for the purposes of today’s debate, and associate myself with the pleas of experts in the field of minerals, and I should like to refer to doctor Edwards of Mintek. This is not a new idea. This step, viz the economic refining of our mineral products before export, was advocated even in the Reynders Report of 1972. If we can tackle and carry this through with determination, it can be the most important incentive in making us a First World power. It can earn us the rands and cents we need for development. It can be the stimulus for a new industrial revolution in South Africa. It can really become the “Miracle of Southern Africa” for the very reason that we can fink the refining to industrial development. Then the objectives mentioned in the White Paper on industrial development in the RSA which was tabled a few days ago, will be in sight. This can still be done, for we shall probably still have time to lean upon gold before its hour-glass runs through as well.

I want to express the hope that the hon the Minister will lift the veils covering mineral strategy, with specific reference to refining in this debate. We believe we have everything necessary to obtain this objective. We have it in the palm of our hand. We have the raw materials at our disposal. Our electric current is relatively cheap. We have land for establishment of industries, and once we get our education campaigns going, we can add an increasingly sophisticated work force to the field. We have expertise over a wide spectrum of the technical field.

If we have to do a few additional things, we must do so. We must buy the expertise we are lacking. We did it with Sasol, we did it with Koeberg, and we must do it here again. We must conclude co-operative agreements with processors abroad in the interest of the whole of Southern Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon member for Rustenburg and also with the hon member for Edenvale in expressing the sympathy of this side of the Committee with the next of kin and friends of the victims of the unfortunate explosion at Sasol at Pretoria West. We want to assure the next of kin that we genuinely do deplore the accident. We deplore the unfortunate nature of it and the loss they suffered. We hope they will be able to find consolation in these circumstances.

I want too to say a word to those members of the boards the hon the Minister announced this afternoon. This is a direct consequence of legislation approved by Parliament, and we want to express the hope that those people will perform a very important service in ensuring the success of those matters with which they have been charged and which are of great importance to the country.

I also want to say that we on this side of the Committee accept that the public at large will welcome certain concessions that have been announced in respect of restrictive measures regarding fuel.

I want to thank the department for a most informative annual report which contains a great deal of important information. I also want to mention that until now, with certain exceptions, I have had the privilege of being able to participate in the discussion of practically all the Votes. I said with certain exceptions, and the Mineral and Energy Affairs Vote happens to be one of those with which I have not been involved in the past. I have been charged with it this year and consequently I am breaking new ground too. It is certainly a vast field to have to cover and one therefore has to make oneself acquainted with everything that is going on in order also to be able to make a contribution. That is why I want to express my thanks to the department for this annual Report which has helped to give me some insight into what actually goes on in that department in general.

From the annual report and from the experience I have gained this year, I realize that we are dealing here with a department covering a wide spectrum and dealing with very important matters. It is of course impossible to try to cover this whole field in a speaking time of 10 minutes. I therefore want to restrict myself to certain specific matters.

The first matter to which I want to refer—the hon member for Rustenburg also referred to this—is the programme on gold televized by SABC-TV. I want to associate myself with what the hon member said, namely that in the past gold was very heavily relied upon and so on, and that this could create problems for us in the future. I do not know whether the hon member for Rustenburg had a similar experience, but after watching this programme—and I am sure hon members know how difficult it is to put together a complete picture if people speak one after the other and not always about the same matter at the same time—I felt a little discouraged. One then tends to ask oneself: How much longer is this going to be the case? How much longer is it going to last? Perhaps it would be a good idea when a programme on such an important matter is screened on television for one to arrive at a really positive conclusion, even though the programme is about a negative matter, for example, that perhaps one day we shall run out of gold. One should always try to create a positive impression about these matters so that one does not depress the public at large in this regard.

The other matter to which I should like to refer is Soekor’s search for oil. In the annual report we are provided with certain very important information. Reference is made to prospecting at sea and also on land. It is very interesting to note that in respect of the investigation at sea, 102 test holes have been drilled, mainly in the Mossel Bay, Port Elizabeth and Plettenberg Bay areas. In past years drilling to a total depth of 327 586 metres was undertaken. It appears that 17 of these boreholes showed sufficient signs of oil and gas to justify tests.

A great deal of publicity has recently been given to a gas strike—I would almost call it an oil strike—approximately 100 km from Mossel Bay which, in my opinion, has given rise to much joy, hope and expectation among the South African public. What was made known about that strike was of such a nature that it really encouraged us in our search for oil. That is the one important commodity this country does not have at its disposal. We do not have our own source of oil. I am not now being negative about the efforts of the Sasols. We appreciate all the products they supply. I am referring, however, specifically to crude oil which other countries have at their disposal but not we and in regard to which we are threatened with sanctions and boycotts. Not only are we threatened in this way, but we also have to maintain a particular sensitivity and a degree of secrecy surrounding the purchase of petroleum products and oil. This is why Soekor’s efforts are of great importance to us on this side of the House and to me personally. That is why every measure of success attained as well as every strike that looks as though it may be a successful one is of fundamental importance to us in this country. We are all really looking forward to the day when Soekor is so successful in its efforts that we will be able to meet our own oil needs.

The latest strike that was announced received a great deal of publicity and filled us with a great deal of hope and expectation but all the excitement now affears to have died down again.

It is simply to get hold of the shares.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether it is possible to give us more information in this connection although on the other hand I also want to be reasonable and say that should the hon the Minister intimate that one should not make too much of it public, we shall accept that.

Before I discuss diamonds I should like to refer to the prospecting for oil on land. The annual report is somewhat negative in this regard. It appears that last year no drilling was carried out on land, and it seems as though prospecting has been suspended except in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth. It was very interesting for me personally to review the triangle formed by Wakkerstroom, Dannhauser and Harrismith where prospecting is being carried out. I want to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon—I do not know myself; therefore I want to know whether the department perhaps knows—whether oil has have already been prospected for in the Utrecht district in Northern Natal, to the east of the town in the direction of the mountain. That area is rich in coal and is also rich in anthracite, and I have always had the feeling that perhaps something is tucked away for us there. [Interjections.] I am not making any predictions; I am simply asking.

I want to conclude by asking the hon the Minister something. In this country we have a wealth of minerals, including diamonds. I have ascertained that we no longer actually process diamonds ourselves. A country such as Israel, however, has established a flourishing diamond processing industry. Has the time not come for us in South Africa to give serious attention to this matter? The establishment of an industry such as this would provide job opportunities for a large number of people. I think we could also build up, a jewellery industry that could be of great importance to us in the future.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Koedoespoort in expressing sympathy with the next of kind of those who died in that tragic disaster.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the way the department’s affairs are being managed. I do not want to single out this department now—I know there is a limited number of senior officials based in Cape Town—but I am convinced that this department, the hon the Minister, the Director-General and all the other people make up a very thorough and diligent team for the promotion of this very important matter.

I also want to express my pleasure at the hon the Minister’s announcement. I think the new dispensation will be most advantageous to the institutions concerned.

The hon member for Rustenburg raised certain matters here that are in my opinion of particular importance. In the limited time at my disposal I want to associate myself with him regarding certain matters he raised. I want to refer, too, to the refining of raw materials because I think this is an extremely important matter. Previous speakers have referred to it but I want to approach it from a slightly different angle.

It seems at present to be the case that to date, overseas companies are not terribly interested in refining raw materials in South Africa. They are doing so abroad where they buy our raw materials. It should therefore be one of our high priorities, and in this I am in complete agreement with the hon member for Rustenburg.

In this connection the Council for Mineral Technology (Mintek), which has already been in existence for 50 years, plays a major role. This year’s budget for this organization is R24,4 million. Its establishment numbers 847, of whom 181 are highly qualified scientists.

As has already been said, the Government is giving particular attention to industrial development in the country with a view to the creation of job opportunities. In this connection, however, there is potential that is not being fully utilized, if what is being done in other countries is taken into account.

I was happy to hear that the director of Mintek was positively disposed to promoting this matter. It is essential for research institutions to work more, closely with the private sector in industry. It is also true that the State will have to play a role in the initial phase of this development because they are capital-intensive enterprises, and also because in certain respects they could be risky.

In light of the fact that we are buying sport stars from foreign countries I want to ask whether it will not also be possible—since these processes have already been carried out sucessfully in foreign countries—to buy experts in this field as we did in the early days of Sasol and other concerns. I remember that when Iscor was started experts were brought in from Germany and other countries to help with that enterprise because they had the necessary knowledge and experience. This matter is so important that every possible effort must be made to promote it.

Furthermore, I want to refer to the mineral industry, which is responsible for more than 80% of our country’s earnings in foreign currency. The total value of sales of mineral products in 1983 amounted to R16 243 289 426—a considerable amount. Gold brought in more than R10 000 million of this amount. I want to pay tribute to those involved in these key industries. Whether or not it is possibly a waning industry, and whether or not we perhaps rely too heavily on it, I think we can nevertheless be grateful that that industry in fact exists, particularly in these lean times the country is experiencing at present. It is therefore right that we draw the optimum from it. For the mining houses and the workers in that industry, too, we have only the greatest appreciation and gratitude for the attitude existing at present and for the way in which this industry is functioning. I therefore want to express my gratitude and appreciation for this.

I should like to sketch a picture of the department and its activities. My time is, of course, very limited, but I shall try to refer to it as concisely and quickly as possible. The department assumed its present shape in January 1980, when, in the process of rationalizing the Public Service, it was charged with certain tasks. The budget of expenditure for this department for 1985-86 amounts to R627 553 000. I want to point out that the increase in the budget of the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa, according to the figures at our disposal, amounts to R155 878 000. I believe the hon the Minister and his department are probably concerned about the magnitude of this amount. I do not want to imply by this that the work being done in this area is not extremely important. I think, in fact, that the expenditure and activities in this area are being watched very carefully.

Mining and other industries with which the department is involved are among the largest earners of currency in our country, but are also among the largest providers of work. The aim of the department is, briefly, to ensure the optimal extraction, provision and utilization of the country’s mineral and energy resources. They can rightly be described as the arteries of the pulsing economy of the country. Some reference to statistics will confirm this statement. For organizational purposes, the department is divided into five branches: Mineral laws, the Government Mining Engineer, Geological Survey, the Minerals Bureau, which is actually also involved in the optimal utlization of South Africa’s mineral resources, and the Energy branch.

As far as energy is concerned, reference was made to Escom and Soekor and as far as these two bodies are concerned, the Department is playing an executive and regulatory role. The task in this connection is to satisfy the energy needs of this country, and our continued existence is actually dependent on this. Research is also being done on nuclear fuel and coal. The energy functions are based in one department and so the energy affairs of the country can be managed efficiently. Furthermore, there is the energy plan that was established in co-operation with the Energy Policy Committee and that holds great promise, because it should promote savings, something that is of course in everyone’s interest. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we in these benches would like to associate ourselves with the condolences which have already been expressed in regard to the devastating and tragic fire which took place recently in Pretoria.

At the outset may I also express my congratulations to the hon the Minister for acting so quickly in appointing the various boards that came into being as a result of legislation passed recently. We join in the expressions of congratulation to those members who have been appointed and we wish them well in the very responsible task they have been given.

I wish also to add my words of thanks to the department for the excellent report that has been made available. It certainly does give as clear a picture as one can possibly hope for in relation to the activities of the department.

I am not so happy about certain comments that were made by my good friend the hon member for Rustenburg when he inferred that one had to be almost apologetic for having advanced criticism relating to incidents that have taken place in regard to Escom. Irregularities have taken place and I do not think that we want to be seen avoiding embarrassment to anyone concerned, but the true facts of the situation must be told. While I am on this subject, I am tempted to be somewhat facetious and refer to a question I asked in this House a month or two ago in regard to what I call the floral extravaganza Escom embarked upon to beautify the countryside around its villages and power stations. My remarks are not intended in any way to be a reflection on the really magnificent button-hole the hon the Minister is wearing here today. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when entering a debate on any subject with as wide a scope as minerals and energy one realizes that the limited time available does not allow one to do justice to the important role that these valuable commodities play in the economy of a country. South Africa has guarded its overseas mineral markets jealously, and the quality of products emanating from this country has done much to encourage, even some of our most doubtful overseas friends, to do business with us on an ongoing basis.

It is obvious that external demand for our minerals must be encouraged in that these exports will play an ever-increasing role in resolving our balance of payments problems. It is essential too that the high quality of our mineral products be maintained in order that we can continue to compete successfully on world markets. South Africa must ensure that its minerals are always freely available and are not subject to fluctuating production trends as is the case with countries that have mineral wealths similar to ours but are unable to harness their production resources to the same degree. We must be seen to ensure that the reliability of mineral supplies from this country is maintained at all costs.

The effects of the drought during the past three years have severely hampered the contribution by agriculture to the national income, with the result that South Africa’s balance of payments has been detrimentally affected and greater reliance is now being placed on the mining sector to meet the existing shortcomings. Consequently it is with a sense of relief that one notes that total mineral sales—local and abroad—increased by 17% during 1984 to some R19 billion. Export earnings were R16 billion and local sales realized almost R3 billion.

It is interesting to note too that the income from coal in 1984 was R1,7 billion from the export market, and a similar amount from the local market, which means a total of almost R3,5 billion—an earning second only to that of gold. Sales from gold, however, brought in R11,5 billion, which clearly reflects the importance of gold to the South African economy. At the same time, however, it inciates that a wide disparity exists between the earnings of these two principal products.

Other minerals extracted in South Africa lend validity to the claims that this country has considerable hidden wealth, but we must not become complacent, as the hon member for Edenvale so rightly pointed out. We must not become complacent in assessing the value of this wealth in relation to the country’s strategic importance to the other Western countries, neither must we lose sight of the fact that South African minerals will have to compete more aggressively on world markets.

It is worth taking note too of the trend of copper sales from other countries—from developing countries in particular—whose foreign exchange requirements necessitate selling the product without due regard to actual profitability. As we know, political groups outside the country are endeavouring to strike at the very heart of our mining industry by creating labour unrest which is as detrimental to the workers as it is to the mines themselves. Responsible decision-making at this sensitive time is of vital importance. We are, however, not alone in our problem and we have a lot to learn from the British coalmining strike during the course of 1984.

When one comes to analyse the effects of that strike one finds that, during the time of that 12-month strike, there was a very determined attempt by the British Government to encourage the search for other sources of energy, and there is no doubt that the long term effects of this are going to be felt for quite a few years to come. Therefore we must learn from the experiences of other countries where labour disputes have resulted in greater mechanization and in a reduction in the work force. Any trend in this direction in South Africa could have catastrophic effects and could affect the livelihood of many people.

The development of mining undertakings in Australia and South America can have a significant impact on the American market for such minerals as manganese and chrome. One must bear in mind that at present half of the United States’ imports of these commodities comes from South Africa. Therefore we must be aware of the fact that competition from other countries is increasing and that modern technology is being applied continuously to find cheaper substitute sources which can be utilized within the American domestic market. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River will excuse me if I do not comment directly on his speech.

Mining and food production in South Africa are probably among the most valuable assets of our country. I represent an electoral division in the Eastern Transvaal where the largest coal deposits occur in our country. The largest concentration of power stations in the world is also found in that constituency.

The hon member for Edenvale as well as the hon member for Rustenburg referred to the importance of gold but I should like to refer to another important mineral—the Black gold of South Africa or coal. This year sees the hundredth anniversary of the first coal mined in South Africa. In 1885 the first coal was mined in this country and the first million tons of coal per annum was mined in South Africa in 1900.

If we look back on the course of coal mining, we think of old conventional mining methods which left us with huge areas which had been mined. Large slag heaps remain there to disfigure our country. Some of those mine dumps burn day and night; gases are released and cause pollution. Those areas under which mining took place are full of water and acidification takes place. All this creates appalling problems for our country. In my constituency there is a mine in which an underground fire broke out which has raged over the past two years. Those were dangers attached to the old coal-mining methods.

Let us now examine the way ahead and what has been achieved with new mining methods in South Africa. Some mines succeeded in recovering only 40% of coal by old methods whereas the remainder was left in the mines. That is the coal burning in those mines today. Today we are mining 100% of the coal by the opencast method if it is situated on a level where it can, in fact, be mined by this method.

Today I wish to express my exceptional appreciation to mining houses for the outstanding way in which they have made every possible effort to ensure that the topsoil is replaced after the land has been mined and the coal removed. As much as R20 000 per ha is spent in stabilizing the land again as a heritage for the use of our descendants.

In 1983 these new mining methods produced 142 million tons of coal in South Africa whereas 162 million tons were mined in 1984.

On looking at the use of coal in South Africa, I experience a certain amount of concern: Are our sources inexhaustible? I should like the hon the Minister to reply to this. I can well recall how a few years ago a predecessor of the hon the Minister’s had to respond at a public meeting to the question: Is it advisable for us to continue exporting coal? His reply was: Our sources are unlimited. We should note that 58,7 million tons of our coal are used by our power stations. We should also remember power stations not even in use yet. Indications are that by the year 2000 48% of the total of our coal mined in South Africa will be applied for power stations dependent on coal. We should move away from coal-burning power stations and give serious consideration to the erection of atomic power stations.

As regards our coal exports, in 1984 38 million tons of coal were exported and indications for 1985 are that we shall export 40 million tons. The Government has decided that in 30 years’ time we shall export 80 million tons of coal per annum. I think we should review this because we also have to extract synthetic fuel from coal. If we look at the increase in the use of coal at our Sasols, we see that we require ever-increasing amounts of coal for the manufacture of synthetic fuel in South Africa. Let us therefore review this so that succeeding generations will not hold it against us that we did not apply our sources correctly.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Order! Since the hon the Minister of Home Affairs will not be here tomorrow, he has asked leave to make an announcement today. I am happy to grant him the opportunity.

Mr Chairman, I said yesterday with reference to the hon member for Waterberg (Hansard: Assembly, col 5992):

The sentence was not completed as a result of interjections. When I said this, I was genuinely under the impression that the word “scum”, as used by the hon member for Waterberg, was a word of his own choice. This impression was reinforced by the indignant interjections elicited from several hon members by the hon member’s statement.

On rereading Hansard, it appears that the hon member meant to quote directly what others had said to him and that it was not his own version. I therefore offer him my apologies.

You will allow me, Sir, in conclusion, to dissociate myself and the Government most strongly from anyone who refers to a respected population group as “scum”.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister of Home Affairs yesterday also put words into the mouth of the hon member for Rissik with reference to an interjection by the hon member for Bryanston. It was reported in the Press as follows:

Order!

Sir, may I just ask you …

Order! No, the point is that an hon member may not quote from a newspaper regarding what has been said in a debate during this session. He must quote from Hansard.

Sir, I simply want to bring to your attention that the words said to have been uttered by this hon member are made public. We are concerned …

We have told Mr Speaker about this, too.

Yes, we have also informed Mr Speaker of this matter. What it amounts to is that the Minister said the hon member for Rissik should answer for the attitude he adopted towards the Coloureds by saying:

Sir, the hon member for Rissik never used these words and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he does not also want to apologize to the hon member for Rissik for putting the wrong words into his mouth.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I regard the behaviour of the hon Whip on the other side as an abuse of the privilege of this House because he made no reference to my Hansard. I cannot accept responsibility for what a newspaper reports. I said—and I quote from my Hansard (Assembly, col 5992):

I then said:

Order! A point of order cannot be based on something the hon member has read in a newspaper. If the hon member wants to raise a point of order, there are two things he has to take into account: Firstly, the quote must be from Hansard; and secondly, the point of order should be raised as soon as possible. That is the position. The hon member is very welcome to come and discuss the matter afterwards with me or with Mr Speaker so that we may perhaps go into it in more detail.