Mr. Chairman, may I refer briefly to the matter which I raised during yesterday’s Second Reading debate regarding clause 2(b). We will not move any amendments in this respect as the subject matter, as raised yesterday is still being discussed between myself and the hon. the Minister’s department. I do not think it is at the moment necessary to move any amendments. However, the provision will be looked at further by myself and our group and we will be coming back to the House at a later stage if necessary.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, the object of this clause is to amend section 17 of the principal Act by the deletion of paragraph (b). Whilst I would normally raise this under clause 10, relating to section 26, viz. the appointment of claims officers, I have to raise it under this clause as well, because of that deletion.

The paragraph to be deleted from the principal Act reads as follows: “… shall review all applications for benefits which are refused by the claims officer and shall determine whether such applications should be granted and if so what benefits should be paid, and the decision of the committee upon any such review shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to have been the decision of the claims officer. ”

I raised this yesterday during the Second Reading debate and I would like to raise it again for the hon. the Minister’s consideration. What we are doing in effect is that we are doing away with a review board so that the decision as to whether or not a claim is warranted, can be determined by one person, viz. the claims officer, whereas up till now it has been done by the review board.

There are two points that I should like to make in this respect. In the first place I am fully aware of the fact that there is an appeal board which enables the person who feels that he has been put at a disadvantage to ask for some review. Unless such a person appeals, under normal circumstances the decision of the claims officer is final. I wonder whether all the possible eventualities have been weighed up by the hon. the Minister and his department. The point that I was trying to make yesterday—I shall not make it again now—is that there are many unemployed people, particularly in the lower economical ranks, who have very little understanding of the benefits which may or may not accrue to them. If a claims officer makes a decision regarding a specific claim, there is no review and, in many instances, the person concerned may have no idea that he has the right to appeal. I know that the time in which an appeal can be made has been extended, and I welcome that. I wonder, however, if all the possible eventualities have been considered by the hon. the Minister in the deletion of paragraph (b) by clause 8 of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, what is actually important is the fact that a man should be able to appeal. In the second place a man should realize the possibility for him to appeal. It is a question of administration. As I understand it from the board, anybody being notified of a decision, is also notified that he has the right to appeal. Nevertheless, I shall make sure that if there is any misunderstanding on this point, the matter be properly handled so that a person will know what his rights are in this respect.

Then I am happy.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Durban North. I do so in order to clear up any confusion which may have existed at the Second Reading of this Bill. Because of the amendment proposed in clause 2, agricultural workers and others will now qualify for unemployment benefits. I have checked the principal Act and as far as I can ascertain section 2(2)(i), (k) and (r) makes it very clear that most agricultural workers, seasonal workers and domestic servants are still exempt from becoming contributors and therefore from receiving benefits. That is the way that I understand it. Will the hon. the Minister please give us some indication whether my understanding of it is correct? If I am right, I hope the time will come when this very large group of our labour force will be included. I understand the difficulty—we have debated it often in this House—but it would appear that a very considerable number of people are excluded from contributing and therefore from receiving benefits. As times become increasingly difficult and hard in South Africa it may be that more and more people are going to be affected by this terrible social problem of unemployment. I hope that the hon. the Minister and his department bear that in mind, because it does involve a very large group of people. Finally, I want briefly to emphasize what I said in my Second Reading speech. I said legislation which removes discrimination, whether it be against Black, White, Pink or Brown, is welcomed by this side of the House, and we hope that there will be even further moves in labour legislation in this direction during the course of this session.

Mr. Speaker, the question whether agricultural workers and domestic servants should be included in the provisions of the Act, is an old one. Indeed, it goes so far back that the first argument in that regard was probably raised at the time when legislation of this nature was considered for the first time. Agricultural workers are excluded by definition. I know how there has always been argument about this. It has been argued that the method of compensation, the circumstances and the movement of people is entirely different. Therefore there were reasons for the exclusion of agricultural workers and domestic servants. A reason why this can again be referred back to this House for review of the situation is the fact that we are beginning to have a structural change in the country. In recent times we have been encountering a type of change in the agricultural sector which has to do with the breeding of poultry and production of eggs, for example. Large companies do this in such a way nowadays that if one takes a closer look at it it is no longer a farming enterprise but a factory enterprise. However, it remains a form of agricultural production. Therefore the question could perhaps again be asked within this structural change. I think the way to deal with this is to discuss the matter with people in agriculture itself and with the board. I do not think it is for the Minister to say yea or nay on the matter. I think this is a matter which can be discussed by people involved in the industry, those people who have had a say in this matter and discussed it from the outset. Those people must review the situation for themselves once again. Apart from what the hon. member said—and I know the type of argument he advanced comes from other quarters as well—one can consider whether a case could not perhaps now be made in the changed circumstances for an amendment of the Act. I do not necessarily wish to include the whole of agriculture here but perhaps certain sectors— which could be included according to definition—could be included here. Consequently I do not want to commit myself at this stage to saying that this must happen. However I want to say that this is something which could well be looked at by this House and perhaps by the agricultural industry itself.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to clause 1(b) where one finds the following words—

I am not quite sure exactly what the acts entail in respect of which the board can collect money. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what sort of tasks may be performed for the benefit of other persons and for which money may then be collected, and whether this will only have reference to work done in vineyards, in other words, work which has to do with agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member has said, this refers to acts on an agricultural level. However, it also covers entrance fees which are charged at the entrance. In the past, visitors drove in without having to pay. 120 000 people visit Groot Constantia annually. After Table Mountain, Groot Constantia draws the second largest number of visitors to such places of interest. At present, the entrance fees are 20c for adults and 10c for children. That is a nominal amount, but it provides an annual income of R14 000. Therefore, the aim is also to legalize the charging of entrance fees and to finance other activities. All of that is covered by this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, because of a remark made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South yesterday, I thought I would just motivate this clause for the elucidation of the House. Another reason is that there is a high degree of local interest in the measure before us at the moment. The possibilities for expansion at Groot Constantia are in fact extremely limited. Let me just place that in perspective. The land which it is contemplated to hire and later to acquire consists in the first instance of the land of Nova Constantia which covers some 15 ha and, secondly, the land which presently belongs to the provincial administration and which covers 3 ha. The third piece of land affected is some public open space belonging to the local authority. That piece of land is some 30 ha in extent and is not suitable for residential purposes. That is therefore the sum total of the land involved. Consequently, the expansion which can take place by virtue of this clause will be very, very small. However, given the tiny size of the estate, it will be of great significance to the estate; and given the sensitive situation in the valley, it will be of great significance in stabilizing the situation there.

Let me say that I am very grateful for the kind words expressed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South yesterday. I appreciate them very much. The land at Nova Constantia is important because, although it is only 15 ha in extent, it now makes the estate contiguous with the other great estates of the valley, Buitenverwachting and Uitsig. That is the first point. The second point is that the great homestead at Nova Constantia, which was built by Thibault, and which was restored at a cost of approximately R250 000 by the Tupperware Corporation—the public now has access to it—is presently set in a wilderness of weeds and diseased vineyards for which there is no use. It is, however, prime agricultural land and, should the estate acquire the land of Nova Constantia, it will provide the correct setting for the great Thibault homestead of Nova Constantia. Another direct result of the legislation will be that those 15 ha of land will produce some 150 tons to 200 tons of white wine grapes. The hon. member will know of the acute shortage of white wine produced at Groot Constantia. The total production of Groot Constantia is usually sold out within six weeks. The production at Nova Constantia will yield some R200 000 per year expressed in terms of the retail prices of bottled stock. The total cost of acquiring that land, should we acquire it, and of developing it, would be between R220 000 and R250 000, and when the hon. member considers that, he will understand that that is a very good investment which can be made by the board. Apart from that, it will have enormous environmental and beneficial consequences flowing to the community of Constantia as a whole.

The second piece of land in question is one of 3 ha in extent and is part of the heart of the farm. That 3 ha site, which is presently owned by the provincial administration, is the site where vineyards were originally planted at Groot Constantia and it is therefore of great historic significance to the estate.

The third piece of land in question is one of 30 ha which I have already discussed.

Another point I want to raise simply for the benefit of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, is that there is one diseased vineyard abutting the estate. The owner of that vineyard approached the estate and asked the estate to farm this land for him as he could not do it himself. That diseased vineyard is affecting those of the estate. The estate can easily utilize that land to the benefit of the estate whilst stabilizing agriculture in the valley.

I raise these points in support of this clause and for the benefit of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving us that outline and for presenting his point of view. That is how I understood the implications of this Bill. However, the Bill does make it possible that the board can at some time in the future go beyond the scope as originally intended. We all agree that this Bill can bring about a very healthy situation for the board of Groot Constantia. For some strange reason, however, it could be possible that at some later stage the board decides to incorporate, for example, the Steenberg farm, something which it could do in terms of this Bill, if I read it correctly. I believe Great Constantia should be confined to the area of Constantia. That is what I am worried about, namely that this proposed legislation could be utilized to considerably enlarge this scheme, and not what is now envisaged by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Maitland.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that what he has said is of course an impossibility, because the objectives of this legislation and of the estate are very clear and very well defined. One of the principal objectives is to produce an estate wine. For the benefit of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South I want to say that one cannot produce an estate wine on land which is not adjoining the estate. It would therefore be a physical impossibility for the estate to buy land such as the Steenberg farm, which is miles away from Groot Constantia, and to utilize it for the production of estate wines.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Maitland for his explanation. He is evidence of the type of man we have on the board of Groot Constantia. However, I want to explain that if one takes his figures of R200 000 turnover on 14 ha of vineyard, it might create the impression that the wine farmers are in clover. It must, however, be remembered that that wine is sold under the name of Constantia, which is a world renowned name. There is a premium on the name, and that is the reason for this turnover. The net profit is much smaller. I fully agree with the hon. member, but I do not want to create the impression that the wine farmer in South Africa is making a turnover of R200 000 on 14 ha of land. That is the retail price after the wine has been made. This turnover is only possible in exceptional cases, such as in the case of Groot Constantia, which produces under a well-known brand name. It is altogether a different story if one goes to the commercial farmer in Stellenbosch, Paarl or some of the other places. I only wanted to explain this point for the record.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the discussion on this Bill I have received representations on behalf of a number of Constantia farmers and an organization known as Constantia Heritage which were apparently conducting negotiations with the hon. the Minister or his department in regard to the relationship between these farms in Constantia and Groot Constantia. These farmers have certain proposals in relation to Groot Constantia Estate and they were hopeful that these would in due course be embodied in an amending Bill of the kind we have before us today. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that because of organizational changes in the hon. the Minister’s department, the discussions that were under way were discontinued and that, possibly for that reason, their proposals had not been fully taken into account in the drafting of this Bill. Be that as it may, they still have certain views which they would like to see incorporated in any future amending Bill relating to the Groot Constantia Estate, and would hope to resume discussions with that end in view. I shall not refer to the proposals, because, as I have explained to them, it is not possible in our legislative practice to enlarge the scope of the Bill, that is what their proposals would amount to. However, I did say to them that I would raise the matter and ask the hon. the Minister to bear in mind the possibility that further amendments may be desirable and necessary, and at least to give the assurance that if those Constantia farmers who are not so far touched by this Bill and who have no particular objection to this amending Bill have further constructive proposals to make in regard to this relationship with the Groot Constantia Estate, the hon. the Minister will keep an open door and bear in mind their representations if they can be implemented as a further improvement to the Groot Constantia Estate Act in due course.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia has made a very reasonable request and the people to whom he referred can bring their requests to me to be considered for inclusion in the legislation. In the beginning, when we started drawing up this legislation, we did not have any proposals from farmers in the vicinity. I heard of some of them, but they did not approach me directly. However, they can make arrangements to see me at any time and I will hear their proposals. The hon. member for Constantia said that these proposals would be to improve the situation for Constantia, and if it is an improvement I am always for it. They can therefore contact me and we can discuss the matter and if possible include the proposals in any future legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware the hon. the Minister of Finance announced certain tax concessions in his budget speech last year, inter alia, some relating to the Black members of our population. What this entailed was that the taxability of Blacks was alleviated by the abolition, in terms of section 9 of the Finance Act, 1978, of general tax consisting of a fixed amount of R2,50, popularly known as “head tax”, payable by all male Blacks of 18 years and older.

Because the Black Taxation Amendment Bill, 1969, also provides for other forms of tax payable by Blacks, for reasons of efficiency, and also so as to leave no doubt among the Black population that the general tax consisting of a fixed amount has in fact been abolished, it is necessary that all references to the abolished tax be removed from the Act.

The tax concessions have been so widely welcomed by the Blacks that almost all the Legislative Assemblies of self-governing Black States have already adopted laws to abolish fixed amounts payable by their citizens and to amend accordingly the Black Taxation Act of 1969 which still applies in all Black States. Owing to the heavy programme of this House during 1978 the appropriate amendments of the Black Taxation Act, 1969, could not be attended to by Parliament before now.

This Bill merely provides that all references to the general tax comprising a fixed amount be omitted where they appear in the principal Act. This is merely a purification process and entails no principles.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the, shall I say, statutory confirmation of what has already been done. That is the lifting of the general tax, the head tax, of R2,50 from Black males between the ages of 18 and 65 years. As the hon. the Deputy Minister says, this Bill is really a purifying process. I rather wish—and I am sure my hon. colleagues will agree with me— that the purifying process will go a bit further. From the beginning, when the Bantu Taxation Act, 1969, was introduced, we have opposed the principle of a separate income tax for Black people. We see no justification for this whatsoever. Indeed, to some extent, it has helped to preserve the myth that Blacks as a whole do not pay the same sort of taxes that White people pay, and that they are therefore, to some extent, the White man’s burden as far as education and other costs are concerned. In point of fact, of course, with the passing of the 1969 Act a discriminatory income tax was introduced, whereby Blacks start to pay taxes at the very low level of R360 a year. It is true that the initial tax paid on that amount is not high. It is only R1,20 per annum, but there is a very steep upward sliding scale. When people are earning very low incomes any additional amount which they have to pay, either in cost of living or to the State in taxes, bears very hard upon that section of the community. So we would have hoped that the hon. the Deputy Minister in his purification process would have come along to the House today with a Bill which would have done away with the separate discriminatory tax on Blacks. Unfortunately this is not so. I wish to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that Blacks pay all the indirect taxes that White people pay, that they are especially hard hit at the moment by the general sales tax, which unfortunately is not only levied on luxury goods, but even on essential staple foodstuffs eaten by the poorer section of our community.

Therefore, in replying to the Second Reading debate, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give this House some assurance as to the Government’s intention to remove not only the head tax, which is being statutorily removed today—although this has already been removed with the passing of the Finance Act last year—but also that he will remove, at some stage, indeed as soon as possible, the discriminatory income tax that Blacks pay. The taxation of Blacks starts at the low level of R360 per year and income tax is paid by both males and females. There are no rebates given to Blacks as regards their marital status or as regards their dependents. There are no childrens’ allowances. They have none of those rebates which are enjoyed by the Whites, Coloureds and Asian sections of the population. We can see no reason for this. It does mean that a few Blacks at the highest level end up by paying lower taxes than Whites at that level, but we believe that this is something which can be happily sacrificed. There are so few Blacks at the very high level whereas the large base of Black taxpayers are of course in the lower income groups. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us some assurance in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the unique position today of agreeing with the hon. member for Houghton and being grateful for the support she is giving us. However, I hope this is a state of affairs which will not occur too often.

The Bill under discussion is actually a consequential measure, as the hon. the Deputy Minister rightly remarked. It arises from the amendment in section 9 of the Finance Act which was before this House last year. In terms of that, this general tax was abolished. It is obvious that some form of taxation has to be paid by Black people. The Government is very well aware of the discriminatory form of taxation which Black people presently pay when their income exceeds R360 a year. To find an income formula for South Africa with its heterogeneous population is not such a simple task. We have only to consider this fact that we have Black States which are not yet independent and two Black States which are already independent. Large numbers of workers from all those States are employed in the Republic and are subject to the Republic’s laws. Therefore it is a very delicate task to work out a system of taxation which would apply to all Black people.

There are two chief bases for levying taxation on people. Firstly, there is the source basis, and secondly, there is the citizenship basis. We are obviously concerned here with the sovereignty of States to levy taxation as they see fit. It is also obvious that if Transkei did not base its taxation on citizenship, it would suffer losses, because large numbers of Transkei citizens are employed in the Republic of South Africa. Should such a country prefer the source basis of taxation, it could be faced with the problem that it could tax only those citizens who are resident inside the country. The whole matter is very complicated. But the Government is giving attention to it and we shall decide shortly about how we can come to an agreement with the independent States concerning this matter. Then the taxation of Black people in South Africa will also be placed on a proper basis in due course.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches do not want to take too long telling the House why we are also prepared to support the Bill at this stage. In passing it is interesting to note that the hon. Deputy Minister who has proposed these measures, is apparently moving in a direction which appears to be away from discrimination, and we are delighted about that.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal not only with the points that have been raised till now, but also with those provisions that are referred to in this Bill which relate to local tax. I experience some difficulty with the principle of local tax, because if one reads section 7 of the Act it says—

While the words relating to “general tax consisting of a fixed amount” are sought to be deleted, the words relating to the local tax, which is a hut tax, are perpetuated in the legislation. I should like the hon. Deputy Minister to tell us what his view is of a hut tax as being a modern, reasonable method of taxation and whether it is not a matter which, in the circumstances, should also no longer remain in the light of day.

The other matter which I would like to draw the hon. Deputy Minister’s attention to, is that since 1974, when I came to this House, the issue of taxation in respect of Black people has been raised consistently not only by myself, but also by other people in the House. We have found the situation that there are two basic principles that have to be dealt with. I learnt a long time ago that there was a maxim which said: “No taxation without representation. ” That maxim seems somehow to have got lost in a whole welter of issues. A second point is that there should in fact be equality of taxation. When an identical matter was dealt with last year by the hon. Minister of Finance, he resented an allegation that there was discrimination involved in a system of taxation where the bulk of the Black people, who were in the lower income groups, had to pay higher tax than the Whites in that income group, because he said that there were rich Blacks who paid less and that therefore there should be a compensating factor…

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with …

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the principle of the Bill.

If we therefore apply this to the concept of a general taxation, which the hon. Deputy Minister is removing here, then nobody can argue that one does not discriminate when one taxes a poorer man more and a richer man less. That is something which, with respect, the hon. Deputy Minister should also look into.

We had the argument last year that the general tax—that is the tax that we are specifically abolishing now—was in a measure intended to be compensation to the Black man for the imposition of the general sales tax. One only has to mention this to show that there is no substance in it because even on the lowest paid Black people there is an obligation to pay general sales tax. A man who earns R150 per month has an obligation to pay general sales tax and his obligation is certainly in excess of R4 per month—which is R48 per year. If we compare that to what we are abolishing here it is, with respect, quite outrageous. To suggest therefore that that is a compensation is, to my mind, quite incorrect. That it is incorrect, is borne out by the fact that as far as White taxpayers are concerned, anybody who earns more than R4 000 per year was given a tax concession last year. The lower income group White taxpayer and the Black man received no concession. Whereas it is perfectly true that the ambit of this Bill relates purely to the general tax, the truth is that it is inextricably woven into the whole pattern of taxation in South Africa. We cannot have a system of taxation where poor people in one category are taxed more than in another and then aver that it is not discriminatory because tax relief is given to the richer people.

We have been told since 1974 that there are committees investigating this. During every single day that passes, Black people at the lower income levels are unfairly paying a higher taxation than their White counterparts. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to be fully fair, he must make every other piece of legislation that he introduces retrospective in order to ensure that this discrimination is not perpetuated.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Yeoville made a very dangerous statement here today. He spoke of “no taxation without representation”. If that statement is true and is to be accepted, surely the reverse of that statement must also be true, and then one could surely argue that there should be “no representation without taxation”.

That is true.

Yes, the hon. member knows that it is true. It is a stupid argument which the hon. member advanced. Then one must say that no one who does not pay tax has the right to be represented.

Everyone pays tax.

The hon. member must not run away now. He said “no representation without taxation”. Surely, then, the reverse is also true. Surely one cannot then give representation to people who do not pay any tax. This applies to Whites as well.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether there is any person in South Africa who does not pay tax, because, after all, everyone pays general sales tax?

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was in fact opposed to the general sales tax; now, however, he is using it here to substantiate his fallacious argument. The norm for obtaining representation in Parliament and the norm for obtaining the right to vote is not whether a person pays tax or not. That is not the norm which is laid down here. The hon. member is now dragging in something completely irrelevant. He wants to mix taxation and politics, which is quite wrong.

The hon. member objected to hut tax. The hon. member also pays hut tax, only in a more sophisticated form. He pays municipal rates, which is just another form of hut tax. It is only a more sophisticated form of hut tax.

He has left his skin behind!

Of course, the hon. member has passed that skin stage, but we shall not refer to that any further now. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the so-called discrimination which exists in the income tax scales for Whites and non-Whites. I think the hon. member laid unnecessary emphasis on the argument that the Black people begin to pay at a lower income level. The argument which the hon. member did not mention was, I believe, that that taxation on the higher scales generally reverses the tendency by discriminating against the Whites. [Interjections.] After all, that point is no longer at issue. The hon. the Minister of Finance said last year that this matter was being examined, and it is now being studied in depth. Surely it is not a matter which can be thrashed out in one day. I think we need to reflect about this whole matter, and the Government has indicated that it intends to investigate this matter. For this reason I believe that we should rather leave those arguments at that for the moment, because I do not think they have a very direct bearing on the legislation which is before us at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for having deviated from the legislation, but I just want to react to hon. members’ arguments in that connection. I now conclude by saying that I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill which is before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation for the support of this amending Bill. The discussion reminded me of a lay preacher who was asked: “Why do you not become ordained?” His reply was: “If I become ordained, I must stick to my text.” Sir, I think you will agree with me that we deviated a little from the text, but it was interesting. I think the hon. member for Pinelands will agree with me that in the days when we were preaching—perhaps he is still preaching—we often took a small text and built a big sermon on it.

No one is listening to him any more.

It can be very interesting, of course. The ideas expressed here by hon. members were all interesting and important ideas.

†I now want to refer to what the hon. member for Houghton said. The matter is under consideration …

Five years.

… but I do not think it is for me, at this moment to express a particular view on what can be anticipated in this regard. [Interjections.]

*This is not the occasion for anticipating the matter. The hon. member for Cradock, the hon. member for Lydenburg and others pointed out that this matter was under consideration, and I think hon. members may expect that attention will be given to it in future legislation. I think I can reassure hon. members in that connection. It will be done. I cannot say exactly what form it will take, and for that reason I shall not anticipate the matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville was a little worried about the hut tax. I think that what the hon. member for Lydenburg told him was true. He is only paying it in a more sophisticated way, because that tax is actually a kind of rent for the premises, and it is quite cheap, I must say. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate any further on this matter. It seems to me that the hon. the Leader of the House wants me to speak on it for three hours, but my text is rather small. With this, therefore, I shall conclude.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, we stated yesterday that we were not going to oppose the Bill in principle and we therefore supported the Second Reading. I think it can be said that the principle of the Bill is contained in this clause. We shall therefore not vote against the clause. I do, however, want to repeat some of the reservations we do have in supporting this and some of the anxieties we feel. As the hon. the Minister and I both said yesterday, quite powerful representations against this legislation have been sent in, and one should not ignore them. What we are really doing here is taking away altogether the discretion of the commissioner to grant an additional extension of five years over and above the five-year extension, that is to say, an extension not from 16 years to 21 years, but from 21 years to 26 years. This is something which, as one understands it, is only being done by way of fairly rare exception anyway and generally on the grounds that the patent holder has not reaped sufficient benefit from his patent to warrant his action, firstly in contriving the invention and, secondly, in making it public in his application for a patent. The hon. the Minister has pointed out—and this is fair enough—that since the 1978 legislation would give the patent holder a maximum of only 20 years, there is on the face of it an anomaly between the 20 years and the possible 26 years. I agree that this argument can be raised. However, those who would take a point of view different from that of the hon. the Minister would say that what the House in fact did in 1978 by amending the legislation should not affect the validity of the agreement, or contract, if you like, entered into earlier between the State and the patent holder in terms of the 1952 Act I say all this to make it quite clear that this has given us some heartburn and that we do not agree lightly to support this clause. We would express the hope that, in applying the new legislation, every attempt will be made to ensure that people who do develop inventions and apply to have them patented are not ungenerously treated, because the effect of that on the economy and on the development of free enterprise might well be harmful.

Mr. Chairman, when we discussed the Bill initially, I conceded that arguments could be advanced for both standpoints. The hon. member for Parktown is quite correct when he says that what the principle which has already been accepted, amounts to, is that the extension period for a patent in terms of the 1952 legislation is being reduced from 10 years to five years.

†I understand it that the hon. member and other hon. members may have reservations in this particular regard. Let me say at once that one does not very easily interfere with vested rights. This particular clause—I want to be quite candid and honest about it—does in fact interfere with vested rights. Therefore, the test to be applied is naturally the normal test of whether it is in the national interest or of general interest that one should so interfere. All the arguments that have been submitted to me before and the representations I have received have convinced me that it is of general interest that under these circumstances one should interfere with that principle.

It is also very important to note how many people who have so far applied for an extension of their patent rights in terms of section 39 are affected. Let us weigh the position and see what the result is. The position is that there are 89 610 live patents on the register in South Africa. In total 236 538 have been registered from 1917 to 1979, i.e. to date. The factual position is that there has been one case where the patent holder has applied for an extension of his patent for a period of 10 years. On that application the commissioner in his adjudication granted that the lifetime of that patent be extended for seven years. If the Bill which we consider now becomes an Act of Parliament, it will mean that we have reduced the period allowed by the Commissioner from seven years to five years. Another application for an extension of 10 years has been submitted, but on that particular application the Commissioner has not given a verdict or a judgment whatsoever. In terms of this proposed legislation, the Commissioner will only be entitled to grant an extension of five years.

There has been one application for extension of time to apply for an extension after the period has lapsed.

Twenty-two other applications have been received in the normal course of business. We are dealing with a situation in which we have 89 000—I am rounding the figure off—live patents on the register. For the purposes of this discussion I want to say that only 25 people have made use of this right to apply for an extension, and I submit that some of these patents are of such a nature that it is necessary that we should limit their lifetime.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask one further question to get clarity about the figures the hon. the Minister has quoted. In regard to the 89 000 patents he has said that as of now there have only been 35 applications for an extension.

Twenty-five.

So there have been 25 applications as of now. However, one presumes that a very large number of those 89 000 patents are not yet 16 years old and that in respect of these applications for an extension can still be made. I should just like confirmation of that.

That is so.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate what I said yesterday at Second Reading in regard to this particular clause, which deals with the short title and commencement. We have trouble with the commencement part of this clause which states that the legislation “shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1979”, which incidentally is the date on which the principal Act also commences to become effective.

It has been brought to my attention that on 31 January judgment was passed down in respect of an application which had been made in September 1978. This judgment has given the applicant an extension of seven years.

I referred to that.

The hon. the Minister has referred to it. If this date of commencement is to be 1 January 1979, it means that this person, who has already been granted an extension of seven years, is now going to lose two years of that extension. We believe that this should not be done, as this person is entitled to the full extension of seven years. Had the judgment been passed on say, 29 December 1978, he would not have been affected by this, not so?

That is so.

Because in this case where judgment has already been passed granting this right, we feel that the person concerned should not be denied it.

I believe that a second application asking for a 10 year extension is now in the hands of the Commissioner. Apparently this applicant went to great lengths to prove why he should get a 10 year extension. Judgment on that application is expected at any moment. We believe that if judgment should be passed before the date of promulgation of this legislation, this particular applicant should be entitled to whatever right he has been granted. For these reasons we have reservations about this particular clause.

I should also like to say to the hon. the Minister that he has worked with the committee that deals with this matter in respect of all these changes, but in respect of this particular clause I have been informed that there has been no discussion on it. I think that the committee might very well adopt the same view that we have adopted. I consequently appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider changing the date of commencement from 1 January to the date of promulgation.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite true that I have not discussed the date with representatives of the ad hoc committee who were in the first instance responsible for the drafting of the legislation. I discussed with them the principle of reducing the extension period from ten to five years. I have already indicated that an application can be made at any stage for the extension period in terms of section 39. At present there are 25 of the patent holders who have applied for an extension. In one case only has a judgment been given and that is the case to which the hon. member has referred. I am prepared to consider, because of the fact that the commissioner has given a judgment, whether it is not possible in that case to accept the position as the judgment of the commissioner. In the other cases, however, where no judgment has been given on the applications, I cannot accept the principle. But I give the undertaking to the hon. member that I shall see whether I can rectify the position in the Other Place regarding that application where a judgment has been given by the commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he will give this particular matter further consideration between now and the time it arrives in the Other Place, we shall not oppose this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has said that there are something like 25 applications at the moment that have been put forward and upon which judgment has not yet been given, I would think that the situation in all these cases is that a certain amount of expense has been incurred by the people who are making the applications. I imagine that this could amount to a considerable sum of money, in drawing up information, in briefing people to do the job for them, etc., and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not perhaps consider that those people who have already put in their applications perfectly legally in terms of the law at that stage, will not find themselves in something of an invidious position as a result of this legislation. I wonder what the objection really is to making the date on which this particular aspect comes into operation somewhat later than 1 January 1979. I cannot see why because of the fact that the original amendments last year only became effective on 1 January this year, it should mean that this particular clause has to become effective on 1 January also. I cannot really see why the hon. the Minister should not be prepared to allow this legislation to be promulgated and to come into operation at some later date.

Mr. Chairman, we do Just want to place on record that we do not at all like the principles relating to retrospective effect which we encounter in this clause. We have already said in regard to the principles of the Bill that we acknowledge that the hon. the Minister has a good case and although there is also a good case against it, we have allowed ourselves to be persuaded to support the Second Reading and the principle of the Bill. However, on top of that, to make it retrospective when there are people who have devoted and not only taken time and trouble but also money to the preparation of the cases they submitted in terms of the legislation, appears to us to constitute a further withdrawal of established rights. For that reason we are against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that hon. members are opposed to this. However, let us debate the matter on a rational basis. Why— basically this is also the argument of the hon. member for East London North—should there be discrimination, as a result of cases of people who have made applications, against a group of applicants who still have the right in terms of the old Act to apply, purely because an application happened to be submitted? That is the first argument. The second argument is that a patent is not automatically extended. Whether the application is for five years or for 10 years, in any event an application has to be submitted and there must be a motivation for the commissioner to extend it. In other words, I just want to say that the argument that money was spent by the various applicants on the preparation of their cases and for the extension, is not valid because the greater part of that money would in any event have been spent even though the application had been intended for five years. As a reasonable man the hon. member will surely understand that. Therefore I think— with great respect—that hon. members must give me the opportunity I am asking for. Let us agree to the measure now. Then, as I have already undertaken, I will consider to what extent we can accommodate the situation in regard to those cases where a finding has already been issued. I am not very keen to extend the debate further at this point. However, hon. members will know that we in South Africa are also stockpiling strategic reserves. We are not merely engaged in stockpiling strategic reserves but are also engaged in positive action. This is to ensure the South African manufacturer of certain strategic supplies. Therefore the hon. member must not request me at this stage to pass judgment in regard to the details of the applicants.

I might just add that in general—and I am not now referring to the applicants—another important reason for this is the fact that we want to reach a cut-off point. In all fairness we must not again lose sight of the overall principle. The overall principle that applies here is that we want to ensure a degree of equity between people who have had patent rights for years and those who have to register in terms of the new legislation. Other countries summarily cut off all patents after a fixed period. We are one of those countries that have decided that we wanted to afford a degree of recognition to the patents registered before the legislation of 1978. In these circumstances I want to request hon. members to co-operate with me in regard to this matter.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the record it is probably necessary just to add that we are now prepared to support the Third Reading, on the condition, of course, that we set during the earlier stages, viz. that the hon. the Minister will do what he can in order to ensure that he can if possible reduce and improve the effect of clause 3.

Mr. Speaker, I too, should just like to say that we have no objection to the Third Reading of this Bill because of the undertaking which the hon. the Minister has given to review clause 3 in the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm briefly that I have in fact given the undertaking because I know of a case in which the finding has already been issued by the commissioner. The legislation under discussion would have had the effect that the finding mentioned would have been changed. It seems to me that I shall have to take a look at that With regard to the other aspects, hon. members will understand that my position is somewhat more difficult because they are mere applications received, concerning which findings have not yet been issued. I just want us to understand each other and I do not want reproaches levelled at me to the effect that I had given an undertaking to everyone.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had completed a very long speech by way of introducing this Bill. As regards the main theme of his speech, viz. the nature of the oil crisis which the world faces in growing measure, the seriousness of it and the implications for South Africa, we find ourselves in full agreement with it. In fact, there is very little in the content or the emphasis of his speech with which we find ourselves in disagreement. We believe that it is indeed true that South Africa—like many Western countries although in some respects to a greater degree—faces a situation which will have deep and far-reaching implications for the economy of our country, for the manner in which that economy should be conducted, for our balance of payments and, generally, for the growth of this country in response to the kind of problems which it has to face. Therefore it would be entirely wrong to underrate the significance of the oil shortage and of price increases, because these factors are now riding in tandem. I am now talking about both the unavailability of oil supply and the rapid increase in cost of those quantities of oil which remain available. Anybody who underrated this would, I think be doing South Africa a disservice. I therefore say that in our approach to the problem we are as concerned as the hon. the Minister. As a matter of fact, we have been pleading with him to take certain measures over the years, some of which we hope may be realized, but generally speaking and on behalf of this side of the House we undertake to give the hon. the Minister and the Government every possible support in achieving the kind of result which it has in mind in combating the oil crisis in all its dimensions. We therefore commit ourselves to assisting the Government because this is truly a matter of great national interest.

Having said that, it is a matter of some regret that I have to say that we are not very happy about this Bill. To the extent that the Bill is designed to achieve the kind of object which we have been discussing, we would like to be able to support it. However, the Bill is of such a nature that we really find ourselves in very considerable difficulty. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister why. Clause 1 of the Bill amends section 1 of the principal Act. The principal Act provides, briefly, that the Strategic Oil Fund, which is controlled by the Strategic Oil Fund Limited, depends on funds from the State Revenue Fund to the extent provided for in the Act, viz. 7,4 cents on a kilogram of liquefied petroleum gas, 4 cents on a litre of petrol, 1 cent on a litre of kerosene, etc.

It is transferred from the Treasury to this Fund.

Yes. Moneys in this Fund are used for the exploitation of coal and coal products and for other objectives of the Strategic Oil Fund. The principle involved here is that money which is raised by way of excise duty on oil products is paid to the State Revenue Fund. The State Revenue Fund then pays a certain amount of money into the Strategic Oil Fund.

The same sort of principle applies in the case of national roads where money, raised by means of excise or levy, is also paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund which provides for certain payments to be made to national roads. The impact of these sorts of measures, i.e. section 1 of the principal Act and the National Roads Fund, is to provide for the whole population, through the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to bear its fair proportion of the cost of either national roads or the creation of the Strategic Oil Fund.

I now come to a rather different principle in this Bill and we are puzzled as to why it should be so. The amendment which is now proposed is that the new Fund—which is to be called the Equalization Fund—obtains its funds not from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but from a special levy which is imposed upon manufacturers, distributors or sellers of these products. If the hon. the Minister wants me to read it, I shall do so, but I am sure that he already knows it.

No, do not bother reading it.

The provision puzzles us, because it is difficult to see at what stage or how this levy can be imposed. There are cases, in respect of these products, where a single undertaking is manufacturer, distributor and seller. In other cases there might be a manufacturer who sends his products to a distributor who again supplies it to a seller. In such a case a single product undergoes three separate stages. If the hon. the Minister were to apply the levy to the manufacturer, then obviously the levy would be passed down the line, but it might become cumulative as, in fact, it does. If he applies it to all three stages, it will obviously have a heavy cumulative effect. It is not clear whether there is going to be a uniform system for doing this …

There is going to be a uniform system and it is going to be levied only once; it is not going to be repetitive or accumulative.

It was very helpful of the hon. the Minister to say that, but I must point out to him that the Bill does not say so nor did the hon. the Minister when he was dealing with the Bill during his introductory speech—admirable as that speech was—give us any real indication or explanation at all as to how this Bill was going to work. As the Bill reads, it completely puzzles us as to why all these words are necessary if the hon. the Minister has made up his mind to do only one thing. Why then are all these alternatives embodied in the Bill?

The question of price is also a factor in the control of the consumption of petroleum products. I shall be the first to agree—I have stated it on other occasions in the House— that the price of a petroleum product can play a very important role in the conservation of that product, through the operation of the law of supply and demand. The hon. the Minister is also a price controller, apart from his many other professions. As a price controller …

That is a job I would be glad to give to you.

As a price controller he can set a price which includes the increasing cost of petroleum imports, which provides an adequate reward for oil companies who conduct the business of importing oil to this country and also provides for the various levies which are imposed upon the oil products for the hon. the Minister’s various purposes. Since he is able to control the price of the product and to provide for the other needs of the State under the provisions of the existing National Roads Act and the State Oil Fund Act, why does he need to bring a new system into being? The Bill does not tell us why. The Bill says that there will now be an Equalization Fund in addition to the Strategic Oil Fund and that the new Fund will be utilized for purposes rather different from those of the Strategic Oil Fund. The new purposes are not specified in any precise way. The hon. the Minister merely says that the money which he is going to raise by means of this new levy, is in fact going to be used, in the first place, for the financing of any increase in the cost of purchasing crude oil or petroleum products. He said in his speech that he had already increased the price of petroleum products in order to take account of the Opec increases of 14,5% that are anticipated during this year. The hon. the Minister has to some degree anticipated this increase in price—from 5% to 14,5%—by imposing a levy of …

I said that the price which became effective on 1 January included a tax for this purpose.

The hon. the Minister has the machinery—as he had before the introduction of this Bill—to compensate for these price increases. There is nothing to stop him, if he finds that 10% is inadequate, from increasing this amount. But he could increase it through the powers which he already has. We are again puzzled as to what it is for and why different methods are required to impose it. The hon. the Minister says the money is being raised by means of a levy for financing the increased cost of purchasing crude oil or petroleum products. But is he not already applying levies to help finance the purchase of these products under the Strategic Oil Fund. Is he not already imposing levies through the existing statutes to compensate for the increases in the price of oil?

But that is for specified purposes in terms of the existing Act.

We are looking beyond these specified purposes. In terms of the principal Act the purposes are to attend to the needs of coal and coal products and also for other purposes of the Strategic Oil Fund—which we need not go into now. We know what they are. The hon. the Minister now says he needs this money for different purposes and for that he creates a different kind of Fund, the Equalization Fund. The hon. the Minister says that the first reason is that he wants to finance the increased cost of oil imports. But he is already financing the increased cost of oil imports. Already on 1 January he imposed a price to finance the increased cost of oil imports. Secondly, he goes on to ask for a very broad power in that “the money raised by means of a levy … shall be utilized … in accordance with the directives of, or for the purposes determined by, the Minister of Economic Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Finance”. This throws no light whatsoever on the matter. He refers merely to purposes to be determined by the Minister in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance.

This is the sort of Bill which is being brought before this House. We on this side of the House find it totally unsatisfactory that such a piece of legislation is presented to this House. As I said at the outset of my speech, we say this with regret, because we are wholly with the Minister in supporting him in his efforts to overcome the impact of the oil crisis which this country faces. We think it is a great pity that where he has such a willing team of helpers on this side, he should destroy their confidence to some extent by introducing a Bill which on the face of it and lacking a full explanation, is as unsatisfactory as this Bill before us. We cannot support this Bill. We hope, however, that during the course of the Second Reading the hon. the Minister will give us explanations that will satisfy us and enable us to give it the kind of support that we would like. But it stands at the present time, we have grave doubts whether we can give the Bill our support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Constantia for his constructive approach to the problem surrounding the energy crisis in general. I shall not reply directly to his objections. The Minister is the obvious person to do that particularly since this is a sensitive matter. I think that one should draw a distinction when it comes to the existing legislation to which the hon. member for Constantia referred, legislation which has to do with normal abnormal situations, if one can put it that way. I think, however, that a whole new situation has arisen as a result of the events in Iran and that the nature of the oil prices hikes with which the country has to contend, differs appreciably from the price hikes which are normally announced each year, or several times each year, by the Opec countries. To have to obtain oil on the spot market is an entirely different situation than before. For that reason I personally feel that this legislation, with certain aspects of secrecy which are most certainly not aimed at the Opposition, is absolutely essential and cannot be over-emphasized in the situation in which the world finds itself, particularly if one takes into consideration that it is not only we, but, in fact, the whole world, which is trapped in a serious energy crisis.

Within the following two or three decades—and this is a well-known fact—the available oil resources of the world will begin to be depleted. Only two days ago the American Minister charged with energy matters stated that the present energy crisis is even worse than the situation in 1973.

I now wish to refer to the civil war in Iran and the total chaos which has now arisen there. As the hon. the Minister stated yesterday, nobody can predict when that country, till recently still the second biggest supplier in the world, will produce and export again. Although Iran was till very recently still South Africa’s major source of crude oil, today there is no indication whatsoever that it ever will be again. Even the USA, which obtained only 5% of its oil from that source, is now compelled to supplement the shortage from its own stockpiled resources, and is doing so at a rate of 500 000 barrels per day. It is, therefore, a serious, world-wide situation, a situation which can have only one outcome viz. further unpredictable, sporadic, uncontrolled hikes in the price of crude oil, over and above the prescribed increase of 14% which the Opec countries fixed for this year. Even if oil were more readily available, perhaps from sources outside the Opec countries, and on the spot market, all countries will have to provide for the fact that they will have to pay dearly for it, and in a way which will make it almost impossible to budget or to plan for it On the spot market the price has already at times exceeded $20 per barrel, as opposed to the stipulated Opec price of $13 to $14 per barrel, or in other words R11 for approximately 66 litres. On Sunday there were reports from Kuwait, one of the important Opec countries, that the oil price may be tripled even within the foreseeable future, and today reports have been received from Saudi Arabia in connection with the nationalization of the Aramco company. It has also been reported that this country, the largest producer of oil, will perhaps not only reduce its production, but that it will also advocate price hikes over and above the 14% fixed this year. This is also a very serious situation, particularly if one takes into account that Saudi Arabia has up to now been a conservative and moderate voice within the Opec cartel.

In the face of this situation the whole world, even powerful countries like America, are powerless. President Carter himself declared yesterday that price fixing by the producing countries can simply not be broken. He said the best way to deal with the matter was to cherish no idle hope that the structure of the cartel can be broken. Now it speaks for itself that the results could be traumatic for all in South Africa, if unpredictable, sporadic and uncontrolled price hikes should arbitrarily descend on us. Steps to alleviate the trauma by diffusing its effect, are, therefore, obvious and essential, and, consequently, this is the purpose of this legislation.

Against this background I wish to compliment the hon. the Minister on the farsightedness he demonstrated in taking various steps at the time of the first indications that the smouldering unrest in Iran could degenerate into a serious crisis. Towards the end of last year he established the Energy Policy Committee and the Van der Walt Committee on Fuel Conservation, and last month he appointed the Theron Commission to investigate alternative fuel sources.

†When the hon. the Minister announced the 10% price increase effective from 1 January, you will recall that the editorial columns and motoring columns of newspapers waxed voluble, as did speakers for consumer organizations, to the effect that the 10% increase was unnecessarily high and was not justified, and was in fact excessive in relation to the staggered increases Opec had announced for this year. However, I think you will agree, Sir, that subsequent events have shown that even that 10% increase can now be considered to have been conservative indeed. In my view the foresight was equally commendable that led to the simultaneous establishment of the Equalization Fund which we are discussing in this Bill. This decision, as you will recall, was taken when Parliament was not in session and in an atmosphere of impending crisis. It is partly to ratify that decision that this amendment Bill is made retroactive to 1 January.

The proposed new subsection 1A deals with the levy to be imposed to finance the Fund. It also lists the products in respect of which it can be imposed, on whom it can be imposed, at what point, how these people are to be notified, the extent of the levy, the interest payable thereon in the event of nonpayment and the manner in which the moneys raised are to be invested should they not be needed immediately, viz. with the Public Debt Commissioners.

As the hon. the Minister indicated in his introductory speech yesterday, it is clear that the measures to be taken are very flexible and give the hon. the Minister a substantial degree of discretion. However, in view of the fluidity of the international oil situation, the strategic nature of oil as a commodity, and of South Africa’s particular position in regard to the supply situation, I feel sure that hon. members will agree that this flexibility and discretion are not only fully justified, but in fact also essential. Nobody can reasonably argue that the situation is normal. I think it should go without saying that abnormal situations very often require wide-ranging and extraordinary measures.

The existing legislation does provide for penalties for evading excise duty on petroleum products, but does not cover evasion of the special levy. In view of the traumatic effects dramatic oil price increases could have, not only on the country’s balance of payments position, but also on our whole socio-economic structure and on the very fabric of our existence, I think we will agree that any subversion of attempts to cushion these adverse effects, should be discouraged and penalized. That is the purpose of the proposed section 1B.

The proposed section 1C makes the provisions of this amendment Bill applicable to the State. For very obvious reasons the Government does not pay excise duty on its fuel supply, but since this legislation merely deals with the price structure of a commodity essential to the smooth functioning of every sector of our society, it is only logical that the State should also make its contribution in this regard.

I think most of the other provisions are self-explanatory, subsidiary and consequential and I, therefore, do not propose to deal with them.

In conclusion I should merely like to say, as did the hon. member for Constantia, that I think this legislation affects the national interest in the absolute sense of the term. I, therefore, have no hesitation in supporting its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, after examining the situation which is presently facing South Africa in the light of the developments to which hon. members have referred, we in this party fully anticipated something like the Equalization Fund being created, and therefore we are not opposed to the spirit of the Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced. We fully appreciate and realize the consequences of what is happening in the Middle East, especially in Iran. We also fully appreciate the effect this situation is having on South Africa’s crude oil supplies and on our economy as a result of the higher premium we now have to pay. All this is very regrettable in the light of the great need today for growth in the economy of South Africa. It is also very regrettable that our valuable foreign exchange should have to be spent in this particular manner. For this reason we feel that it is essential that the public be made aware of the situation. I compliment the hon. the Minister for the publicity which has been given to this, because widespread publicity has certainly been given to this matter and I think people are fully aware of many of the problems facing us. We also agree with what the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech, i.e. that the immediate step to be taken is to try to introduce methods of cutting down fuel requirements or fuel consumption in South Africa. I think this can be done, given enough publicity, and if we are able to arouse the patriotic spirit of the people to do what is right for South Africa at this time by cutting down on the use of their vehicles during this period of extreme urgency. There are, in effect, many ways by which fuel consumption can be reduced.

In a way I think it is rather fortuitous that we are faced with this problem because it does give us a reason to get on and look for alternative fuels which can replace the fossil fuels, especially oil upon which we are so dependent at present. I am very pleased to see, in the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech, that work is being done in this field at the present time.

Getting to the Bill itself, let me say that we, too, have certain reservations about it. We realize—something of which I feel the hon. member for Constantia was not aware— that the 10% increase in the price of fuel at the beginning of the year was in anticipation of these levies.

Not all of it.

Not all of it, no. I appreciate that it is not going to be the full 10%. I am aware of this and of the fact that the hon. the Minister anticipated this legislation by increasing the price of fuel by 10%. He said as much in his introductory speech. What we are concerned about, however, is the fact that we have a secrecy provision in the proposed new section 1A(3) where the notice to apply a levy “… may contain a directive that the amount of a levy, where the levy is not imposed by notice in the Gazette ..

The word “secret” has a public connotation.

I appreciate that and I am coming to it shortly.

That is our problem.

Yes, that is our problem. The proposed new section 1A(3) states further that—

Because of the present circumstances we can fully understand the reasons for this. I want to make our case quite clear in this respect. We can certainly understand the reasons for this. However, the matter is taken further in the proposed new section 1A(4) which states—

In many respects we welcome this subsection as well, because the way I understand it, it does give the hon. the Minister the power, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, to use some of these funds, possibly for research work on other ways of finding fuels or developing fuels here in South Africa.

Or even to offset normal price increases here in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Will it be in code?

Of course, he could buy a newspaper too.

We fully appreciate that some of these steps by the hon. the Minister should be taken in a spirit of secrecy in the strategic interests of South Africa, and we fully endorse that. However, as the hon. the Minister and other hon. members have already indicated, since I started speaking, there is a rather unfortunate connotation that has been applied to the word “secrecy”. I do not for one minute believe that we should, or that we can, ignore what has happened in recent times. It is, of course, possible that it could happen again, not that I for one moment imagine that it will happen during the term of this particular hon. Minister. It is for this reason that we want to be assured by the hon. the Minister that these funds will be properly controlled by some parliamentary means or other.

I shall inform the Opposition parties of exactly what we are doing.

I am very pleased to hear that I was going to suggest that possibly a subsection (c) could be added to the end of the proposed new section 1A, making it to read—

Or something to that effect, something that will give us the assurance that these funds …

I will explain that to you.

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain this. This is all I have to say. Since we have certain reservations, we want to make sure that not only will the people of South Africa be protected, but also the hon. the Minister and his department, as well as the whole subject of strategic commodities, such as fuel. We want to have the assurance that it shall not at any time in future ever be possible for any cloud to be cast over this particular subject With the assurance of the hon. the Minister in this respect we will be supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Constantia, and the manner in which he expressed his party’s support of the undertakings and intentions of this legislation. The hon. member was, however, in a certain sense involved in double talk because he still tries to uphold a reservation on a measure which sets out very clearly the importance of the intent of this particular legislation. The hon. member said he would wait to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply before deciding on whether his party was going to support the Bill at Committee Stage.

In view of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Constantia it must certainly be realized that there are two separate aspects involved. Not only does the relevant provision in the existing legislation adequately take care of increases in petroleum products as imposed by the Opec countries from time to time …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the prices. However, it also takes care of a set of circumstances that will arise on the world market regarding the payment of a premium over and above the predetermined price by Opec countries. This is, as I see it, what this legislation intends to take care of. There is a very good reason for this. The hon. member will forgive me if I set out my reason for saying this. Hon. members of the Opposition are well aware of the fact that South Africa is only dependent on oil as a source of energy to the extent of between 20% and 25%. On the other hand Western countries, particularly those of the Western Economic Community, are almost exclusively dependent on oil as a source of energy. I should like to point out that, as far back as 1950, France, for example, who is a member of the EEC, only needed oil—if my figures are correct—for about 20% of its total energy requirements. However, by 1972 France had become dependent upon oil to the extent of 72% for its energy requirements. This same tendency has been witnessed in the case of countries like the USA, a country to which an hon. member has already referred during this debate, as well as in the cases of West Germany and other European countries. It is therefore clear that—if this is so—the premium price, the premium to be paid, will be determined by the demands of those heavily dependent countries in order to meet their oil requirements. If the present situation of a shortage in world supplies from Iran continues, this condition will not change. Oil is the Achilles’ heel of these industrial countries and will determine the premium that will have to be paid, not by us, but according to the demands of these Western countries. Fortunately for South Africa, unlike a lot of other industrialized societies, we are only dependent to the extent of 20% to 25% for our total energy requirements on oil. Therefore we are far more self-sufficient in this regard than many other industrial nations.

In this regard it is very interesting to have a look at our country’s energy profile. I happened to obtain certain data compiled by Escom as long as 1974. I tried to obtain more recent figures but they are extremely difficult to come by, as the hon. the Minister will appreciate. I think we can accept that the data source of Escom is a fairly reliable source for figures of the manner in which we use our energy in South Africa.

Five years is a long time when it comes to energy.

It is not quite five years. These figures became available late in 1974 and they are extremely interesting. It is interesting to note, on the analysis made by Escom, which is one of the main suppliers of energy in the country, that industry used 22,9% electricity, 25,6% coal, 26% gas and only 8,4% oil. That oil used in industry includes the oil used for agricultural purposes.

In mining energy sources were used as follows: Electricity 87,9%, coal 9,4%, and oil only 2,7%. Then we come to the two biggest users of oil in South Africa as an energy source. For household purposes the figures are: Electricity 49,1%, coal 22,9%, oil 27,6% and gas and coke a a mere 0,4%. We then come to the biggest user of them all and that is transport which used 40,6% electricity, 6% coal and 79,4% oil.

These are interesting figures because they clearly illustrate that transport is the only sector of our economy that is critically dependent on oil. The figure for household requirements given in this data summary is that households used oil for 27,6% of their energy requirements. This is not critical as those energy requirements in the moderate climate we have in our country can easily be converted and will not become a crucial problem.

However, let me refer to another factor as illustration of the point I am trying to make that we are not as dependent on oil for our industrial economy as many other industrial nations. In regard to our own production of oil from coal, at the 1975 consumption level Sasol 1 produced about 7% of South Africa’s total oil requirements. Sasol 2 is scheduled by 1980-’81, according to the 1975 consumption level, to produce about 28% of all our oil requirements. In effect, this means that by 1982 over one-third of South Africa’s oil needs should come from coal. If by that time—and this is the main point I want to make—the premium payable to obtain supplies should become so prohibitive that it will almost act as an oil embargo, strict control of consumption could possibly cut our needs to 70% of the 1975 consumption rate. These very circumstances, that we can justifiably claim to exist in South Africa— remembering that Sasol 2 will be in full production by 1981—the manufacture of oil from coal will provide for 50% of our total oil requirements. In the light of these fairly substantive estimates based on the research done by Escom, it is vital for us as a nation to do everything possible to conserve our consumption.

Like silencing gasbags.

The hon. the Minister has stated that this Bill provides for the various sectors of our economy and the various sectors of our community all making an equitable contribution to the conservation of our oil resources and also to the payment of fees. I hope the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I make the following obvious and necessary appeal. Oil is the first priority in our industry for meeting all our economic needs in the country. I shall illustrate that by quoting figures. In terms of Escom data our industries’ requirements, including that of agriculture, represent only 8,4% of our total oil consumption needs in the country. Unlike any other sectors of our economy, the farming industry is almost entirely dependent on the consumption of oil, diesel, petrol and petroleum products.

Yes, but that should not be the case.

On the cost of farming production depends the price, inevitably, which the consumer in South Africa will have to pay for his food, the export cost of agricultural commodities which contributes largely to our balance of payments and the price those commodities will fetch on world markets. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that it is right that we should equitably meet this situation, but there is a far greater priority, i.e. food; because without adequate food production we cannot have adequate industrial expansion or growth in South Africa. That is the basis of our entire economy. I want the hon. the Minister to consider the equitability of different levies for working farmers and motorists who merely drive for pleasure. To illustrate my point even more graphically, I want to say that it is estimated by the Consumer Council that the average motorist in South Africa spends approximately R500 a year on petrol or petroleum products. If we relate that figure, we find that 1 850 litres of diesel cost approximately R500, that 1 850 litres of diesel can be used to plough 300 morgen and that 300 morgen, on average yield, is capable of producing 900 to 1 000 bags of mealies.

That depends on the farmer.

The question I therefore want to pose relates to the equitability of allowing the expenditure of R500 per annum by a motorist driving for pleasure when the expenditure of R500 per annum on petroleum products can be used for the production of food and to earn foreign exchange for our country.

What do you have against the motorist?

Since we are thinking of these matters and have introduced a Bill of this nature, I think it is time to give more public emphasis to what it will mean to the future of our country, its industrial growth and its economic health if we can conserve oil. In the end it will affect the pockets of every man and woman in South Africa. I think the time has arrived when we in South Africa should, before using our motor vehicles, ask ourselves the question: Is the journey really necessary?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis supported the Bill and the hon. member for Constantia opposed it Yet, in 1977 when the hon. member for Constantia was the hon. member for Von Brandis, he actually supported the State Oil Fund Bill. It seems to me as though there is a different spirit these days in Von Brandis compared to the one that prevailed in 1977. One must, of course, bear in mind that the hon. member, who was the member for Von Brandis in 1977, was a member of a different party from the one he belongs to today and that the attitudes towards strategic requirements of the two parties are probably a little different. The hon. member for Constantia had objections to money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund being paid to the Strategic Oil Fund because the funds in the Consolidated Revenue Fund are meant for the benefit of taxpayers in general. The hon. member thereby contends that the stockpiling of money in the Oil Fund is not to the benefit of the general body of taxpayers. Surely all people living in South Africa, whether they be taxpayers or not, would like our oil reserves to be strengthened. There can be no doubt that it is in the interest of all South Africans. In the circumstances facing South Africa, it is impossible to conceive of a situation where the official Opposition opposes a Bill which seeks to improve our economic independence.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill amends the Act of 1977. In 1977 we knew exactly what the increase in the levy was going to be. The increase was then recorded as being two cents per litre of fuel. We are now in the invidious position that in this Bill the hon. the Minister is asking us for a blank cheque, because we are not told what the increase will be. It will probably be far more substantial than 2 cents per litre. In normal times the SAP would certainly reject the blank cheque concept; it would certainly not meet with our approval. However, given the circumstances existing in the oil industry, the collapse of Iran, our major source of supply, and the possibility of further disruptions, it is obvious that South Africa must ensure that it has a maximum strategic stockpile of oil. It is in that spirit that we support this Bill. The hon. the Minister is aware that these increases and other increases are going to hit the motorists and the motor industry hard. As the hon. the Minister is aware, Port Elizabeth is very heavily dependent on the motor industry. In passing, I want to ask him and the hon. the Minister of Finance to put their heads together to work out some assistance for the motor industry.

The Bill also provides for the proceeds of the levy to be used by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, for other purposes. Could it be that the hon. the Minister is perhaps thinking of expanding Sasol 2 or is he perhaps even thinking of a Sasol 3? If he is thinking of a Sasol 3, I should like to put a bid in for Port Elizabeth, if I may.

Forget it You can just forget about it.

As the capital market is now far more accessible for loans than it was in 1977, would the hon. the Minister not consider trying to obtain a long-term loan, partially locally and partially abroad, to cover the financing of Sasol 2, which comes to approximately R2,5 billion. If the hon. the Minister should succeed in this, he could refund the money borrowed from the State Oil Fund for the financing of Sasol 2. The hon. the Minister mentioned in …

Whom must I repay?

The State Oil Fund. During the 1977 session the hon. the Minister mentioned that the Government may draw on the State Oil Fund to finance Sasol 2 to the extent of R1 666 000. That figure was, however, never confirmed, so I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us …

The figure that you quoted is correct.

At the time that was an approximate figure.

It is still the approximate figure.

You mean that after Sasol 2 it is still the approximate figure? If this sum has been expended and could now be replaced by a long-term loan, there would obviously be a much smaller increase in the levy. Alternatively, Sasol 2 will be saving the country approximately R230 million per year in foreign exchange until 1985 and from then onwards R350 million per year. To allow private enterprise to participate, will the Government not allow a minority share in Sasol 2 to be sold off to the public of South Africa? In this way they would allow private enterprise to participate and it would also create far greater liquidity through the sale of these minority shares.

I will never take people on a tour again!

Is it because there is a petrol shortage in the country? Since countries are now going to pay far more for their fuel requirements, it is obvious that it will require enormous expertise to ensure that we in South Africa, while we will be paying more for oil, can still buy it at the keenest possible rate. We in the SAP—and I believe other hon. members on both sides of the House—will have certain suggestions to make to the hon. the Minister about how it can be bought at the most favourable possible terms. Obviously those suggestions cannot be bandied across the floor of the House, and we shall therefore take the opportunity of speaking to the hon. the Minister in private. We should like the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he considers the additional levies as a temporary necessity. For example, if he obtains the long-term loan referred to earlier, or should the situation ease itself, we should like the assurance that he will keep the matter under constant review and reduce the levies when circumstances permit.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer supported this Bill on behalf of his party. So did the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He asked the hon. the Minister to have the financing of Sasol 2 reviewed, and he also suggested that foreign capital be obtained for this purpose. I think the financing of Sasol 2 has been very carefully planned. The hon. the Minister has made certain statements about the matter in the past, statements which made the position very clear, and I consequently do not feel that it is very feasible, at this stage, to have the financing situation changed at all. In any case, I am wholly opposed to the principle of financing any strategically important project by way of foreign capital. This would, I think, make us much more vulnerable. [Interjections.] I shall be coming back to that aspect because I think in 1977, when we were discussing the State Oil Fund Bill, the official Opposition also put forward the suggestion that we should finance these various projects by way of foreign capital.

*I shall touch on that point again but I think I should first refer briefly to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Constantia. It seems to me that by this stage the official Opposition has become accustomed to saying each time that they support something but then they immediately qualify that support, or they have certain objections but they do not know exactly what they object to.

Bad legislation.

The hon. member has not taken the trouble to do a bit of preliminary homework as many of us have done. It is as easy for them as it is for us to consult the department and ask the meaning of certain provisions or clauses in the Bill. Had they done that they would not have raised unnecessary questions and objections here before they knew the full implications of the legislation. In any case, the hon. the Minister is in a position to make matters clear to them in the course of this debate. Then if they are not satisfied they are quite entitled to oppose the Second Reading if that is the way they feel.

The hon. member says that the original principle in the legislation is that money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund has to be paid over to strengthen this fund. In this way, he says, the whole nation is contributing to the strengthening of this fund. That is how I understood him. I do think, in any event, that we cleared up the whole principle of selective contributions to the fund in 1977. Anyway, when one considers the enormous contribution made by the State to the broad infrastructure for the provision of energy in South Africa, and countless other facets, one realizes that the nation as a whole does in fact contribute in this connection. I think in any case it is a completely fair principle that that section of the population which profits and benefits from petroleum products should in the first instance pay more in such a case.

I did think initially that it was not necessary to go into all the details again, for instance, the necessity for the existence, the extension and the strengthening of the State Oil Fund. I had hoped that we could really be at one in regard to this very important matter. But it seems to me that the objections that we have had from the Opposition are not only in regard to details. I think that they also have certain objections in principle in this regard. We are all probably aware of the crisis that has again occurred in the world in connection with the world’s energy requirements, with special reference to petroleum products and the availability of crude oil. In the nature of things, South Africa finds itself in the same boat and is just as vulnerable. As the hon. Minister also indicated in his Second Reading speech, serious attention has been given to the matter and the advisory committee has already submitted certain recommendations to him in this regard. But this legislation is only one facet of the measures that must be taken because in any event we are faced with a dilemma in the shape of the high premium payable over and above the official price of oil in the world.

There is also another important facet which arises in connection with this problem, namely that the position has become very fluid and changeable. It is no longer a situation in regard to which one can plan for the future. In the light of world politics at present, and particularly in view of the position in Iran, as has rightly been pointed out here today, the situation has become so fluid that the hon. the Minister must have certain powers to act, if necessary from day to day. He cannot wait a year until he comes back to Parliament to obtain fresh authority in this regard, especially in the case of such an important question as the provision of energy. He must have that machinery to enable him to act immediately and effectively. The State Oil Fund Act, 1977, which did away with the Strategic Oil Fund, authorizes an increase in the State Oil Fund by only 2c per litre. It has of course, become clear, as I have already indicated, that because of changing circumstances this is not sufficient or elastic enough.

I happen to have looked up the official Opposition’s attitude at that time. On that occasion they also said that we wanted the poor motorist to carry the whole burden and the hon. member for Yeoville maintained that the State should rather finance the whole project from foreign capital. I do not know if the hon. member is still of the opinion that in these particular circumstances and in the particularly vulnerable position in which we find ourselves we could really still take such a step. In any event, he advanced the argument at that stage that the levy of 2c per litre to strengthen this fund was being imposed simply as a result of the fact that the Government was not in a position to obtain foreign capital. I think we are becoming rather tired of that story. It is true that foreign capital was difficult to come by for a while but the position has changed greatly in the meantime. I still think—I want to reiterate my earlier standpoint—that if we were able to obtain all the necessary money abroad for the financing of this sort of strategic supply, we should not do so because in the nature of things it would put us in an extremely vulnerable position. As far as this matter is concerned, the official Opposition also find themselves in a vulnerable situation. They should not say any more about this matter, especially in the light of the remarks made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a foreign financial periodical as well as certain remarks made by the hon. member for Parktown last year which really amount to no more than putting difficulties in the way of the acquisition of foreign capital for South Africa. Thank heaven that we did not pay any attention to those opinions. It has been shown again today that the attitude of the Opposition is always wrong when we are dealing with the safeguarding of South Africa and the establishment of industries which cannot readily be established by the private sector. In the same way it seems that the hon. member for Yeoville was wrong again in 1977, especially when one looks at the situation in retrospect.

The crux of the Bill is contained in the new section 1A(4)(a) which is being inserted in the principal Act by clause 1. Subparagraph (i) provides that the funds that are obtained by way of a levy must be used—

The proposed new section 1B contains certain penalties. I do not think there is any other technical aspect in this connection in this Bill which is not clear. But we must remember that we have not yet seen the recommendations of the committee that has to report to the hon. the Minister. Once these recommendations have been thoroughly considered by the hon. the Minister we will have far more clarity in regard to certain questions that might arise in connection with the legislation which is now before the House.

The main objectives of our attempts to obtain sufficient fuel for South Africa have not changed either since 1977. In the first place the primary objective is still the building up of fuel supplies, continuing the search for further sources of oil and the partial financing of Sasol 2 as an additional measure. Provision is also being made now for the payment of the increased premiums. We must not try to do it in any other way than that which is now being proposed. These measures are also being taken to enable us eventually to start to plan the building of a third Sasol, a project which has now become more necessary than ever before. Unless we discover some or other source of oil in the near future we have no other choice.

Inasmuch as this Bill provides for additional financing, I do not think that it will fall outside the scope of this Bill if we discuss the siting of a third Sasol or the possible extension of the existing Sasol 2.

Because it is relative to this Bill I want to mention that purely because of the long-term use of coal for this purpose we should not place further burdens on the coal resources of the Eastern Transvaal. For strategic reasons it is also not practicable to keep all one’s eggs in one basket Notwithstanding the fact that it can be argued that the existing organizational factors for this purpose are already present in the Eastern Transvaal, that certain international companies are active there and that the project will thus possibly be cheaper, I nevertheless suggest that Northern Natal is a particularly suitable place for the establishment of a third Sasol and the expansion of our petrochemical industry. We have the largest and best coal reserves and all the labour, and we have the infrastructure which is largely unused as a result of the postponement of the second phase of the third Iscor. In other words, that area can absorb large-scale development without heavy additional expenditure. I think we should take into account that we have an enormous unused infrastructure in this country and that this can actually effect a saving in costs in the future when large projects are undertaken. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that Northern Natal is not situated in a foreign country, as he once jokingly said.

The fact is that Sasol 2 saves South Africa more than R350 million per year in foreign exchange. This amount will increase considerably in the future. For practical purposes coal reserves in South Africa are unlimited and must be utilized. I do not think it is expecting too much to ask the public of South Africa to help pay for our security and self-sufficiency in respect of fuel requirements in South Africa. The Bill is aimed mainly at helping to pay for the increased costs but it also holds out the possibility, as I have already said, of the opening up of new horizons in regard to the future of our country because in the nature of things fuel is the lifeblood of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is an esteemed financial adviser of the Government and one of course shows the necessary respect when crossing swords with him regarding financial matters. The hon. member firmly believes that capital derived from foreign sources should not be used for strategic projects. Of course, whatever opinion the hon. member holds on the matter is no business of mine although I am somewhat curious as to the reasons why he is of that opinion. Is the reason perhaps that dollars coming from America either by way of loans or investment will leave the country faster than dollars coming from there in payment for gold purchases, for example? Once the money has been invested here, what difference does it make what it is used for? One is under a certain amount of obligation as far as loans to or investments in one’s country are concerned but it makes no difference what the money is used for or for what specific purposes other dollars are used. Where does the hon. member think Escom obtained the money to finance most of the power stations in our country? I am merely referring to these matters in passing. I think the hon. member has a strange belief, in regard to this matter but he is of course welcome to entertain it if he so wishes—now and in the future.

Judging from the pleasing tenor of the hon. the Minister’s speech and the admirable way in which the example he set was followed by most hon. members in the House who have taken part in this debate, one feels obliged to pay a kind of admission fee on entering the debate. To make it very clear, it is namely that one has to realize that a very serious position obtains throughout the world as regards energy; in other words, petroleum products. And I gladly do so. Like my hon. colleagues next to me and other hon. members on all sides of the House I too am fully aware of the serious state of affairs prevailing throughout the world.

I think particularly that it was right that the hon. the Minister—not so much other hon. members—placed the happenings in Iran in this connection in perspective. What happens in Iran is of course very serious but even if this had not happened in Iran we would still be heading for an energy crisis in the world, a crisis which—like many of the world’s really serious problems, let me say in passing—is due mainly to the population explosion that is taking place in the world. But to raise that problem during this debate would probably be going too far. I shall therefore not do so. In file circumstances we obviously support any attempt to conserve oil, no matter how. We shall gladly consider any effort that is made or any reasonable steps that are taken in this connection. When we are asked to support anything, we want of course to have a fairly good idea of what we are being asked to support. That is where the snag lies with which I shall deal in a moment.

I confirm that we fully support the State Oil Fund as it exists today. Hon. members will have noticed that the hon. member for Walmer is doubtful about what I have just said. However, that by itself should be further proof of the correctness of my statement. We are duly impressed by what is being done in this matter, with Sasol 1 as well as with Sasol 2; in fact by many of the steps that have already been taken in South Africa. However, our problem is that the hon. the Minister has not stated clearly enough how he intends achieving his aim by means of the legislation, which we support, that is now under discussion. As far as his remarks about the Bill itself are concerned—and not in relation to the general state of affairs in the world— the hon. the Minister mentioned that the serious shortage of petrol that was developing was already causing a steep rise in the world price of oil. I gained the impression—perhaps I misunderstood him—that what he had in mind was that those price increases would of themselves contribute to a decline in the consumption of petroleum products in South Africa. As a matter of fact he produced figures to show that that had already been the case over the past few years. It has already been proved that the price of petroleum and related products fluctuates. The position is that when there is an increase in price, consumption declines. I find it difficult to understand, therefore, why the hon. the Minister is unwilling to leave this matter— mainly if not in toto—to the marketing mechanism. Anyone with a normal, conventional, conservative approach to the free market system must believe that the best way of striking a balance between supply and demand is to bring the two closer together by way of price fluctuation.

I also said that that does not always work. That is already the underlying principle of the free market system.

Mr. Speaker, had we believed that it could only always work that way, I and my party would not have supported certain measures which we have supported in the past. We realize that there are exceptions. In general, however, we should like the maximum use possible to be made of the market mechanism. We doubt whether that will be the case in terms of the legislation before us.

†Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to find out what the hon. the Minister’s actual intentions are, what he really wants to do with this very widely drafted piece of legislation. It seemed to me—and I say it again with the necessary respect—that the most informative sentence of the hon. the Minister’s whole speech in this regard was when he said (Hansard, 12 February 1979)—

It seems to me a cautiously worded sentence.

Everything I say is cautiously worded.

However, I think that what the hon. the Minister is suggesting to us is that he may make use of this power so as to vary the price, the effective price of the final product as between different sections of the community. It also seems as though the hon. the Minister intends to place the burden more heavily on certain people. Surely, the hon. member for Turffontein has this in mind when he appeals for a …

I represent Von Brandis!

I am so sorry, Sir. The hon. member for Von Brandis and I were in this House together a long time ago, and old habits the hard. The hon. member for Von Brandis certainly has something of this kind in mind in suggesting that petrol should be made more expensive for the private motorist and less expensive, relatively, for the farmer. This does not necessarily shock us. In difficult circumstances it is quite frequently necessary to introduce differential treatment of one land or another between one sector of the economy and another. I think it has been the practice in this House in the past that Parliament has known what was going on. There have been times when gold and diamond mines have been differently taxed from other mines or industries. In fact, they are taxed according to different formulas, but Parliament knows what is going on. It is all presented to us and therefore it is all clear. What we are afraid of here is that the hon. the Minister is taking powers to act, if you will forgive me, in an arbitrary way differentiating …

The word is “discretionary”, not “arbitrary”.

As the hon. the Minister has said, he always chooses his words very carefully, sometimes perhaps more skilfully than I do. However, I think that we understand each other perfectly. He proposes to use the discretion which he is going to take on himself to act differently towards different sectors of the economy.

In an arbitrary fashion. [Interjections.]

The effect may be that there will be subsidies, which is after all only the other side of the coin. The laying of a conditional burden on one sector of the economy and the laying of a lighter burden on another sector of the economy is in effect a subsidy. If the tax, the burden, the import, the levy, or whatever it is going to be, does not fall equally on every user of petroleum products, if it falls unequally according to the destination of those products, certain sectors of the economy are being favoured above others. I think that Parliament ought to know when there are subsidies. If it really is essential—and I am not convinced but I can perhaps be convinced that it is essential that this should not become public—I believe that the hon. the Minister should consider some sort of standing committee for this purpose.

Could you repeat that?

I say that ideally Parliament should know what is going on when there is differentiation between different sectors of the economy. However, if I can be convinced—I am not sure that I can be—that it is important that this should not become public knowledge, I think the hon. the Minister might consider some sort of machinery such as a Select Committee of this House that would know what was happening in the administration of an Act of this sort.

Nobody questions the need for strong action to conserve these resources. I need not repeat that, but I do so by way of introduction of what I want to say in conclusion. It seems to me that there is a danger in this legislation as.it is now drafted, a twin danger. There is a danger to the free operation of the market mechanism and, secondly to Parliament’s direct control of what is being done with finances of the State and of important sectors of our economy. I hesitate to speak at length about the proposed section 1A(4)(a)(ii) in terms of which finances will be expended “in accordance with the directives of, or for the purposes determined by, the Minister of Economic Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Finance”. There we have it in the Bill. The hon. the Minister is at liberty, after consulting his colleague, to spend this money on anything and it was with a broad smile that my colleague, the hon. member for Constantia, said that he could buy a newspaper with it. However, I suppose that if one takes the meaning of the clause literally, that is one of the things he could do and the hon. the Minister will forgive us if we are a little sensitive about permitting any more secret funds to be set up in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown has told us that that side of the House will support the legislation and we are grateful to him. The hon. member said, however, that he has to pay an admission fee to enter the debate in order to lend his support to the legislation. I appreciate the fact that that is the manner in which that hon. member wishes to express himself on this matter but nevertheless I want to say that there is fortunately a vast difference between his side of the House and this side of the House. It is not necessary for us to pay an admission fee in order to realize the seriousness of the situation. When we deal with this matter we are fully conscious of its serious nature and that we need not pay an admission fee in order to be able to discuss it. The hon. member for Parktown raised certain questions and advanced certain arguments which I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to in due course.

I also want to say a word or two to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who said that his side of the House appreciated the problems facing us but that he nevertheless had certain reservations in respect of this legislation. The hon. member went on to refer to the proposed section 1A(1), (3) and (4). The hon. member understands the reasons for the amendments but he is worried about the so-called possible secrecy that may surround the utilization of the funds. In terms of the proposed new section 1A(4) the responsible Minister can utilize the funds for any purpose he deems fit. That is true, but hon. members should not worry so much about this type of provision. The hon. member need only refer to the Companies Act because in terms of the provisions of section 21 of that Act, a company that is going to control these funds—like the company referred to in the proposed section 1 A(l)—is in fact subject to extremely strict provisions. The following words, inter alia, appear in section 21(2)(a) of the Companies Act, No. 61 of 1973—

Should the hon. member require any further information he can ascertain what the main object of that company is.

The hon. member is also worried about how the funds are to be utilized. It is right that he should be worried about this because it is public money that is involved. But the books of this company have to be audited annually by private firms of auditors. These auditors’ firms are also subject to certain provisions and section 300 of the Companies Act lays down the provisions applicable to them very clearly. I should like to quote a few of the provisions contained in section 300. The marginal note to section 300 reads: “Auditor’s duties as to annual financial statements and other matters.” The auditor’s duties are then set out and section 300(b) provides that he has to satisfy himself that proper accounting records as required by the Act have been kept by the company. Section 300(e) reads—

Section 300(g) reads—

Section 300(i) reads—

Finally, section 300(1) reads—

This legislation is very strict and I doubt whether any firm of auditors will take the chance of being lax in their investigation of this matter because the public money that is involved has to be safeguarded. Furthermore, there are many companies in South Africa today that operate on this basis. All State-owned corporations such as Foscor, Iscor, the IDC and Fishcor operate on this basis. If I remember correctly, Fishcor was established in 1944 in terms of similar legislation—the hon. member for Durban Point may remember it—and Fishcor has for very many years operated satisfactorily. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. members for Parktown and Amanzimtoti ought in this way to question the provision in respect of this company that we propose introducing in this legislation.

We are dealing here with an extraordinary situation that calls for extraordinary and specific steps to be taken, steps that will have to be taken with great circumspection. When one listens to hon. members opposite alleging that they first have to pay an admission fee before they can discuss this matter, one gains the impression that they lack the necessary insight to deal with this very difficult matter in the way in which it should be dealt with. I think the way in which the hon. the Minister has handled this matter during the past few years, especially since the problem has assumed such very serious proportions, has proved that the Government does in fact have the necessary understanding of the position in order to handle it competently and with great circumspection in the interests of South Africa and all its people.

I want to emphasize the fact that the word “saving” features very prominently in the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister emphasized repeatedly that it was the duty of every one of us to save. That is also the message we can convey to the public at large from within this House, i.e. to save as much as possible. Our account for oil will be approximately R1 300 million this year. This is only R500 million less than our total defence budget for 1978. That is a great deal of money to be spent on the purchase of oil. At the same time however we are burning R1 300 million through the exhaust pipes of our cars. But that does not worry us. We must consider this matter in its correct perspective and when each one of us moves in behind the steering wheel of our motor-car we must realize that we are dealing with a serious matter. We must keep a check on ourselves and not on our neighbour to see where we can save money and fuel in the interests of our future in this country.

The hon. the Minister also stated quite correctly that this money was being spent outside South Africa. It therefore affects our balance of payments position which will in turn affect our economic growth and unemployment position. I do not think the public always realizes the serious ripple effect this matter has on our South African way of life. When the hon. the Minister asks us to save petrol and to drive slowly—that is one way of saving petrol—I think he deserves the wholehearted support not only of ourselves in this House but of everyone who is aware of this plea of his. We must ask ourselves how we can save by using less fuel in the interests of South Africa.

But having done everything possible to conserve fuel the irrefutable fact remains that 80% of the country’s transport system is dependent upon petroleum products. By conserving fuel we can reduce the shortages. When there is a shortage of fuel we can ease the burden but in the short-term we cannot do without fuel completely. We must, therefore, as the hon. the Minister is doing now, make provision for the necessary money to be available for the purchase of the fuel that is becoming more and more expensive in order to keep the wheels of South Africa turning. South Africa is not the only country that has to pay a high price for fuel. Oil is often the sole asset—and that asset is fast disappearing—in the hands of the largest oil-producing countries. Those countries are trying to make as much money as possible from this asset of theirs and we have to pay for it. The provision the hon. the Minister is making here is necessary so that we can purchase the oil which is essential to us and for that reason we on this side of the House support this Bill unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has cast doubt on the idea of an entrance fee suggested by the hon. member for Parktown. I am not going to let that put me off, because I agree with the hon. member. We all seem to have to pay our entrance fee to this debate by telling the House how important the whole situation is with regard to fuel. We must make every effort we possibly can to save the maximum amount of fuel. I wonder if the Government cannot do more than it is doing to save energy and fuel?

Of course they could.

I want to refer to two aspects and the first one is the idea of daylight saving. I appreciate that some members of the farming community do not necessarily like this idea, but daylight saving without any doubt does save a tremendous amount of expenditure on energy. The second aspect is the electrification of the country. Farmers spend a tremendous amount of money on diesoline which is not necessarily used only for tractors, but also for stationary pumping plants, generators, dairies and other uses. At present Escom levies so much in line charges per metre to get electricity from the closet point on to the farm that the price is so exorbitant as to make it impossible for the farmer to electrify. I believe that money spent for this purpose would be money very well spent indeed.

I now come to the Bill which is under consideration. The hon. the Minister has asked us to be brief and I shall try to be as brief as possible. The first thing that worries us is, of course, that the money does not go to any sort of State fund. It goes into the SFF Association. With thoughts about Thor, Homerus and other companies still fresh in our minds, I must confess that I wondered, at first glance, whether the “S” in SFF did not stand for “Saturn”.

What?

That is a “thor” point!

There is no question, however, about the fact that what is happening here is that money is being collected and can be collected secretly. The question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he can also spend it secretly. In terms of any other legislation, would he be entitled to issue a certificate, signed by himself, which would prevent the auditing of any of these funds in the Fund that has been set up, or do they, under all circumstances, have to be audited?

They have to be audited, as in the case of companies, as the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said.

Now we are beginning to get some sort of an answer and this, of course, brings us round to the auditing situation. To have an audit done by a firm of private auditors and to have an audit done by the Auditor-General who is, after all, a servant of this Parliament, are in my submission two different things altogether. A private auditor, for instance, would not query a company’s accounts if that company, as a prize to reward a member of its staff, gave that staff member a trip to any place in the world. This is normal practice amongst companies and, from an auditing point of view, there is nothing wrong with that. What would happen, however, if the Auditor-General came across a situation like this, particularly when he is auditing public money? I think this is the difference between the average private auditor and the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has the specific task of looking after State funds, and whether these funds go into the SFF or stay in the Treasury, they are nevertheless State funds. I therefore believe that the hon. the Minister should be prepared to consider having these funds audited by the Auditor-General. I cannot see what would stand in the way of his taking such a step, or in fact of his accepting an amendment. He has, of course, made a very generous offer to the effect that he would, to a certain extent, allow members of Parliament to see what he is going to be doing with this money. We accept this very good offer and are very happy about it. At the same time, however, that hon. Minister will not necessarily be in that ministerial seat for ever. He could, for example, become the next Minister of Finance and the person who succeeds him might, in fact, decide to alter the situation. So assurances of this nature, whilst valued and accepted, should be taken further. I think we should consequently have the right sort of amendment included in the legislation under consideration. Let me just point out that we are not opposing the Second Reading, as my hon. colleague has pointed out, but I believe it would be a wise provision to have these funds audited by the Auditor-General and to introduce this as an amendment into this Bill. We are under standably somewhat wary—the word, of course, not being spelt with an “e”—of secret funds at this stage. We are understandably somewhat touchy …

We are both! We are weary as well.

I certainly do not think it would cost that hon. Minister very much to accept the fact that these funds should be audited by the Auditor-General, and I very sincerely hope he will see his way clear to doing so.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I have great appreciation for the approach of all hon. members in respect of the principle and the objective we would like to achieve. If I have to interpret the general trend and spirit of the debate, it seems that we have at least achieved consensus and unanimity on the energy position at present, internationally as well as locally. Of course it is true that we can differ with one another on the best method to adopt to achieve a specific objective. Probably this will always be the case. Therefore, if we discuss the question of economizing measures here in this House, there will always be divergent ideas on how we may best achieve our economizing objective. Let me say at once that in respect of this subject the saying “so many people, so many opinions” is very likely to be quite valid.

Allow me to say, in the first place, that the legislation we are present considering has a very limited objective. It is true that in my introductory Second Reading speech I covered a rather wider field than was required by the specific legislation we were considering. My reason for doing so was, at the very first opportunity, to give hon. members a broader insight into our general approach to the energy position of our country and, more specifically, our approach in regard to oil and oil products. Let us consider for just a moment what we envisage with this legislation and let us in all fairness see whether there is perhaps another and more effective method which we can utilize to achieve this objective. Let me say that recently two things have happened. The first is that there has been a general increase in crude oil prices from the oil exporting countries. That increase, which will become effective in phases during the year, means in aggregate an increase of 14,5% in the oil price of the exporting countries. Naturally provision had to be made for the recovery of the increased oil price by increasing the price of oil products in our own country, as has also been in other countries. No hon. member has any argument with me in this connection.

But you take everything simultaneously, while others spread it out.

The hon. member must get his mathematics right. The fact of the matter is that there was a non-recurrent increase of 10% in the price, while the phased increase is 14,5%. The 10% increase also includes another factor to make provision for the other objective which I want to achieve, and which I shall deal with in a moment. The hon. member must just give me a chance. Then I shall explain it so that he will be able to understand it.

[Inaudible.]

Just give me a chance. This is difficult legislation which I have to explain; I have to explain methods. As a result of the political unrest which sprang up in Iran during December, a situation arose which led to a reduced and eventually to a complete stop in oil production, and as a result of which no oil was sent from Iran to the international oil market; a stoppage which, according to expectation, could last longer than was initially thought. What was clear even at that stage was that the total demand for oil in the world exceeded the supply. Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia increased its production, the total available volume of oil in the world, in spite of that increased production, is less than it was when Iran was producing and exporting. This in itself brought us to a second element, i.e. the situation of course arose in the international market that people would bid for the available oil with the inevitable consequences that, apart from the 14,5% increase in the price of crude oil, a premium would have to be paid by the importing countries for the available oil on the market At that stage it was not possible—in fact it is still not possible today—to determine on what levels such premium would stabilize itself, if it would do so at all. In other words, at that stage we had to take into account a factor in the price which came into operation on 1 January 1979 in order to make provision for the building up of a fund to pay that premium. The hon. member for Constantia asked me—I do not want to argue with him about this—why I did not use the existing mechanism of the State Oil Fund to be able to do so. If the hon. member were to look at that Act, he would see that all those amounts are fixed amounts.

They can be changed within the same system.

I should just like to explain the difference to him. In terms of section 1 of the Act various amounts are levied. Because they are excise levies provision is made in this section for the possibility of rebates as well. In other words, a differentiated treatment of various groups, sections or sectors is possible. Secondly—and this is important—the Act further provides that the prices are fixed per unit of mass or per litre. I am experiencing problems in this specific regard. The hon. member will recall that I telephoned him to inform him about this. Personally he did not commit himself to anything; I just thought it was a good thing that he should be informed. In the first place I cannot, for public consumption, determine a specific levy in the Act, for if I were to do so not only would we in South Africa take cognizance of what the levy is and not only would we in South Africa be able to calculate the total amount available for the payment of premiums, but so would the people in the outside world. I think the hon. member will agree with me that this is not information which we would very much like to convey to those people.

There is a second difficult problem which I am experiencing in this connection. If fixed levies are specified in the Act, I can only change them with the consent of Parliament. In other words I am only afforded an opportunity to adjust the levy once a year. This means that I cannot make provision for the fluid circumstances to which various hon. members referred. Just by way of practical illustration of this matter, I want to say that the premiums which are being paid today on some of the purchases which we make on the international market are far higher than was initially expected and a further increase of the premium is more than likely. Inevitably this also means that this levy will have to be increased at this stage already in order to pay that premium, apart from the fact that it only came into operation as recently as 1 January 1979. If we were now in the situation that we had to deal with this in the same way as we do in respect of the State Oil Fund I would not have been able to make provision for the fluid circumstances from day to day or from week to week. I would be pleased if the hon. member would understand this problem.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Perhaps he misunderstood me. It seems to us as though the premiums, i.e. the increase in prices, flow through the ordinary price mechanisms and that the hon. the Minister, the person who determines the prices, can allow them to do so. He is talking about levies now. Levies are another matter. Would he just explain what the difference is? Would he explain why he must have this flexibility, for he referred to levies and not to the price which of course flows through to the fuel consumers.

I was intending to explain it later, but I shall do so straight away. The premiums which various companies pay differ from one another. The premiums which various countries charge, or various brokers charge, differ from one another. In addition there is another very important principle. If we were merely to take a general premium and make provision in the price of the products, there is no incentive whatsoever for the oil companies to compete for a lower premium, for they would simply be able to recover it in terms of the price. In my opinion we would then be building an increased premium into the price structure, over and above the official price. And that is not what I am dealing with. I could just explain further that the oil companies, in terms of our arrangements, are not automatically entitled to go and pay any premium and then recover it. We have, as a result of this problem, created machinery where there is a committee to which all the companies have to refer their offers on the market in respect of a premium for the purposes of deciding whether they will be entitled to debit either the whole or a part of the premium to this Equalization Fund. I hope the hon. member understands what I mean by this. In other words, I have the same problem to which the hon. member is referring, but I had to find a method by means of which we could retain the adaptability, without inserting a specific quantitative levy in the Act itself. Because this is the case—and I want to be very honest about this—I am quite prepared to tell hon. members from time to time what that factor in the price is. However, I cannot say it for general consumption, and hon. members must understand this. Let me also say here in passing that the biggest single problem which I have in this connection is the fact that if I were to reveal the factual situation I would be enabling the enemies of our country to oppose our country by means of the information I gave them. Let me say today that I am not prepared to do so. What is more, I met the editors of the newspapers last Tuesday and sketched to them the full picture of our position in respect of oil in all its details.

To all of them?

Yes, to all of them. And let me add that none of them have so far left me in the lurch. My reason for doing so is because I believe that I can only deal with the problem with the general co-operation of everyone. In the second place I have great appreciation for the fact that the newspaper editors understood the impossible situation in which I had found myself. In the first place I have to motivate the general public to cooperate with us in the attempts which we are making to deal with the problem without being able to give the general public all the facts because I would in that way also be making the information available elsewhere. We can discuss this matter further at a later stage.

I also discussed with the newspaper editors the principle of a statutory prohibition on the dissemination of information, locally or abroad, in respect of the origin of oil, the destination of products and the methods of conveyance. I do not do this because I should very much like to hamper people in the performance of their duties. But I must emphasize that exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures. I am prepared to take hon. members of this House into my confidence to the best of my ability—there is no doubt whatsoever about that—but it must be done in such a way that it remains here among us and is not disseminated elsewhere. I cannot therefore, as the hon. member for Constantia requested, make use of the existing legislation.

I want to take this a step further. I believe it is important that we draw a distinction between the State Oil Fund and the SFF Association. I believe that when I have cleared up this matter, I might also be able to clear up quite a number of the problems which have arisen. The SFF Association is a company registered in terms of the Companies Act and subject to the provisions of that Act, with this difference only that it is registered as a non-profit making company. Consequently it does not make any profit. This company has specific responsibilities, or tasks or aims in accordance with its articles of association. It deals with the stockpiling programme. It also deals with the construction of storage sites for our crude oil, as well as the purchases of crude oil. When the legislation has been passed, the company will also operate this Equalisation Fund. It shall do so in terms of the present legislation. However, it shall also do so subject to the provisions of the Companies Act, as the hon. member for Verwoerdburg correctly observed.

Next I come to the State Oil Fund. This is also under the control of a private company registered in terms of the Companies Act. Its aims are to help the financing of Sasol 2, derived from the excise on fuel for which statutory provision has been made in the State Oil Fund Act. In the second place it also controls the moneys paid into the Fund in terms of the aforesaid Act. Consequently there is a difference between what has to be done with the two companies and what their objectives entail.

Another matter which I might as well dispose of now is the argument raised by the hon. member for East London City. He asked …

East London North!

East London North. But that, too, is only going to be temporary, only until the next general election. [Interjections.] In the first place the accounts of these companies are audited by public auditors. I want to add to that that the requirements which are imposed on them in terms of the legislation pertaining to auditors and the Companies Act are in my opinion not responsibilities which are less than the responsibilities imposed upon an ordinary auditor of the books of the State. I want to emphasize at once that, up to this stage, I have no evidence that the auditing of State corporations or of companies working with State funds is not being done properly. Consequently I want to request that we do one thing. We must get away from an impression which may arise, or an impression which hon. members, or some of them, might try to create, namely that we are now engaged in a secret operation in an atmosphere in which there is hesitation over the utilization of secret funds. I want to emphasize—and I want to request hon. members to co-operate with me in this connection—that I, more than anyone else, realize that when circumstances such as the present arise, circumstances which compel us to take steps such as those which we want to take in terms of the proposed legislation, they also require our actions in the performance of our duties in terms of the proposed legislation to be in the interests of the country and that it will take place on a confidential basis. Hon. members must please understand that it is of cardinal importance that the position of confidentiality be maintained. Hon. members opposite must please try to understand, in addition, that it is the circumstances which determine whether we have to deviate from the normal procedure and that it is not merely a desire on the part of the Government to act in a devious way. I therefore request hon. members, in regard to the present legislation—we may as well be honest with one another now—and in view of the circumstances which existed in a now defunct State department not to try to cast suspicion on actions of this kind by the Government or to try to make political capital out of this Fund.

I listened to hon. members, and the overall impression I gained was that, in regard to these specific actions and objectives, we are ad idem with one another. Therefore I really want to make an appeal and ask that we do not defeat the object as a result of our differences or possible differences as to methods. If this happens we are going to harm our country instead of serving its best interests.

I pointed out that I was dealing with a fluid situation and consequently had to possess the mechanisms to be able to deal with it effectively. But allow me to add immediately that the hon. member for Parktown argued quite validly that the price mechanism was an important factor in regard to economizing. I readily concede that point to the hon. member. As regards the legislation we are now considering, however, that is not per se the object which we want to achieve. In terms of the legislation we are now considering, what is at issue in the first place is the provision of funds on behalf of a fluctuating premium, a premium as it may be determined from time to time in the international trade. I cannot therefore use the price mechanism because it varies from one stage, from one company and from one source to another. I readily admit that I wish it was not necessary to make such a provision. I wish it was not necessary for us to find ourselves in the circumstances in which we have to increase the prices of products or increase them further. Of course I must point out that we are dealing here with conflicting objectives. There is not one hon. member in this House who would not agree with me when I say that it is now our primary economic objective to stimulate our economy to higher levels of economic growth, for many reasons which I do not want to go into now. On the other hand, however, we must also understand that it is not possible to achieve this objective in the long term if we do not have liquid fuel. What is at issue here is the acquisition of fuel and its price, apart from the official price at which it may be obtained. Consequently hon. members will understand that unfortunately I have no alternative but to do it in this way.

A second important argument which I want to put to the hon. member for Constantia and by means of which, so I hope, he will be persuaded to adopt a final standpoint at the end of this debate, is that in terms of the State Oil Fund Act, there is differentiated treatment of the separate sections and sectors. 80% of the diesel fuel consumed in the country is not subject to the levies in terms of the State Oil Fund legislation. In the meanwhile it is my standpoint—and the Government has so accepted it—that if it is to be made possible for us to obtain oil, everyone who makes use of it should make a contribution, regardless of the sector which they represent. That is why I want to make it clear to the hon. member for Parktown in this connection that I cannot treat separate sections and sectors in a differentiated way in terms of this legislation. To be able to do so I must have the legislative authority to deal with separate sectors or sections in a different way. That is an authority which I have in fact not appropriated to myself here because I do not want to do so in such a way and also because I should not like to receive representations to the effect that I should exclude certain people. That is why this burden is going to be distributed on an equal basis. It affects all users of oil products, private or public. Whether it be public transport, agriculture or industry, everyone is going to pay it. That is why hon. members will see that the levy has been imposed on all products. The exception is fuel oil because with fuel oil I have the problem that there is no market for it.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti supported the Bill and I should like to thank him for that. He supports the objects and the mechanics. The only reservation which the hon. member has is in relating to the secrecy clause, as he put it, and the assurances that he requires from me. I submit that I have already given him the assurance that these books will be audited in terms of the requirements of Companies Act.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to put it to the hon. the Minister that under the terms of this legislation he can direct the company to utilize these funds as he sees fit. The auditor who audits the books will not have anything to complain about, because under the terms of this legislation the hon. the Minister is quite entitled to do so. Is he satisfied that in the future some other hon. Minister may not take advantage of this power which is being granted to him here?

I submit that if you look at the Bill itself and at the purpose it has to serve, you will notice that it has to create a fund to equalize the price of the product Subsection (4) of the proposed section 1A, to which the hon. member referred, states—

I submit that I have to interpret this in a restrictive way and that it must have a bearing on our oil position in general. I think the assurance to the hon. member is in those terms. Let me say at once that if it should happen, and I wish it would happen that way, that the premium will not have to be paid anymore, but there is an increase in the ordinary export price of oil, this could be used to absorb that increase without transferring that increase in the price to the consumer, for I submit that it has to have reference to the question of the oil position in general trend. I think the assurance which the hon. member requires from me is inherent in that fact. Of course, I cannot go and spend it on something …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he could use those funds to sponsor development in another company, development relating to fuel research, a new process …

That is possible.

We would like to know about it.

I think it is possible, but I have told the hon. member that the reason why we are not publicizing the figure and the imposition of the levy—it can also be done by means of a registered notice to a manufacturer or distributor—is to avoid publishing the information and to keep it secret and confidential. Therefore only we would know what other people should not know. Therefore I have no hesitation whatsoever in informing the leaders of the Opposition parties from time to time what these levies are and for what purpose they are going to be used. That is the undertaking that I can give. With all due respect, I cannot take the matter any further. There are impediments and limitations as to what I can do without defeating the object that I want to attain, and that the hon. member must please understand.

*Various hon. members discussed the energy situation in general, and in this connection I am thinking in particular of the contribution made by the hon. member for Von Brandis. That hon. member advanced a plea for differentiated treatment of a specific sector in the economy. If the hon. member were to look at the provisions of the State Oil Fund Act he would find that the levies there are the same for all throughout, but because it is an excise levy, the Minister of Finance may, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act, grant a rebate on excise. This is consequently what happened in the case of the levy on diesel fuel for the agricultural industry, where the hon. the Minister of Finance himself granted such a rebate. This endorses what the hon. member for Von Brandis advocated. If we have to cope with the oil situation with reference to the following three phases, i.e. the acquisition of oil, the saving of oil and making South Africa less dependent on foreign countries, it must be the collective responsibility of all the sectors in the economy as well as the entire population. The oil situation affects the actual existence of our country in its totality. I want to make an appeal now to the effect that when I announce the decisions of the Government in this connection at a later stage, there must be no sectors which appeal to us for special or differentiated treatment. It must, in my opinion, be a national effort, and I believe that is the one thing we are mutually agreed upon here in this House. If it were then to mean that producers or manufacturers have to recover the increased costs by means of their prices, we who have to pay the prices must take into account that an increased cost factor is involved. My plea is that we should all accept it in this way.

I should now like to refer to the alternative sources of energy which the hon. member for Von Brandis, the hon. member for Newcastle and other hon. members on that side of the House discussed. If we consider alternative sources of energy, it must be done against certain criteria. The first criterion I am thinking of in this connection is the availability of the raw material on an assured and continual basis. In my opinion it would be a mistake at this stage to bum food by manufacturing fuel from it. After oil, food is the one scarce commodity in the world. Seen from this point of view it would in my opinion be tragic if we were to do this. With that I do not want to imply that the time will not arrive when we will have to do so, but we should not anticipate that time. Food is a more important bargaining instrument for us in the world than we realize. We must therefore try to prevent this bargaining instrument from slipping through our fingers. We must discuss these matters, for it is no use hiding them from one another. South Africa is not, like many other countries, an agricultural country, because we have to deal with fluctuating climatic conditions and a relatively low rainfall. Since our agricultural production is frequently erratic, South Africa cannot at this stage make its energy resources dependent on such products, particularly not in view of the present world situation.

A second aspect which has to be borne in mind is the economic consideration attaching thereto. Which resource is the most economic when we have to consider alternative resources? In the third place there is a technical consideration, i.e. which resource is in general the most feasible. South Africa is the world leader in the field of the manufacture of oil products from coal. According to all evidence the life of our coal resources is far longer than the known life of the oil resources of the world. When we consider alternatives we must therefore look at the factual circumstances. We shall have to try to ensure that the choice which we make—if we have to make one—has the least impact on the cost structures of this country, for apart from the balance of payments problem we all know that inflation is the one problem with which we are confronted and which is fundamental to our ability to grow.

The hon. member for Walmer said that the Bill gives us a blank cheque. I have already referred to the fact that I shall, as far as it is in my power, share the information with hon. members. I should prefer not to have this blank cheque, but on the other hand I understand that when the House entrusts such a blank cheque to me, my responsibility and that of the people working with it, is greater than under normal circumstances. I shall try to carry out this responsibility to the best of my ability. This does not mean to say that one will not make mistakes, but we shall in any case try to avoid them as far as possible.

The hon. member referred to the motor industry. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to say that I warned the motor industry four years ago in a spirit of cooperation with the industry. I asked them to take into consideration in their manufacturing processes that fuel-saving was going to become a permanent part of the South African way of life. I asked them to gear their manufacturing and design to fuel-saving and not to power. Many of the motor companies and manufacturers co-operated in this connection. In addition I warned people, and because diesel fuel is primarily being used for productive purposes I made an appeal to the manufacturers in particular, to pay careful attention to the object we wish to achieve. This object is to reserve diesel fuel for productive use. I also warned the public that if we were to reach a stage—I hope it will never happen—where we have to cut off supplies of diesel fuel, we shall first do so for private use, i.e. for the motor vehicle which is not being used for productive purposes. I do not think there is anyone in this House who will differ with this standpoint. After all, we have to keep our economy going in the first place and when we have scarce commodities, those commodities have to be utilized for economic objectives.

The hon. member for Walmer also asked whether the contribution of approximately R1 600 million to Sasol 2 from the State Oil Fund could not be borrowed abroad. There is no doubt that foreign loans are now more readily available to South Africa. I am pleased that the conditions of loans, pertaining to the duration and interest rates, are far more favourable today than they were a year ago. There has been a new reappraisal of the stability of South Africa in this connection.

Is this in respect of long-term loans?

Yes, long-term loans. The hon. member will understand that there are such enormous projects in other directions which South Africa still has to undertake that we were obliged to try to determine the total available capital pool—from both foreign and domestic sources. On the basis of the capital which we thought would be available to South Africa we then had to draw up a priority list for projects in South Africa. That is why I do not think that we should adopt the course suggested by the hon. member, but that we should use the available capital, from whatever source it comes, for the other objectives of the country, of which I want to mention one. I think the consolidation of the Black areas must be accorded a high priority in this country. When I speak of consolidation, I am not referring only to geographic consolidation, but also to economic consolidation so that the areas can be viable. I do not want to go into this matter any further now. The hon. member will understand what I mean.

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with the question of the price and I hope that it satisfies the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member for Newcastle requested that if we should build a Sasol 3, we should please bear his part of the world in mind.

To make South Africa less dependent on foreign crude oil is going to make great demands on us. Firstly it is going to make demands on every consumer of product manufactured from oil, demands to limit the use to the absolute minimum. South Africa must not only cease from wastage in the streets, but should also cease to waste scarce commodities, commodities such as capital and oil products. There must be an end to this wastage, and people will have to comply with this demand. Secondly, people will have to pay for the continued availability of crude oil products with money. Thirdly, they will have to pay for the creation of alternative sources of liquid fuel. They will have to do this directly and indirectly. No matter how unpopular these methods may be, this is the course the Government intends to take owing to South Africa’s vulnerability in respect of its oil supplies.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill was piloted through the Senate during the first session of 1978, but did not go further than the First Reading in the House of Assembly during that session, after consultation between the Whips of the various parties.

Under sections 29 and 30 of the Constitution the term of office of the Senate will terminate on 29 May 1979, unless the State President dissolves the Senate at an earlier date in terms of section 33 of the Constitution.

One of the most important constitutional proposals that has been adopted in principle by the Government envisages that the Senate will disappear as part of the legislative authority in South Africa. These proposals, however, will have to be considered by Parliament as presently constituted in terms of the Constitution. It is in the light of these circumstances that it is being proposed in the Senate Bill that notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, Senators shall retain their seats until 30 June 1980. I may mention that I shall propose during the Committee Stage that this date be extended to 31 December 1980.

I do not wish to take leave at this stage of that organ of the highest legislative body; there will be suitable opportunity for that if it is decided that that institution, an institution which has made such a big contribution for nearly 70 years, should disappear. However, I feel that I cannot pass by this opportunity without drawing the attention to the important milestone our political development has reached.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. the Minister and found his speech most interesting, not so much in the light of what he had to say, but rather in the light of what was left unsaid. However, there will be a time to debate this and, following the instructions of my Whip, I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.